Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
July 26, 2011 Agenda Package
El/ ginCounty ORDER ORDERS OF THE DAY FOR TUESDAY, JULY 26TH — 9 :00 A.M. 1st Meeting Called to Order 2nd Adoption of Minutes — June 28, 2011 3rd Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof 4th Presenting Petitions, Presentations and Delegations DELEGATIONS: 11:30 a.m. Paul Collins, President and CEO, St. Thomas Elgin General Hospital, Alan Weatherall, Director of Development and Bryan White, Volunteer with the STEGH Foundation - PowerPoint Presentation titled "Redefining Our Future" (Attached) 11:45 a.m. Steve Gibson, In- Camera report titled "Prosecutions of Violations of Woodlands Conservation By -law" (Not Attached) 5th Motion to Move into "Committee Of The Whole Council" 6th Reports of Council, Outside Boards and Staff 7th Council Correspondence — see attached 1) Items for Consideration 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 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: LUNCH WILL BE PROVIDED August 9, 2011 No Meeting Required August 23, 2011 No Meeting Required August 21 -24, 2011 Association of Municipalities of Ontario Conference September 13, 2011 9:00 a.m. — County Council Meeting November 4, 2011 Warden's Banquet, Malahide Community Place 1 DRAFT COUNTY COUNCIL Tuesday, June 28, 2011 The Elgin County Council met this day at Terrace Lodge, Township of Malahide, at 9:03 a.m. with all members present except Councillor Couckuyt (regrets, family matter). Warden Mennill in the Chair. ADOPTION OF MINUTES Moved by Councillor McIntyre Seconded by Councillor Marr THAT the minutes of the meeting held May 31, 2011 be adopted. - Carried. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF — None. PRESENTATION Warden Mennill presented Wendy Flintoft of Rush Creek Wines with a plaque of appreciation for being selected as a regional winner in the Premier's Award for Agri -Food Innovation Excellence. REPORT St. Thomas Elgin Local Immigration Partnership — Business Development Coordinator The coordinator of business development for Elgin County presented a report on the St. Thomas Elgin Local Immigration Partnership, as a way of introducing the first delegation. Moved by Councillor Marr Seconded by Councillor Walters THAT the report titled "St. Thomas Elgin Local Immigration Partnership" dated June 16, 2011 be received and filed. - Carried. DELEGATION Alfredo Marroquin, Project Coordinator, St. Thomas Elgin Local Immigration Partnership, gave a PowerPoint presentation on the partnership. Shelley Harris, the representative on the Immigration Partnership Council for the YWCA was also present. Mr. Marroquin encouraged council to participate in the partnership. Moved by Councillor Walters Seconded by Councillor Jenkins THAT the PowerPoint presentation titled "St. Thomas Elgin Local Immigration Partnership" be received and filed. - Carried. Moved by Councillor Wiehle Seconded by Councillor Ens THAT we do now move into Committee Of The Whole Council. - Carried. 2 REPORTS (continued) Update on Elgin County Official Plan Protect — Manager of Planning The Chief Administrative Officer presented an update of the Elgin County Official Plan. Moved by Councillor McIntyre Seconded by Councillor Wiehle THAT the report titled "Update on Elgin County Official Plan Project" dated June 15, 2011 be received and filed. - Carried. Status of Docket Web Servers — Manager of Information Technology The manager presented a report on the status of web servers. Moved by Councillor Jenkins Seconded by Councillor Walters THAT the report titled "Status of Docket Web Servers" dated June 20, 2011 be received and filed. - Carried. Quarterly Information Report, Contract Awards, January 1, 2011 - March 31, 2011 — Purchasing Coordinator The Director of Financial Services presented the quarterly report. Moved by Councillor McIntyre Seconded by Councillor McWilliam THAT the report titled "Quarterly Information Report, Contract Awards, January 1, 2011 - March 31, 2011" dated May 30, 2011 be received and filed. - Carried. Budget Comparison - May 2011 — Director of Financial Services The director presented the report, outlining highlights. Moved by Councillor Marr Seconded by Councillor Wiehle THAT the report titled "Budget Comparison May 2011" dated June 14, 2011 be received and filed. - Carried. Final Budget Comparison - 2010 Full Year — Director of Financial Services The director presented the budget comparison and noted changes to preliminary numbers. Moved by Councillor Ens Seconded by Councillor McWilliam THAT the report titled "Final Budget Comparison - 2010 Full Year" dated June 20, 2011 be received and filed. - Carried. Culture Days 2011 - Author Visit — Library Coordinator The Director of Community and Cultural Services presented the report, noting the visit was part of the County's 75th Anniversary for library services. He invited councillors to attend the event. 3 Moved by Councillor Ens Seconded by Councillor Walters THAT staff be authorized to enter into an insurance agreement with the Town of Aylmer for an author reading at the Old Town Hall Theatre on September 30, 2011 as outlined in the Town of Aylmer's Municipal Alcohol Policy: and, THAT the report titled "Culture Days 2011 - Author Visit" dated May 26, 2011 be received and filed. - Carried. Rodney Library Renovations — Director of Community and Cultural Services The director presented the report, outlining accessibility upgrades for the Rodney Library. Moved by Councillor Wiehle Seconded by Councillor McIntyre THAT the report titled "Rodney Library Renovations" dated June 9, 2011 be received and filed. - Carried. Springfield Library 2010 Summer Reading Club Award — Director of Community and Cultural Services The director presented the report on the award. Library staff members Maria Smit and Colleen DeVos gave a video presentation of the program. Moved by Councillor McIntyre Seconded by Councillor Wiehle THAT the $2,000 prize for the Springfield branch of the Elgin County Library from Library and Archives Canada for the 2010 TD Summer Reading Club be used to support activities at the branch: and, THAT the Warden issue a letter of congratulations to the appropriate library staff. - Carried. Revised Hiring Policies — Director of Human Resources The director outlined revised hiring policies. Moved by Councillor McWillliam Seconded by Councillor Marr THAT County Council approve the report titled "Revised Hiring Policies" dated June 1, 2011: and, THAT the amendments made to Policies 3.10, 3.20, 3.30, 3.40, 3.50, 3.60 be approved for implementation. - Carried. CORRESPONDENCE — June 28, 2011 Items for Consideration 1. Wayne Orr, Chief Administrative Officer, Township of South Frontenac with a resolution requesting support that the Province introduce legislation limiting manufacturing and packaging to products that can be recycled. The following recommendation was adopted in regard to Correspondence Item #1: 4 Moved by Councillor McIntyre Seconded by Councillor Walters THAT the County of Elgin supports the resolution from the Town of South Frontenac requesting the provincial government to introduce legislation limiting manufacturing and packaging to products that can be recycled. - Carried. CORRESPONDENCE — June 28, 2011 Items for Information (Consent Agenda) 1. OMERS update — Impacts of Key 2011 OMERS Specified Plan Change Proposals and Status Update. 2. Canada Post with a letter regarding the review of Rural Mailboxes to ensure that they meet established safety criteria. 3. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing notifying AMO 2011 Conference Delegates of Ontario Ministers' conference meeting dates. 4. Karl Grueneis, Senior Environmental Planner, AECOM with a letter regarding the Elgin Water Treatment Plant Residuals Management Facility Municipal Class Environmental Assessment: Notice of Study Completion. 5. J.W. Tierney, Executive Director, Ontario Good Roads Association with a status report regarding the Minimum Maintenance Standards Litigation. 6. Heather Adams, Administrator & Economic Development Officer, Town of Aylmer, with a letter thanking the County of Elgin for the opportunity to participate on the SCOR Administrative Committee. 7. Dennis Travale, Chair, Board of Directors, SCOR, with a report on activities from SCOR Economic Development Corporation. Moved by Councillor Ens Seconded by Councillor McWilliam THAT Correspondence Items #1 - 7 be received and filed. - Carried. OTHER BUSINESS The Director of Engineering Services presented a verbal report about repairs being done to the Phillmore Bridge in the Municipality of Bayham. Statements /Inquiries by Members Councillor McIntyre congratulated the county's General Manager of Economic Development on the tourism presentation made at the joint county -city meeting held on June 27, 2011. Councillor McIntyre reported on the recent tribute to retiring Elgin- Middlesex- London MPP Steve Peters. Direction was provided to staff to look into a recognition opportunity by elected officials and staff for the MPP. The Warden reported he was pleased with the 3rd annual United Way Warden's Golf Tournament on June 15, 2011 which raised $30,000 for United Way. He thanked the county staff for their hard work. Notice of Motion — None. Matters of Urgency — None. Council recessed at 10:32 a.m. to tour Terrace Lodge and reconvened at 11:05 a.m. 5 PRESENTATION The Director of Human Resources gave a PowerPoint presentation on the department. Moved by Councillor McIntyre Seconded by Councillor Jenkins THAT the PowerPoint presentation on the overview of the Human Resources Department be received and filed. - Carried. DELEGATIONS Tom Marks, County representative, St. Thomas Elgin General Hospital (STEGH) Board of Governors, provided a quarterly report on activities of the board, and responded to questions on the capital campaign and future plans. Cathy Fox, Communications and Public Relations Specialist, STEGH, was in attendance. Moved by Councillor Marr Seconded by Councillor Jenkins THAT the information presented in regards to St. Thomas Elgin General Hospital be received and filed. - Carried. Jim Malik, Operations Manager, Ron Liersch, General Manager, and Mac Gilpin, Vice - President, Thames Emergency Medical Services (EMS) gave a PowerPoint presentation updating council on EMS activities. Moved by Councillor McIntyre Seconded by Councillor Walters THAT the Thames EMS PowerPoint presentation be received and filed. - Carried. Closed Meeting Item Moved by Councillor Marr Seconded by Councillor Ens THAT we do now proceed into closed meeting session in accordance with the Municipal Act to discuss a matter under Section 240.2 (d) labour relations or employee negotiations — Collective Bargaining, Ontario Nurses' Association. - Carried. The Director of Human Resources presented a report on the Ontario Nurses' Association. Motion to Rise and Report Moved by Councillor Wiehle Seconded by Councillor Marr THAT we do now rise and report. - Carried. Moved by Councillor Ens Seconded by Councillor McWilliam THAT the confidential report titled the "Collective Bargaining - Ontario Nurses' Association" dated June 16, 2011 be received and filed. - Carried. 6 County Council 6 June 28, 2011 Motion to Adopt Recommendations of the Committee of the Whole Moved by Councillor Jenkins Seconded by Councillor Walters THAT we do now adopt recommendations of the Committee Of The Whole. - Carried. BY -LAWS Moved by Councillor McIntyre Seconded by Councillor Ens THAT By -Law No. 11 -15 "Being a By -Law to Confirm Proceedings of the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the County of Elgin at the June 28, 2011 Meeting" be read a first, second and third time and finally passed. - Carried. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Councillor Walters Seconded by Councillor McIntyre THAT we do now adjourn at 12:24 p.m. and meet again on July 26, 2011 at the County Administration Building Council Chambers at 9:00 a.m. Mark G. McDonald, Chief Administrative Officer. 7 - Carried. Dave Mennill, Warden. .I. flw•r3s EI•j n (i Imrol Hu9('I311 fry, ^ilaihon Redevel1prnent is `vision' critical: - Provide mix trot- ilu-ar[ fu IANIi l Rl. ppurI. high q LI litt• ea re • F :nlrhlr rrcr lilt rrrcnl an rererilhrn • Respond lu ndull men lnI hinllh needs • Jt4vitnkiaerncxnt. 6. 1inablelfprrc- CamiticxC1adlll1'. .. ring • +teiiew presence at lic> pilaf irr ihs rw Phase 1 12414 f 2015) 8 • i'irGI -rills Ydnil lnenhll health rure in tour hoo.pitril • 15 in 1K I•eiI amnia inpatient wris, ikturbiled uurpnirrnis sersicssasnd commonhsr stipprrrl inrsin>, p9yclsuioy and pv],chintrir support 1)uahlr the sire - 2I1,1H111 i'ris:r'te iriage :rreus • Sao elt►•ir' {rnmeril I'rtr nII p:Itienl' • Imprnti•cd aceess to 1)iwgnslslir Imaming • M1lars ctfcclsv s luftcMIolt couirol and sat'et, • Ilerpruvcii work Elrti'Ironnlfgi • Slate -of- the -m-1 rooms Expanded Post - Ausesthetir Care Unit and Day Surgery l :nit • Improved floes belvdeen Emergency and C71u r•: ilia R uom s 9 • One centralized location ail Complex Continuing Care !LTC I • Easily Accessible front an exterior hospital entrance • improved infection control • Enhanced patient privacy a1 Irrrrao EI{pn 4PI1l11.1H n091 1a1 rPIIDUP1b1+ Redefining our Future - Benefits • Modern acid well designed facility in patient tare Litmus quo not acceptable I ufcrtioit eO,ttrol — bigger issue that ever before Time iq now - changes arc, tong aver due Community perspective • Represents a I1i6N1 investment • Critical to infrastructure in Elgin County • Essential for recruitment /retention • Necessary to keep pace with health care delivery and technology • Hospital soon to be second largest employer • Critical to business relocation decisions • Generational project 10 St.Thomas Elgin General Hospital Foundatron Thank You 11 REPORTS OF COUNCIL AND STAFF Staff Reports — (ATTACHED) Director of Homes and Seniors Services Director of Homes and Seniors Services July 26, 2011 — Accommodation, Admission and Purchase Service Agreements — Long Term Care Funding Announcement and Recommendations Manager of Planning — Update on Elgin County Official Plan Project — Finalization of Stage 1 General Manager of Economic Development — SCOR Resource Committee Manager of Information Technology — Remote Access to PCC Director of Financial Services — Capping Options and Tax Relief Director of Community and Cultural Services — Five -Year Lease Renewals for Library Facilities Director of Engineering Services — Plank Road and Calton Line Road Side Erosion Update Deputy Director of Engineering Services — Tender Pre - approvals Deputy Director of Engineering Services — Elgin County Gateway Signs — Maintenance Deputy Director of Engineering Services — Highbury Ave. and Ferguson Line Intersection Improvements Director of Engineering Services — Elgin Tourism Sign — Request for Relocation Deputy Director of Engineering Services — Microsurfacing Benefits and County Road 73 (Imperial Road) Concerns Deputy Director of Engineering Services — 2010 County Road Maintenance Summary Chief Administrative Officer — Funding for County Road Maintenance PowerPoint Deputy Director of Engineering Services — Bike Lane Petition — Furnival Road ADDITIONAL REPORTS: Director of Engineering Services — Simpson Bridge Temporary Closure Director of Engineering Services — McBain Line and Water Tower Line — Property Transfer 12 REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Rhonda L. Roberts, Director of Homes and Seniors Services DATE: July 13, 2011 SUBJECT: Accommodation, Admission and Purchase Service Agreements INTRODUCTION: The Long Term Care Act, 2007, contains new guidelines for Long -Term Care Homes accommodation, admission and purchased service agreements. The County Homes have revised the existing agreements to reflect these requirements. DISCUSSION: The Long Term Care Act, 2007 and Regulation 79/10, require Long Term Care Homes to review and revise current admission documents to meet guidelines under the Act. The original admission agreement is now three documents; admission, accommodation and purchase services. The new documents have been developed utilising specific guidelines from the act and model documents developed by the Ontario Association of Non - Profit Services for Seniors. The new documents are deemed "regulated" under the Act and require a Solicitor review and approval. Staff has worked with the County Solicitor and the final documents are revised and pending Council approval. CONCLUSION: The Long Term Care Act, 2007 and Regulation 79/10 admission, accommodation and purchase service requirements have been incorporated into three documents. These documents are reviewed with residents /personal representatives upon admission. The County's Solicitor is satisfied that the documents meet the requirements under the Act and Regulations. RECOMMENDATION: THAT Council approves the Homes Accommodation, Admission and Purchased Service Agreements; and, THAT the report titled "Accommodation, Admission and Purchase Service Agreements" dated July 13, 2011 be received and filed. All of which is Respectfully Submitted Approved for Submission Rhonda L. Roberts Mark G. McDonald Director of Senior Services Chief Administrative Officer 13 REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Rhonda L. Roberts, Director Homes & Senior Services DATE: July 12, 2011 SUBJECT: Long -Term Care Homes Funding Announcements & Recommendations INTRODUCTION: Each year the Ministry of Health & Long Term Care announces funding increases for Long -Term Care Homes. The long awaited information has been provided and staff is pleased to report a positive impact to the Homes financial position has occurred as a result of the funding announcement. DISCUSSION: The Ministry of Health and Long -Term Care has announced funding increases, retroactive to April 1, 2011. These increases impact the Nursing and Personal Care (NPC), Program and Support Services (PSS), and Other Accommodation (OA) funding envelopes and are based on an increase of a per resident day (prd) basis. Funding specifics are as follows: • $76.4M to cover a 3% increase to NPC and PSS, ($2.46 prd and $0.24 prd for NPC and PSS respectively, retroactive to April 1, 2011). • $32.0M to bring on the first 800 of the promised 1,100 PSWs ($1.13 prd, retroactive to April 1, 2011). Details on the remaining 300 PSWs are to be communicated separately. • $15.0M OA increase to address costs associated with new regulation requirements ($0.52 prd) - this is over and above the recently announced increase provided in lieu of the co -pay increase. • $7.4M ($0.26 across NPC, PSS and OA) to the overall base increase for mandatory annual training. This funding is also retroactive to April 1, 2011. • $17.4M increase to OA ($0.69 prd) and Raw Food ($0.13 prd). This funding will be provided for the period July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012 as one -time funding. The total increase in revenues will be $228,775. However, it should be emphasized that a large part of this additional revenue (approximately $125,000) must be matched by the county. In other words, the County cannot simply apply all of the revenue towards the bottom line and reduce costs. The County already "tops up" the provincial contribution by nearly $4m every year across all three homes, yet the County must increase its contribution yet again to receive matching funds. It can therefore be argued that Elgin County has already enhanced its contribution by significantly more than the $125,000 and therefore should not have to use County dollars to access the revenue. This increase in funding should simply be used to reduce the bottom line. However, under Ministry rules this is not possible. The County has raised this issue before but was unable to convince the Ministry to change its funding philosophy. 14 For example, PSW funding increases may not be used to offset the County's current labour costs, which is higher than industry levels, but must be used to add additional hours to the existing budget. The Homes are required to report on the use of these funds annually and if not used as specified, the funds will be recovered. Estimated required increases to PSW hours are as follows: CONCLUSION: The Ministry of Health and Long Term Care has announced funding increases for 2011/2012. While the additional funding has assisted in offsetting costs in some areas, the overall effect on revenues is disappointing. The expectation of utilizing County funds to match provincial dollars prevents the County from actually reducing costs. RECOMMENDATION: THAT the report titled "Long Term Care Homes funding Announcements and Requirements" dated July 13, 2011 be received and filed. Respectfully Submitted Approved for Submission Rhonda L. Roberts Mark G. McDonald Director Homes & Senior Services Chief Administrative Officer 15 Full Time Equivalent (FTE's) Number of Hours per Day Bobier Villa .3 2.4 Elgin Manor .48 3.8 Terrace Lodge .5 4.2 CONCLUSION: The Ministry of Health and Long Term Care has announced funding increases for 2011/2012. While the additional funding has assisted in offsetting costs in some areas, the overall effect on revenues is disappointing. The expectation of utilizing County funds to match provincial dollars prevents the County from actually reducing costs. RECOMMENDATION: THAT the report titled "Long Term Care Homes funding Announcements and Requirements" dated July 13, 2011 be received and filed. Respectfully Submitted Approved for Submission Rhonda L. Roberts Mark G. McDonald Director Homes & Senior Services Chief Administrative Officer 15 Elgin "_:. • Pli,Iesiin' DI f4.. ( REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Steve Evans Manager of Planning DATE: July 11, 2011 SUBJECT: Update on Elgin County Official Plan Project — Finalization of Stage 1 INTRODUCTION: County Council received a recent update on the Elgin County Official Plan Project at their meeting of June 28, 2011. This report is submitted to provide Council with the outcomes of the comprehensive consultation program thus far and to seek approval to proceed to prepare a draft Official Plan document. The attached report from Meridian Planning Consultants provides more detail on their findings. DISCUSSION: The six background research reports along with a Directions Report have now been reviewed by the Steering and Technical Committees as well as the Public Focus Group. There is general consensus that the reports accurately reflect the current data presented such as population projections, agriculture, economic development, etc. There is also general agreement with the Directions Report which reveals a number of elements which are key to the long term vision for Elgin County and two key lenses (economic development and growth management) through which Official Plan policy should be developed. Public Open Houses were held on July 13, 20 and 25th to review all of the research material as well, as the Directions Report. Public response at this first stage of the Official Plan program indicates that the research findings are defensible and that the Directions Report represents an appropriate guidance document on which to prepare a draft Official Plan. Based on the foregoing and the attached report from Meridian, the Manager of Planning and the Consulting Team are confident in recommending to County Council that Stage One of the Elgin County Official Plan Program be endorsed and that Meridian Planning Consultants be directed to proceed to prepare a draft Official Plan document. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that County Council endorse the completion of Stage One of the Elgin County Official Plan Program and direct Meridian Planning Consultants to proceed to Stage Two which begins with the preparation of a draft Official Plan document. All of which is Respectfully Submitted Approved for Submission Steve Evans Mark G. McDonald Manager of Planning Chief Administrative Officer 16 0 MERIDIAN PLANNING CONSULTANTS INC. July 9, 2011 Steve Evans County of Elgin 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, ON N5R V1 Dear Mr. Evans: Re: Status of Official Plan Review and Next Steps Our File No. 3987 I am writing as requested to provide you with our thoughts on what the next steps are with respect to the Official Plan Review. In June 2011, six research papers were finalized by our firm on a range of items as set out below: • Agriculture; • Cultural Heritage and Urban and Rural Design; • Economic Development and Tourism; • Population, Employment and Housing; • Natural Heritage, Hazards, Water and Aggregate /Petroleum Resources; and, • Transportation, Servicing and Waste Management. The intent of the above research papers was to present all available information on the issues reviewed for discussion purposes. Following the preparation of the research papers, we prepared a Directions Report, which was also released in draft form in June 2011. This Directions Report was prepared shortly after meetings were held with the Official Plan Steering Committee and the Public Focus Group on June 6, 2011. The intent of our two meetings on June 6, 2011 was to explore a number of themes relating to the Official Plan Review and a potential policy framework. Once a draft Directions Report was prepared, we then met again with the Official Plan Steering Committee, Public Focus Group and the Technical Committee on June 28, 2011. We also met with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing on May 25, 2011 to primarily discuss growth management issues, and we also met with Ministry of Transportation on June 28, 2011 to primarily discuss plans for the Highway 3 By -pass. 113 Collier Street, Barrie, Ontario L4M 1 H2 • Tel: 705.737.4512 • Fax: 705.737.5078 • Website: www.meridianplan.ca 17 2 A copy of the Directions Report is attached to this letter. Section 1 of the Directions Report establishes what we believe should be our goals in developing an Official Plan. Specifically, the new County of Elgin Official Plan should: • have a very well articulated vision of the future development in the County; • ensure that all the policies in the Official Plan relate directly back to the vision and objectives of the plan; • provide clear direction on how the policies in the plan will be implemented; • have a minimum number of land use designations to ensure that the plan is easily understood; • establish policy areas instead of site - specific or area specific designations; • have clear mapping which shows the location of land use designations; and, • not function only as a development control document. The purpose of the Directions Report was to make a series of recommendations on how the Official Plan should be structured to meet the above objectives. To a very large extent, the County Official Plan process is an opportunity for the County to establish how it wishes to grow and develop well into the future. It is also an opportunity to establish locally developed policies that will be relied upon in the future when the approval authority for major applications is transferred from the Province to the County when a new Official Plan is approved. The Directions Report also reviews relevant Provincial policy and recommends that the Province's over - arching vision with respect to land use planning needs to be taken into account while preparing the new Official Plan. In this regard, policies that are considered to be mandatory are identified and those policies that are directory, but not mandatory are also identified. The Directions Report then reviews a number of population and employment trends that need to be considered in developing a framework for the Official Plan. A number of other factors are identified, including those that relate to the desirability of the County of Elgin as a home for new residents. The Directions Report then reviews those key elements of the County's geography that will have an impact on the establishment of a long -term vision. These key elements include the Lake Erie Shoreline, the many river corridors that make their way to Lake Erie and the extensive agricultural plain. The second element of the vision should be based on the people that live, work and travel to the County. While a Vision Statement will be prepared as part of the Official Plan after comments have been received on the Directions Report, we established a series of draft goals that primarily deal with the growth management and economic development themes that have been identified as the key lenses through which policy should be developed. These goals, if supported will establish the basis for the vision to be prepared and the overall framework for the County. These goals are set out below: 18 3 1. To provide opportunities for economic development in a manner that fosters competitiveness and a positive and attractive business environment. 2. To direct most forms of development to urban areas where full wastewater and water services are available and to support the efficient use of land in these areas. 3. To ensure that all infrastructure, including sanitary sewers, water distribution and stormwater management facilities and roads meet the needs of present and future residents and businesses in an efficient, environmentally - sensitive, cost effective and timely manner. 4. To protect and enhance the character of existing settlement areas, and to maintain them as diverse, liveable, safe, thriving, healthy, complete and attractive communities. 5. To promote quality urban design that enhances sense of place and respects the history and special character of the County and its settlement areas. 6. To protect as much of the County's Prime Agricultural Area as possible to ensure that the agricultural industry can continue to thrive and innovate. 7. To ensure that an adequate supply of land and housing choices are available for present and future residents. 8. To ensure the protection and enhancement of tourism and recreation opportunities (both active and passive) throughout the County. 9. To provide for more active transportation opportunities that connect all parts of the County. 10. To provide opportunities for the provision of a broad range of community, recreational and institutional uses and facilities to serve the needs of the County's residents. 11. To protect and enhance significant natural heritage features and areas and their associated ecological and hydrological functions from incompatible development. Based on the above goals, a series of draft objectives were also identified in the Directions Report (pages 15 and 16). These objectives were intended to flesh out the identified goals and to also clearly articulate the official plan framework. The next section of the Directions Report deals with a number of growth management and economic development considerations. It is recommended in the section that specific population and employment allocations not be established for lower tier municipalities in the County given the significant amount of land already designated for development in the County. Instead, it is recommended the Official Plan contain some broad directions on where development should be directed in the County, based on the type and availability of municipal services. The strategy articulated in the Directions Report dealing with population and employment allocations has been discussed with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and they are supportive of 19 4 this direction, however they will certainly review the policy framework in detail once it is completed. The Directions Report also reviews agricultural issues in some detail, based on a number of comments received through the process. In this regard, the Directions Report makes a number of recommendations on how to define agricultural uses, and how agriculturally related uses and secondary uses are to be provided for in the County. The last section in the Directions Report recommends a potential Official Plan framework. It is recommended that two land use designations be established: Settlement Area and Agricultural Area. Only two designations are recommended since the County Official Plan is intended to be a high -level policy document that provides guidance to local municipalities. Three overlay designations are also recommended: Environmental Area, Aggregate Resource Area and Petroleum Resource Area, and Active and Inactive Waste Disposal Sites. A transportation schedule was also recommended as well. Both the land use schedule and the transportation schedule are attached to the Directions Report. The Directions Report and the draft schedules were discussed with the Technical Committee, Steering Committee and the Public Focus Group on June 28, 2011. The initial version of the Directions Report also recommended the establishment of a number of tourism priority areas, economic priority areas and tourism corridors. Based on comments made at all of the meetings, it was agreed that establishing economic priority areas and tourism priority areas would not be appropriate since both economic and tourism development is essentially being directed to all parts of the County, by the County and each individual municipality. On the basis of the above, only minor changes were made to the draft Directions Report following our June 28, 2011 meetings. On the basis of the discussions held with the province, the two committees and the public focus group, it is our opinion that the Directions Report is generally supported by all and provides an appropriate basis for the preparation of a draft Official Plan over the summer for Council and public review in the fall. Yours truly, MERIDIAN PLANNING CONSULTANTS INC. Out kogw) Nick McDonald, MCIP, RPP Partner NM/ 20 21 Directions Paper County of Elgin June 2011 Draft P1 E1ginCatmt� TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction 3 2.0 Establishing a PLANNING FRAMEWORK 6 2.1 Population and Employment Trends to Consider 6 2.2 Other Factors to Consider 10 2.3 THE BASIS FOR Establishing a LONG TERM Vision for Elgin 12 3.0 GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS 17 3.1 Growth Management Considerations 17 3.2 Planning for Employment 19 3.3 Agricultural Uses 20 3.4 Natural Heritage 23 4.0 Potential Official Plan Framework 24 5.0 WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE 26 APPENDIX 1 - Requirements for Planning Authorities 27 APPENDIX 2 - The Use of the Word "Shall" 33 22 1.0 INTRODUCTION The primary purpose of an Official Plan for the County of Elgin is to provide the basis for managing growth that will support and emphasize the County's unique character, diversity, civic and cultural identity and natural heritage features. It is our goal to develop a new Official Plan that: . has a very well articulated vision of the future development of the County; • ensures that all of the policies in the Official Plan relate directly back to the vision and objectives of the Plan; . provides clear direction on how the policies in the Plan will be implemented; • has a minimum number of land use designations to ensure that the Plan is easily understood; • establishes policy areas instead of site - specific or area - specific designations; • has clear mapping which shows the location of land use designations; and, • does not function only as a development control document. The purpose of this Directions Paper is to make a series of recommendations on how the Official Plan should be structured to meet the above objectives. To a very large extent, the County Official Plan process is an opportunity for the County to establish how it wishes to grow, develop and prosper well into the future. It is also an opportunity to establish locally developed policies that will be relied upon in the future when the approval authority for major applications is transferred from the Province to the County when the new Official Plan is approved. While an Official Plan is essentially a policy document which is intended to provide Council with the basis for making decisions on development applications, changes in land use and community improvements, an Official Plan should also have a well - articulated vision at the beginning of the document to establish the basis the policies that follow. Establishing a well - articulated vision also assists in ensuring the interpretation of policy is easier because every policy should be traceable is some way to the vision. The vision should also be supported by a series of goals and objectives that are intended to articulate how the vision is to be implemented. These goals and objectives in of themselves are not policies, but they are intended to provide the basis for the interpretation of the policies that follow. One of the intents of this Directions Paper is to discuss those items that need to be factored into the policy development process in the first County of Elgin Official Plan. The Province of Ontario also has a vision for the Province, as primarily articulated within the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). Section IV of the Preamble of the PPS articulates this overall vision and elements of this preamble are reproduced below: County of Elgin Directions Report - Final Draft 23 June 2011 3 "The long -term prosperity and social well -being of Ontarians depend on maintaining strong communities, a clean and healthy environment and a strong economy. Ontario is a vast province with diverse urban, rural and northern communities which may face different challenges related to diversity in population levels, economic activity, pace of growth and physical and natural conditions. Some areas face challenges related to maintaining population and diversifying their economy, while other areas face challenges related to accommodating and managing the development and population growth which is occurring, while protecting important resources and the quality of the natural environment. The Provincial Policy Statement reflects this diversity and is based on good planning principles that apply in communities across Ontario. The Provincial Policy Statement focuses growth within settlement areas and away from significant or sensitive resources and areas which may pose a risk to public health and safety. It recognizes that the wise management of development may involve directing, promoting or sustaining growth. Land use must be carefully managed to accommodate appropriate development to meet the full range of current and future needs, while achieving efficient development patterns. Efficient development patterns optimize the use of land, resources and public investment in infrastructure and public service facilities. These land use patterns promote a mix of housing, employment, parks and open spaces, and transportation choices that facilitate pedestrian mobility and other modes of travel. They also support the financial well -being of the Province and municipalities over the long term, and minimize the undesirable effects of development, including impacts on air, water and other resources. Strong, liveable and healthy communities enhance social well -being and are economically and environmentally sound." This over - arching Provincial vision needs to be taken into account while preparing the new Official Plan. It is noted that some of the Provincial policies are very clear and mandate their implementation through Official Plan policy. Other policies are directory, but not mandatory. These policies will be referenced where required throughout this Directions Paper. For ease of reference, PPS policies that deal specifically with the role of planning authorities such as the County of Elgin are included within Appendix 1. Other PPS policies that use the word 'shall' which are associated with a requirement for a planning authority to carry out some action are included within Appendix 2. Section 4.0 of the PPS states that "the Official Plan is the most important vehicle for implementation of this Provincial Policy Statement." It is further stated that: "Comprehensive, integrated and long term planning is best achieved through Municipal Official Plans. Municipal Official Plans shall identify provincial interests and set out appropriate land use designations and policies. Municipal Official Plans should also coordinate cross - boundary matters to complement the actions of other planning authorities and promote mutually beneficial solutions. County of Elgin Directions Report - Final Draft 24 June 2011 4 Municipal Official Plans shall provide clear, reasonable and attainable policies to protect provincial interests and direct development to suitable areas. In order to protect provincial interests, planning authorities shall keep their Official Plans up -to -date with this Provincial Policy Statement. The Policies of this Provincial Policy Statement continue to apply after adoption and approval of a municipal Official Plan." Prior to preparing this Paper, several background research papers were prepared and meetings were held with a number of stakeholders. It was on the basis of this research and engagement that it was determined that there were two primary issues to deal with in the context of the new Official Plan: growth management and economic development. While there are many other issues to consider, they are all to some extent influenced by the policy direction established for the two primary issues. It is hoped that this Directions Paper will generate a considerable amount of discussion on what the long term vision, goals and objectives for the new Official Plan should be and what types of policies should be established to implement the vision, goals and objectives. Following the receipt and assessment of comments on this Directions Paper, a draft Official Plan will be prepared for public review. County of Elgin Directions Report - Final Draft 25 June 2011 5 2.0 ESTABLISHING A PLANNING FRAMEWORK 2.1 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT TRENDS TO CONSIDER There are a number of trends and data to consider in developing a vision, goals, objectives and an overall policy framework for the County of Elgin Official Plan. Many of these items deal with growth management and economic development, which are the two primary lenses through which it is expected land use policy will be formulated. 1. The population of Ontario grew by 53 percent between 1976 and 2009. The population of the Elgin CD grew less quickly by 26 percent at a pace half that of Ontario. There are 49 CDs in Ontario. 2. In 2006, the total population of Elgin including St. Thomas was 88,670. The population of St. Thomas was 37,510 that year while the population of the County was 51,160. As a result, St. Thomas accounts for 42 percent of the total population of Elgin. 3. Over the time span from 1986 to 2006 the total population of Elgin grew by 16,180. St. Thomas grew by 7,680 (accounting for 47 percent of the CD's total growth) while the remainder of the County grew by 8,500 (accounting for the remaining 53 percent). 4. The concentration of population and of population growth within the County is St. Thomas - centred with Central Elgin (which surrounds St. Thomas), Aylmer and Malahide (immediately to the east of Central Elgin) and Bayham (immediately to the east of Malahide) accounting for most Elgin residents in 2006 (72 percent) and for most of Elgin's population growth between 1986 and 2006 (81 percent). 5. The number of people aged 45+ within the County has increased from 35% in 1996 and 37% in 2001, to almost 40% in 2006. As this trend is expected to continue, there will be a need to plan for the increased provision of services to seniors in the future. 6. With respect to place of work, the following is noted: . Out of 34,235 Elgin residents who worked in 2006, some 65.0 percent worked in Elgin (including St. Thomas), 24.4 percent in London and 10.6 percent elsewhere. • Of the 15,610 residents of St. Thomas who worked in 2006, the proportions were quite similar, with 71.2 percent working in Elgin, 24.3 percent in London and 4.5 percent elsewhere. • Of the 18,625 Elgin residents excluding St. Thomas who worked in 2006, 4,565 worked in St. Thomas (24.5 percent), 4,555 worked in London (24.4 percent), 6,565 worked elsewhere in Elgin (35.2 percent) while the County of Elgin Directions Report - Final Draft 26 June 2011 6 remaining 2,940 (15.8 percent) worked outside of Elgin and London altogether. . The proportion of working residents commuting to London was at least 18.0 percent in every Elgin municipality in 2006 except for Bayham (the easternmost municipality within Elgin; Bayham's London share is just 5.5 percent). Bayham is the only Elgin municipality with a working -in -Elgin share of less than 61.0 percent (Bayham's Elgin share was very low at just 21.1 percent; only 6.5 percent of its employed residents worked in St. Thomas). Almost three quarters of Bayham's working residents work outside of Elgin, most of them in Tillsonburg (750). . In 2006, a total of 43,200 of the 88,670 residents of Elgin had jobs. Spatially, they worked as follows: o 3,745 worked at home o 18,500 worked outside of their homes for an employer in Elgin o 4,005 had no fixed workplace (sales, construction, delivery, etc.) o 8,345 worked in London o 8,605 worked in another nearby community 7. Since the Census was taken in 2006, Canada and the rest of the world have gone through a major economic downturn and partial recovery. The recession was particularly devastating for automobile assembly and parts operations, the mainstay of Elgin's economic base. Data regarding the actual number of jobs by place -of -work in Elgin since 2006 are not available but they can be estimated using annual Labour Force Survey data regarding employment by industry for the London CMA since that year. The number of jobs provided by employers in Elgin in agriculture, transportation equipment manufacturing and all other manufacturing as a group fell in each of 2007, 2008 and 2009 from a total of 14,415 in 2006 to just 10,925 in 2009 - or by 24 percent - and only a modest increase appear to have occurred in 2010. A significant portion of this reduction in the number of manufacturing jobs (in the recent past and near future) can be attributed to the downsizing and planned closure of the Ford plant. 8. Long -term projections for employment in the agricultural and manufacturing sectors nation -wide and province -wide are not positive. Agriculture and manufacturing production - measured in constant dollars - are expected to grow at modest rates in the decades ahead. But productivity growth in both agriculture and manufacturing is expected to be high in the future (as it has been in the past) meaning that even though production will continue to grow, the number of jobs will not. 9. It is projected that there will be a modest increase in employment in Elgin in its economic base industries from 2011 through 2015 but - in the absence of significant economic development gains in yet untapped areas - its economic base employment is unlikely to ever return to where it was in 2006 and, following the brief recovery- induced upturn, will gradually decline each year beyond 2015. County of Elgin Directions Report - Final Draft 27 June 2011 7 10. The most important implication of the above trends for Elgin County is that its industrial property tax base will shrink in the future. The tax base will not necessarily shrink if production continues to grow at locations within Elgin - even though employment will likely decline - but the projections suggest Elgin's key economic base industries are at risk. 11. The implied continued loss of certain types of employment within Elgin's economic base in the future will have impacts on future population and employment growth. The employment projections are based on the assumption that Elgin's economic focus industrially will not change in the future and that gradually declining employment in agriculture and manufacturing nation -wide and province -wide will be mirrored in Elgin. 12. However, the projections do not take into account the potential diversification of Elgin's economic base in the future that is difficult to measure. The employment projections also do not take into account the potential new employment growth that could result from recent St. Thomas and Elgin County collaborative growth strategies in the areas of food and tourism. Nor do they reflect the recent efforts of Elgin County in collaboration with neighbouring Brant, Middlesex, Norfolk and Oxford (the South Central Ontario Region, SCOR) to collectively diversify the economy of that part of the province. However, given that many of these initiatives are in their early stages, it is premature to speculate on their impact. 13. In the absence of such progress, however, the population and dwelling base of Elgin is likely to continue growing in the decades ahead for two key reasons: a) Most of the residents of Elgin commute to nearby communities for employment. The expansion opportunities for employment growth in the London area are significant. The economic base of the Middlesex CD - with the City of London its primary employment centre - is already well diversified. Major portions of the area's health, education, finance and business service sectors are directed toward supplying markets outside the area, and its tourism industry is already well developed. These industries will all continue to crate jobs at a high rate in the London area in the future. Many of the people accepting these positions will be drawn from other parts of Ontario and many, in turn, will chose to live in St. Thomas and Elgin, thus adding Elgin's already significant pool of commuting residents. b) Over the period from 2011 to 2031 most Baby Boom generation workers - currently between the ages of about 44 to 64 - will retire. The first of the Boomers, born in 1946, will reach the age of 65 in 2011 while the last of the Boomers, born in 1966, will reach 65 in 2031. This phenomenon will occur in every community throughout the country, including Elgin. As the Boomers retire they will need to be replaced by new workers. The Baby Boom generation did not replace itself; the total fertility rate has been below the replacement rate in Canada for more than four County of Elgin Directions Report - Final Draft 28 June 2011 8 decades. Since that time Canada has relied on internal migration and net - immigration to ensure an adequate supply of labour wherever and whenever workers are required across the country. Though the pace of job growth nation -wide and in the Middlesex -Elgin area will gradually slow in the future, the number of workers available from within Canada will not be enough to fill the new jobs being created and /or being vacated by the retiring Boomers. As a result, Canada's annual net immigration flow will have to more than double over time from its current pace of 200,000 per year if we are to fill the jobs that will be created. Migrants are relatively young people, usually between the ages of 20 and 40, and often with youngsters in tow. Migrants from other parts of the province, other part of the country, and other parts of the world will be the people most likely to take the new jobs being created and the jobs being vacated by the retiring Boomers in the Middlesex -Elgin area. 14. C4SE (who is on the study team) has developed a base case projection for the population of Elgin that takes into account: The expected steady decline over time in the economic base jobs in Elgin itself, and therefore of the diminishing number of jobs available in Elgin to local residents. The steady increase over time in the economic and community base jobs throughout the London CMA as a result of its diversified and diversifying economy. The gradual retirement of the Boomers throughout the area and the need to replace them through migration with younger, family oriented people. 15. On the basis of these assumptions, the following conclusions are reached: We expect Elgin's population to increase from its current level (2011) estimated at 90,560 to reach 104,190 by 2031. That represents an average annual increase of about 645 people. Over the 25 year span from 2011 to 2031 Elgin's population growth will be 2,640 among persons under the age of 20, 2,440 among persons aged 20 to 64 and 8,550 among persons 65 and older. The number of dwelling units in Elgin will need to increase by 7,450 with single- detached units dominating (accounting for 74 percent) assuming unit preferences by age in 2006 are permitted to prevail over the projection horizon. The number of employed residents will increase by 7,830. Most of the growth reflects additional commuting to jobs in London (2,430) or other nearby non -Elgin communities (3,590). Only a small number of the increase will work in Elgin itself (1,810). The number of jobs offered by employers in Elgin will increase by 2,800. The major gains will be in health care and social services (2,180), retail County of Elgin Directions Report - Final Draft 29 June 2011 9 trade (490), accommodation and food services (480), and business services other than professional services (440). The number of jobs in manufacturing will decline by 1,530 and in agriculture by 930. The base case projection foresees more people in Elgin in nearly every age and gender group with the largest gains occurring among persons over the age of 65, due to the aging of the Baby Boomers over that period - and among those 35 to 45 and those under 25 due to significant net in- migration. We assume as part of this projection that the people moving into Elgin over the projection horizon will be slightly older than the people moving out over that period reflecting the age and gender distribution of in- migration and out - migration to area in recent years. Elgin's workforce will increasingly work at a location outside of Elgin (half now work in Elgin and the other half elsewhere). Between 2011 and 2031 we project the number of employed Elgin residents working in Elgin will increase by 1,630. The number working in London will increase by 2,060. The number working outside of Elgin and London - in other nearby communities - will increase by 3,050. 16. The total projected 2031 population for the seven Elgin County municipalities, based on existing and proposed Official Plans, is 65,724. The projected St. Thomas 2031 population (based on the local OP) is 49,063. Therefore, the Official Plan based 2031 population projection for Elgin County and St. Thomas is 114,787. The comparative C4SE Base Case population projection for 2031 is 104,190. The differentials between the OP based population projections (114,787) and the Base projections indicates that collectively, the seven lower tier municipalities are planning for considerably more population than has been projected in the base case scenario. 2.2 OTHER FACTORS TO CONSIDER In addition to the population and employment trends and data discussed in Section 2.1, it is also important to consider the composition and factors leading to growth in Elgin in the recent past, particularly as it relates to developing a growth management strategy and an economic development strategy. Many of the newer residents in Elgin have migrated to the County to retire or at least slow down and work from afar in a much slower paced environment. These individuals have selected Elgin because they have had previous ties in the County, such as having lived here at one time, have family currently living here or they were attracted to the quality of life offered. However, the County of Elgin is one of a number of locations in Ontario that are becoming increasingly attractive to those in the marketplace who have the financial wherewithal, knowledge and a desire to make informed choices. In terms of what would attract these informed individuals to a particular area, there are a number of factors and they include: County of Elgin Directions Report - Final Draft 30 June 2011 10 • the presence of a local health care system with modern, up -to -date, well staffed hospitals; • the presence of a medical support infrastructure, in the form of medical professionals such as physical therapists and other supporting medical professionals; • the availability of a sufficiently wide range of goods and services; • the presence of a range of recreational opportunities, both passive and active; • communities that are characterized by smaller populations and lower densities; • a perceived high standard of environmental awareness and protection, in terms of there being clean air, clean water and generally a clean environment; and, • lower cost of living, but not necessarily in all cases. What is interesting about the above list of attractors is that there are some inherent contradictions in the list in terms of what factors drive each. For example, the provision of adequate health care services and associated health care is very much dependant on there being a population threshold that would support the provision of these services. In a circumstance like Elgin, which has a relatively small population, this becomes a significant factor in the attraction process, since the population is first needed to enhance the level of service but that population may not be attracted to the community because the level of service is not being provided. The same goes for other goods and services in the retail sector, which are very much population dependant. For example, in an area where population growth has not occurred and is not expected to occur, new retail uses offering a wider range of goods and services will not be established. Again, one has to drive the other. Another interesting challenge is that while there is a desire for a significantly lower cost of living a municipality may not have the ability to provide for efficient services in the absence of a population to support it. Given the aging of the population, the growing percentage of retiring baby- boomers and early retirees, and that these segments of the population have considerably more disposable income than previous generations, the number of people travelling (and the frequency and distance of travel) has increased in the last 20 years. In addition, given improvement to transportation systems, the number of people making day -trips to locations outside of their place of residence is also increasing. This bodes well for areas adjacent to major population centres like Toronto, since the mass of people living in these urban centres is expecting to continue increasing at a significant rate. This means that the potential exists for there to be increased interest in visiting nearby places (like Elgin) for day -trips and short -term vacations. Given the County of Elgin's location, it is well positioned to attract additional tourism, provided the appropriate tourism infrastructure is in place and there are actual destinations to visit. At the present time, tourism is not a major force in the County, County of Elgin Directions Report - Final Draft 31 June 2011 11 although there are areas within the County that are popular with visitors. 2.3 THE BASIS FOR ESTABLISHING A LONG TERM VISION FOR ELGIN A vision is intended to be a picture of the preferred future for an area. It is also intended to provide decision makers, residents and business owners with an overall description of what the area will look like and how it will function if overall goals and objectives are implemented. There are two elements of a vision that could be articulated within the County of Elgin Official Plan. The first element deals with the geography of the County and the second element deals with the people that live and work within the County itself. Exploring these two components will to a very large extent define the vision for the future of the County of Elgin. With respect to geography, the County consists of three distinct components. The first component is the interface between land and water known as the Lake Erie shoreline. This shoreline, which extends 85 kilometres along the County's southern border, is extraordinary in terms of its views and vistas and primarily because of its relationship to the water. In most other parts of Ontario, the shorelines along the Great Lakes are low lying and there is little difference in relief between the water and the land. In the case of the County of Elgin, most of the shoreline is the site of bluffs that extend 50 to 150 metres above the water. As a consequence, much of the shoreline area remains undeveloped and the views are extraordinary. The second defining element of the County's geography are the many river corridors that make their way to Lake Erie from the north, west and east. These river corridors (e.g. the Catfish Creek and Kettle Creek systems) have over time cut into the landscape to create extensive valley systems that are the site of much wildlife and forests. These watercourses, where they meet with Lake Erie, have also created opportunities for the development of ports along the shoreline (Port Burwell, Port Stanley, Port Bruce and Port Glasgow). The third defining element of the County's geography is the extensive sandy plain that covers most of the County and which is the site of soils that are considered to be very suitable for agricultural use. It is these three elements of the County's geography which define the County in terms of how it looks and to a very large extent, it defines how and why the County was originally settled, and why people continue to live and work in this area. The second element of a potential vision deals with the people that live, work and travel to the County. As mentioned above, the geography of the County has had a significant impact on the settlement pattern, the use of land in the County and to some extent its economy. For example, all of the larger settlements in the County are located on watercourses that were initially the lifeblood of those communities or they were located as service centres for the surrounding agricultural community. As settlement occurred across Southern Ontario, the advent of the railroad also had an impact on the sizes of settlements and their locations. Settlements in this area were also located at the mouths of rivers emptying into Lake Erie because the long term deposition of sand and silt created land that was considered suitable for building. County of Elgin Directions Report - Final Draft 32 June 2011 12 These port settlements became very important in South - western Ontario and were the key points of transfer between land and water for many decades. The agricultural sector has long been and will continue to be the most dominant sector in the local economy and a considerable amount of agricultural infrastructure has been developed to support that economy. However, things do change and nothing ever remains constant, other than the geography of a community. In the case of the County of Elgin, the port communities no longer function as significant ports of entry into Ontario. The railroad has all but disappeared from the County and in some cases the tracks have been literally pulled up and removed. The agricultural economy has changed dramatically, and what was once the main staple of the agricultural economy (tobacco) is no longer as important, which has meant that other forms of agriculture have had to be introduced. In addition to all of the above, the manufacturing sector in Ontario has declined in terms of its importance and this decline has hit the County of Elgin very hard because of the strong reliance in the County on that sector. Notwithstanding the above, the economy of the area has prospered to some extent because of the proximity of the County to the City of London, which is an emerging Regional City in South - western Ontario. With a population of over 300,000 people, along with a number of established educational and health care institutions, London has become very much an example of the type of complete community that the Province of Ontario is encouraging. As a consequence, many people living in Elgin now commute to the City of London to work and the growth and settlement pattern in the County in terms of amount and location of growth, is very much dependant on the relationship between the settlement and the City of London. The City of St. Thomas also plays a role as well and its location has had a significant impact on settlement patterns in the County, particularly in close proximity to the City. Lastly, the Town of Tilsonburg in the County of Oxford has had an impact on settlement patterns in the north - eastern part of the County as well. How could the vision be articulated? Establishing a planning framework for the County's first Official Plan has to be grounded in the reality of today while considering the possibilities for the future. Simply put, a planning framework and the vision that underpins it should embody collective aspirations and stand as a beacon to guide long term planning and initiatives on the road to realizing a richly imagined future. It is something for which all of us can strive and participate in helping to achieve. As such, a vision both inspires and challenges. A vision statement will be prepared as part of the preparation of the Official Plan after comments have been received on this Direction Paper. However, on the basis of the work completed to date and the comments made by stakeholders, below are a series of suggested goals that primarily deal with the growth management and economic development themes that have been identified as the key lenses through County of Elgin Directions Report - Final Draft 33 June 2011 13 which policy should be developed. These goals, if supported, will establish the basis for the vision to be prepared and overall planning framework for the County: 1. To provide opportunities for economic development in a manner that fosters competitiveness and a positive and attractive business environment. 2. To direct most forms of development to urban areas where full wastewater and water services are available and to support the efficient use of land in these areas. 3. To ensure that all infrastructure, including sanitary sewers, water distribution and stormwater management facilities and roads meet the needs of present and future residents and businesses in an efficient, environmentally - sensitive, cost effective and timely manner. 4. To protect and enhance the character of existing settlement areas, and to maintain them as diverse, liveable, safe, thriving, healthy, complete and attractive communities. 5. To promote quality urban design that enhances sense of place and respects the history and special character of the County and its settlement areas. 6. To protect as much of the County's Prime Agricultural Area as possible to ensure that the agricultural industry can continue to thrive and innovate. 7. To ensure that an adequate supply of land and housing choices are available for present and future residents. 8. To ensure the protection and enhancement of tourism and recreation opportunities (both active and passive) throughout the County. 9. To provide for more active transportation opportunities that to connect all parts of the County. 10. To provide opportunities for the provision of a broad range of community, recreational and institutional uses and facilities to serve the needs of the County's residents. 11. To protect and enhance significant natural heritage features and areas and their associated ecological and hydrological functions from incompatible development. In addition to goals, a series of supporting objectives are also recommended for consideration. Objectives are intended to be specific, quantifiable and realistic targets that measure the accomplishment of a goal over a specified period of time. While governments can write policy, develop programs and guidelines, and offer incentives and disincentives, it is typically the private sector that will determine whether a project is economically viable or not. County of Elgin Directions Report - Final Draft 34 June 2011 14 For those matters that are within the jurisdiction of the public sector to implement, the importance of ensuring cost effectiveness is no less important. It is on this basis that a careful balance must be struck between the requirements established by governments and the ability of the private and /or public sector to cost effectively meet those requirements as part of future development or programming. It is on this basis that the following draft objectives have been identified below: 1. To establish a County Planning Authority function. 2. To establish land use planning application review process that is sensitive to the economics of time management and of providing timely development. 3. To establish a policy framework that is easy to explain, understand and implement. 4. To establish tools that provide the incentives required to encourage desired forms of development in the right locations, along with the provision of needed public amenities. 5. To establish regulatory provisions that are flexible enough to take into account the type of use, the layout of the site and the economics of proposed developments. 6. To provide opportunities for a wide range of agriculture- related uses in the Agricultural Area. 7. To provide for appropriately scaled range of secondary uses in the Agricultural Area. 8. To recognize the County is made up of a diverse range of settlements and that each has a role to play in the provision of housing and employment opportunities in the County. 9. To recognize that there should be a focus in the land use planning process on the planning for additional development that caters to seniors. 10. To focus new development in settlement areas in the following order of priority: . Fully serviced settlement areas with reserve capacity that provides for development; . Development in fully serviced settlement areas where expansions to the servicing infrastructure are required to provide for development; . Privately serviced settlement areas, provided it has been determined that additional development is sustainable; and . Partially serviced settlement areas, provided the scale of development is considered to be infilling or minor rounding out. County of Elgin Directions Report - Final Draft 35 June 2011 15 11. To not permit the expansion of any settlement area unless appropriate justification is provided at the time of a comprehensive review. 12. To identify and highlight the importance of the "port" communities along the Lake Erie shoreline. 13. To ensure that at all times, each municipality in the County has an appropriate supply of land as for employment purposes in the right locations. 14. To require municipalities to protect natural heritage features and their related ecological functions in their Official Plans. 15. To work towards the establishment of a natural heritage system for the County at the time of the next Official Plan Review. 16. To protect the function of County roads by not permitting development that would be incompatible with that function, unless the County Road in an urban area in which case, local context needs to be taken into account. 17. To ensure that the conversion of any employment land in the County only occurs at the time of a comprehensive review. 18. To require that local municipalities in their Official Plans provide for the broadest range of employment uses (depending on the servicing) in their employment areas. 19. To require that local municipalities, with fully serviced settlement areas, direct intensification to areas within the settlement area that are the best suited. 20. To identify County Roads 4, 73 and 19 and the County roads that parallel the Lake Erie Shoreline as the primary tourism corridors in the County. 21. To require local municipalities in their Official Plans to permit tourism and recreation related uses in appropriate areas. 22. To require local municipalities to pre -zone lands within their community for employment uses wherever possible. In order to implement the above objectives, a series of geographic specific strategies are required, as discussed later in this paper. County of Elgin Directions Report - Final Draft 36 June 2011 16 3.0 GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 GROWTH MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) clearly requires upper tier planning authorities to allocate expected population and employment growth to each of the lower tier municipalities. While the PPS requires planning authorities to do many things either through policy or through the decision - making process, the PPS is very specific about the responsibility for this decision, since it very specifically references an "upper tier" planning authority. In a high growth area, where there are many choices to be made and many possible options for location of growth, the process of allocating population and employment growth has much more to do about where it is appropriate to accommodate additional growth for community building, infrastructure or other reasons. In cases such as these, a number of criteria are developed and options with respect to new growth areas are identified and then decisions are made on which ones are the most appropriate. Factors to consider in that type of exercise are many and they include impacts on agriculture, nature heritage features, transportation and infrastructure, location of employment and proximity and availability of other community services. However, in a circumstance where the amount of land available for development significantly exceeds the amount of growth expected, the process for considering population and employment must be different. The land supply surplus situation in the County of Elgin is very common in most of Ontario, with the exception of the Regions around the Greater Toronto Area. The decisions on the location and extent of designated land and the upgrading of infrastructure to accommodate growth in the County of Elgin have already been made, with some of these decisions being made some time ago, but with many of these decisions occurring more recently. It is noted that most of the decisions made to designate land for development were made by the Province and that much of the work completed to upgrade wastewater and water treatment plants required the Provincial approval of Environmental Assessments and /or the issuance of Provincial Certificates of Approval. To a very large extent, each individual municipality in the County has carried out land use planning in a manner that they believed was appropriate for their future. Almost all of this planning was done in good faith and based on expectations that the population would continue to increase in the County. In some municipalities, there was and is a clear anticipation that additional population will be attracted as a result of the area's amenities and quality of life. As noted above, the Province has been the approval authority responsible for all major planning decisions in the County. All of these approvals would have been deemed to be 'consistent with or have 'regard to Provincial policy that was in effect at the time, beginning with the Growth and Settlement 'guidelines' in 1992, the Comprehensive Set County of Elgin Directions Report - Final Draft 37 June 2011 17 of Policy Statements (1994 to 1996) and the Provincial Policy Statement (1997 to 2005) . Many of the Provincial policies in place prior to the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement required that each individual municipality prepare plans to accommodate growth projected for a time horizon of up to 20 years (such as Sections 1.1.1 c. and 1.1.2 a. of the 1997 PPS working in tandem). To a very large extent, the historic Provincial policy requirement for each municipality to plan for growth led to the preparation and approval of Official Plan policies in a County that accomplished that objective. All of these Provincial decisions collectively provided for the designation of lands that would result in the population of the County significantly exceeding the population and employment now forecasted for the County. In order to service expected population and employment growth, some municipalities embarked on ambitious infrastructure upgrading programs to ensure that projected growth was accommodated. On the basis of all of the above, a key decision and outcome of the current Official Plan exercise in Elgin will be how the scale, location and extent of already designated lands are dealt with in each of the lower tier Official Plans. In addition, it is recognized that Section 1.2.2 of the PPS requires upper tier planning authorities to allocate population and employment to the lower tier municipalities. In the case of the County of Elgin, there are 35 Settlement Areas that are on partial or private services. If it is assumed that the average lot size in these settlements is one hectare, the potential exists for there to be up to about 600 new lots created in these settlements. The remaining 16 Settlement Areas in the County are on full municipal services. Based on our calculations, there is the potential to accommodate in excess of 20,000 units on these lands. The number of people that could be accommodated in these full serviced Settlement Areas exceeds the amount of population expected for the County of Elgin as a whole (net of St. Thomas). Given the significant supply of land for development in the County, any 'growth allocation' process as per Section 1.2.2 of the PPS in Elgin should be restricted to prioritizing where development should go on the basis of the nature of the servicing. In addition, given that the focus of the Province is to direct growth to serviced settlement areas, the establishment of an allocation strategy that focuses on the fully serviced settlements in the County then has a considerable amount of merit. This recommendation is being made since it is recognized that any lower tier allocation will not act as a control on the amount of development that can occur within the fully serviced settlements, provided the lands within those settlement areas are designated for development and can be serviced. In addition, the allocations would have no impact on intensification proposals, provided the intensification is good planning and supported by the Official Plan in the form proposed. Applications to develop lands that are currently designated for development and within the urban boundary, but which have the effect of exceeding the any applied allocation are also County of Elgin Directions Report - Final Draft 38 June 2011 18 recommended to be considered by the Municipality provided a number of "good planning" tests are met. As a result, the establishment of allocation numbers for the fully serviced settlements does not have an effect on the amount of development that can occur in those fully serviced settlements. With respect to the lands within the Settlement Areas on partial and private services, the land use designations in effect do provide for development on these types of services, provided a number of tests are met. Given that the Province will not require the un- designation of lands, these designations will continue to exist. In other words, no matter what the forecast and allocation is, landowners with Official Plan designations in partially or privately serviced Settlement Areas do have the ability to submit applications for development in accordance with Official Plan policy and since these lands are in Settlement Areas, the development of these lands would generally be supported by Provincial Policy. As a result of the above, the inclusion of a number in the Official Plan that allocates a certain amount of population and employment growth has no impact on existing development approvals in Settlement Areas. In addition, it is very difficult to determine how much of this land that is designated will be taken up by development prior to 2031. In many cases, lands may not be developed in this time period. Notwithstanding the above, it is recommended that lower tier municipalities review the boundaries of their settlement areas to determine whether they continue to be appropriate. 3.2 PLANNING FOR EMPLOYMENT The manufacturing sector has been significantly hard hit in Ontario. Between 2004 and 2008, almost 1 in 5 (or 18 %) manufacturing sector jobs have been eliminated. Many of these losses have occurred in smaller communities, were the impacts of economic contraction and job loss are much more harshly felt. A plant closure of 250 workers in a town of 25,000 persons for example, has a much more protracted impact on the overall economic well -being of a community than a similar closure in a city with of 250,000 people. The economic landscape of Elgin County is clearly undergoing a transition toward a more service -based economy. Increasingly, the types of jobs being created in Elgin are those aligned with the needs of residents, tourists or both. The commercial sector continues to play an important role in the diversification of the County's economic base, and has helped to stimulate the development of a vital and growing tourism and leisure base. It is also true that small, entrepreneurial based businesses have significantly outpaced the development of larger industrial plant -type operations which have generally been retreating rather than expanding over the past decade. The County's recent economic development strategy points quite clearly to the growing importance of small business, education, tourism, professional services and healthcare as important sources of economic growth for all of Elgin. Over the past 10 -15 years, Elgin County has quickly emerged as a popular day -trip destination for residents that live outside of Elgin County. The area provides County of Elgin Directions Report - Final Draft 39 June 2011 19 exceptional opportunities for "main- street" shopping, fine dining, live theatre, cultural events as well as a broad range of outdoor recreational and leisure pursuits. As the popularity of the County grows, the business community has worked closely with local and County officials as well as other levels of government to help broaden the area's market appeal, and to convert many of the day- trippers into overnight and longer -term visitors and guest. As people "discover" Elgin County there are also a growing number of visitors who understand the lifestyle benefits of moving their families or retiring in the County. Given that the employment land supply in Elgin County is now in an over - supply position, municipal planning departments in the County should carefully consider the opportunity of permitting a greater degree of flexibility to business ventures in terms of the use and reuse of industrial properties. These opportunities may involve commercial, recreational and potentially institutional uses - provided that they are supportable from a market demand perspective; and that they don't compromise the planned function or long -term viability of existing businesses that are situated on adjacent or nearby properties. Notwithstanding the long -term over - supply of vacant employment lands, the fully serviced settlements in the County should still continue to maintain, at all times, a healthy supply of well - located and readily serviceable employment lands. We would strongly discourage the conversion of any lands within any of these settlements over the next five years unless it can be clearly demonstrated by the proponent that: (a) such a conversion would ultimately be beneficial to the local business community; (b) it will help strengthen the character of the immediate area; and (c) it will help advance the economic well -being of the community as a whole by creating jobs and additional non - residential assessment. In moving forward any application, a developer /proponent should also clearly demonstrate that the proposed use couldn't be "reasonably" accommodated on vacant lands elsewhere in the community that would otherwise permit such use as of right. 3.3 AGRICULTURAL USES The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) requires that Prime Agricultural Areas be protected for agricultural use. Once lands are included within a Prime Agricultural Area, uses are restricted to agricultural uses, agriculture- related uses and secondary uses. During the course of our review of the issue, a number of options with respect to the range of uses that should be permitted in agricultural areas were identified. The PPS defines agricultural uses in the broadest manner possible to encourage as many types of agriculture as possible in Prime Agricultural Areas. Agriculture- related uses are defined as uses which may be located on a separate lot, but which support the farm operation. There is an intrinsic contradiction within the definition of agriculture- related uses, since a use on a separate lot cannot be legally tied or related to a use on another lot. In any event, if the contradiction in the definition is not a component of developing appropriate policy, the range of potential County of Elgin Directions Report - Final Draft 40 June 2011 20 agriculture- related uses is extensive, provided they are clearly supportive of the agricultural uses in the area, depend upon those agricultural uses and /or provide a service primarily to the agricultural community. Given the amount of land within the Prime Agricultural Area in the County, it is recommended that the broadest range of agriculture- related uses be permitted as per the PPS. This means that any use which primarily processes and /or stores agricultural products from the immediate area should be permitted. In addition to the above, it is also recommended that uses such as agricultural research and training establishments and farm related tourism establishments be considered as permitted uses within the Prime Agricultural Area. An agricultural research and training establishment would be a facility where research and educational activities take place. Such a use could be considered an agricultural use as per the definition of `Agricultural Use' in the 2005 PPS, since it would be expected that the growing of crops or the raising of livestock would occur on site. This use could be permitted provided that the use is related to and will benefit the agricultural industry, the use will assist in the furthering of knowledge of the agricultural sector of the economy and the use will assist local farmers through training and the identification of improved methods and procedures. With respect to farm related tourism establishments, many municipalities have encouraged uses that highlight the importance and value of the agriculture and agri- business in the community. Examples of such uses include art galleries, artist studios, farm machinery and equipment exhibitions, farm tours, holiday related exhibitions and small -scale educational establishments that are focused on farming instruction. However, if such a use is to be considered, the use must clearly be associated with agriculture and highlight the importance of agriculture to the economy. One other possible growth industry in the County relates to wine making and it is expected that wineries will continue to be established in the County in the future as more areas in the Province become more attractive for wine making. These types of uses are popular in the Niagara Region and other areas such as Prince Edward County. However, given the many uses that are potentially associated with a winery, there is a need to ensure that the uses associated with a winery do not change the character of the area and /or have an impact on the primary function of the Prime Agricultural Area. There are also opportunities with respect to culinary tourism, particularly for those in the urban areas looking for unique foods in unique settings. Given the nature of our charging and more mobile society, we believe that there will be much more of an interest in this type of experience in the future. In order to ensure that the broadest range of agricultural uses are provided for in the County of Elgin, it is recommended that the following definition of agricultural use be considered: "Any farming or agricultural use and includes apiaries, aviaries, berry or bush crops, breeding, raising, training or boarding of horses or cattle, commercial greenhouses, farms devoted to the hatching, raising and marketing of chickens, turkeys or other fowl or game birds, animals, fish or frogs, farms for grazing, flower gardening, field crops, goat or cattle dairies, growing, raising, picking, treating and storing of County of Elgin Directions Report - Final Draft 41 June 2011 21 vegetables, fruit or tobacco (or similar crops) produced on the premises, nurseries, orchards, riding stables, the raising of sheep or goats, the raising of swine, tree crops, market gardening, bee keeping, and such uses or enterprises as are customarily carried on in the field of general agriculture. "Farm" includes a single detached dwelling, and such principal or main buildings and structures as a barn or silo, as well as accessory buildings and structures which are incidental to the operation of the farm." It is recommended that the following uses be considered as agriculture- related uses as per the PPS in the County of Elgin Official Plan. • Agricultural research and training - provided that the use is related to and will benefit the agricultural industry, the use will assist in the furthering of knowledge of the agricultural sector of the economy and the use will assist local farmers through training and the identification of improved methods and procedures; • Agricultural storage and processing - involving the storage and processing of crops and /or livestock that is predominantly from the surrounding area; • Farm related tourism establishments - such as machinery and equipment exhibitions, farm - tours, petting zoos, hay rides, sleigh rides, processing demonstrations, pick your own produce, farm theme playground for children and small scale educational establishments that focus on farming instruction (which may include limited residential accommodation); • Farm vacation homes (with 5 to 6 rooms); • Farm and Estate wineries - where wines are produced and may include storage display, processing, wine tasting, storage, hospitality room, administrative facilities, outdoor patio area, an on site restaurant, dining facility, commercial kitchen, banquet hall, retail facility or other amenity; and, • Seasonal home grown produce stands. With respect to secondary uses, the simple test for a secondary use is that it has to be secondary or accessory to the principle use on the property. If the principle use is agriculture, then the secondary use must be accessory to and subordinate to the agricultural use. If the use on the property is residential in the form of a single detached dwelling, then the secondary use has to be accessory to the single detached dwelling. There are many ways to measure whether a use is secondary to another use on the property. Factors to consider in making this determination include: • The amount of land devoted to the accessory use in comparison to the amount of land devoted to the principle use; • The size of the building housing the secondary use in relation to the sizes of building(s) accommodating the principle use; • The nature of the use itself and whether the secondary use is operated by the owner of the property; County of Elgin Directions Report - Final Draft 42 June 2011 22 • The number of people employed by the secondary use in relation to the number of people by the principle use; • The extent to which retail sales occur as a component of the secondary use; • The amount of traffic accessing the secondary use in relation to the principle use of the property. With any of the above, the key test is whether the scale of the secondary use is not subordinate to the scale of the principle use of the property. In terms of approaches, the County Official Plan could require local municipalities to permit a range of agriculture- related uses as -of -right in their Official Plans, along with a defined range of secondary uses. 3.4 NATURAL HERITAGE The Provincial Policy Statement requires that Natural Heritage Areas be protected for the long term. In many upper tier municipalities, this is accomplished by establishing a Natural Heritage System that is based on a comprehensive review of the location of Natural Heritage Features and the connections and linkages between these features. Given that almost of the lower tier municipalities have not yet established Natural Heritage Systems, it is our recommendation that a new County Official Plan indicate that a County wide Natural Heritage System is to be developed, but only in the future, most likely at the time of an Official Plan Review. County of Elgin Directions Report - Final Draft 43 June 2011 23 4.0 POTENTIAL OFFICIAL PLAN FRAMEWORK Given that the new Official Plan will apply in an area in which each of the lower tier municipalities already have Official Plans, there is no need for the Elgin Official Plan to be overly prescriptive, as set out in previous sections of this paper. However, there is a need for the County Official Plan to establish a series of land use designations which recognize the role of the County's Plan in relation to the role of the seven lower tier Official Plans. In this regard, it is recommended that the new County Official Plan have two land use designations and a series of overlay designations. The two land use designations would apply to the two primary land uses within the County as described below: 1. Settlement Areas - There is a need to establish a settlement area designation. There are three types of settlements based on the nature of servicing - full municipal services, partial services and private services. Given the amount of land available for development and the desire to focus development in areas with full municipal services, it is recommended that a three -tier settlement area structure be established that is based on the nature of the services being provided. The first tier (Tier 1) would include all of those settlement areas that have full municipal services and the boundaries of these settlement areas would be shown on the schedules to the County Official Plan. The second tier (Tier 2) would include those settlements that are on partial services, and their boundaries would also be shown on the schedules to the Official Plan. The third tier (Tier 3) would include those settlements that do not have any services and given their size, the settlement area would be identified on the schedules to the Official Plan by a symbol. The actual extent of these settlement areas would be determined and established in the lower tier Official Plan. 2. Agricultural Designation - This designation would apply to the Prime Agricultural Area in the County. The extent of the Agricultural designation would reflect the extent of the agricultural designations in the lower tier Official Plans. A series of overlay designations are also recommended as described below: 1. Environmental Area - This designation would recognize the environment designations that have been established in each of the seven lower tier Official Plans. The designation is intended to reflect the extent of natural heritage features, but is not a designation that would reflect the location of a Natural Heritage System. Given that each local municipality approach to the designation of County of Elgin Directions Report - Final Draft 44 June 2011 24 environmental lands in different ways, it would not be appropriate to include these environmental lands as a land use designation and instead it is much more appropriate to include these lands within an overlay designation. 2. Aggregate Resource Area and Petroleum Resource Area - These overlay designations would apply to lands that have been identified as being the site of primary and secondary sand and gravel resources or petroleum resource areas by the Province of Ontario. The intent of the overlay is to simply identify where the resources are located, according to the Province. The approval process for a new pit or quarry would be set out by the lower tier Official Plan. 3. Active and Inactive Waste Disposal Sites - These sites would be identified on the schedules by way of a symbol. The extent and significance of each, would be established by the lower tier Official Plan. In addition to the above, the schedules to the Official Plan would clearly identify the extent of the Provincial and County Road System and also could potentially identify the Highway 3 Bypass around Aylmer. The Transportation schedule would also identify the main tourism corridors on the County road system. Draft mapping showing the two proposed schedules to the Official Plan is attached. County of Elgin Directions Report - Final Draft 45 June 2011 25 5.0 WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE This Directions Report is intended to stimulate discussion. Additions or deletions to the draft goals and objectives presented in this report are encouraged. Opinions on how the vision can be formulated are encouraged. And lastly, any thoughts on the beginnings of an Official Plan framework are appreciated. County of Elgin Directions Report - Final Draft 46 June 2011 26 APPENDIX 1 - REQUIREMENTS FOR PLANNING AUTHORITIES The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) contains a number of references to `planning authorities', in terms of what they are required to do to implement the policies of the Province of Ontario. In most cases, there is no distinction between an upper tier or lower tier planning authority in the PPS, however there are a number of very specific policies that are clearly intended to be applied and implemented by upper tier planning authorities. In most cases, the planning authority reference in the PPS is followed by the word "shall ". The use of the word "shall" means that the policy is mandatory. However, there is still some flexibility in this regard that takes local context into account. Other words are used in the PPS as well which are not mandatory, such as "may ", "should" and "will ". These latter terms provide direction in terms of their implementation, however the nature of their implementation is much dependant upon the local context. The policies that reference planning authorities and which are associated with the word "shall" have a direct impact on the policy framework established in the County of Elgin Official Plan. Table 1 below identifies these very specific types of policies and provides some initial comments on their implications on the County of Elgin. Many of the policies included on Table 1 are discussed in later sections of this paper. Table 1: Requirements for Planning Authorities in the PPS PPS Section Comment 1.1.3.3 - Planning authorities shall identify This section indicates that planning authorities are required to identify and promote opportunities for intensification and redevelopment. Given that such intensification and redevelopment will most likely occur within serviced urban areas, it would be the role of the lower tier municipalities in the County of Elgin to identify and promote these opportunities. However, the County Official Plan will need to establish a broad policy basis for these local effects. and promote opportunities for intensification and redevelopment where this can be accommodated taking into account existing building stock or areas, including brownfield sites, and the availability of suitable existing or planned infrastructure and public service facilities required to accommodate projected needs. 1.1.3.5 - Planning authorities shall establish As with Section 1.1.3.3 above, the responsibility for establishing and implementing minimum targets should rest with the lower tier planning authorities, who have jurisdiction over the urban areas in the County and the services that are available for these urban areas. However, a later section in the PPS (Section 1.2.2) specifically indicates that the responsibility for establishing targets rests with the County of Elgin. and implement minimum targets for intensification and redevelopment within built -up areas. However, where provincial targets are established through provincial plans, the provincial target shall represent the minimum target for affected areas. 1.1.3.6 - Planning authorities shall establish The responsibility for establishing and implementing phasing policies should also rest with the lower tier planning authorities. The intent of this section is to ensure that the expansion of urban areas only occurs when opportunities to develop through the process of intensification have been identified and related targets have been established. and implement phasing policies to ensure that specified targets for intensification and redevelopment are achieved prior to, or concurrent with, new development within designated growth areas. 1.1.3.8 - Planning authorities shall establish This policy is similar to Section 1.1.3.6, except that it deals with infrastructure and public service facilities. and implement phasing policies to ensure the orderly progression of development within designated growth areas and the timely County of Elgin Directions Report - Final Draft 47 June 2011 27 provision of the infrastructure and public service facilities required to meet current and projected needs. 1.1.3.9 - A planning authority may identify a settlement area or allow the expansion of a settlement area boundary only at the time of a comprehensive review and only where it has been demonstrated that: a) sufficient opportunities for growth are not available through intensification, redevelopment and designated growth areas to accommodate the projected needs over the identified planning horizon; b) the infrastructure and public service facilities which are planned or available are suitable for the development over the long term and protect public health and safety; c) in prime agricultural areas: 1. the lands do not comprise specialty crop areas; 2. there are no reasonable alternatives which avoid prime agricultural areas; and 3. there are no reasonable alternatives on lower priority agricultural lands in prime agricultural areas; and d) impacts from new or expanding settlement areas on agricultural operations which are adjacent or close to the settlement area are mitigated to the extent feasible. This section establishes the criteria that need to be considered when evaluating an expansion of a settlement area boundary. The key term in this section is "comprehensive review ". This term is defined in the PPS as "an Official Plan Review which is initiated by a planning authority; or an Official Plan Amendment which is initiated or adopted by a planning authority which is based on a review of population and growth projections and which reflect projections and allocations by upper tier municipalities and Provincial Plans..." Such a comprehensive review can be initiated by the County or a local municipality. The criteria to consider in either case is the same. 1.2.2 - Where planning is conducted by an upper -tier municipality, the upper -tier municipality in consultation with lower -tier municipalities shall: a) identify, coordinate and allocate population, housing and employment projections for lower -tier municipalities. Allocations and projections by upper -tier municipalities shall be based on and reflect provincial plans where these exist; b) identify areas where growth will be directed, including the identification of nodes and the corridors linking these nodes; c) identify targets for intensification and redevelopment within all or and of the lower - tier municipalities, including minimum targets that should be met before expansion of the boundaries of settlement areas is permitted in accordance with policy 1.1.3.9; d) where transit corridors exist or are to be developed, identify density targets for areas adjacent or in proximity to these corridors, including minimum targets that should be met before expansion of the boundaries of settlement areas is permitted in accordance with policy 1.1.3.9; and e) identify and provide policy direction for the lower -tier municipalities on matters that This section specifically indicates that upper tier planning authorities such as the County of Elgin shall do a number of things within its Official Plan. These include identifying, coordinating and allocating population, housing and employment growth, identifying areas where growth will be directed, identifying targets for intensification and redevelopment within all of the lower tier municipalities, identifying density targets where transit corridors exist and providing policy direction for the lower tier municipalities on matters that cross municipal boundaries. County of Elgin Directions Report - Final Draft 48 June 2011 28 cross municipal boundaries. 1.3.1 - Planning authorities shall promote This section indicates that planning authorities shall promote economic development and competiveness by doing certain things, which are set out in subsections a) to d). Section a) indicates that economic development and competiveness should be promoted by providing for a mix in range of employment uses to meet long term needs. Subsection b) indicates that a range of suitable sites that support a wide range of economic activities that provide for a diversified economic base should be promoted. The needs of existing and future businesses must also be taken into account. Lastly, employment areas should be protected and preserved for current and future uses. Policies that implement the above could be contained in both the upper tier and lower tier Official Plans. economic development and competitiveness by: a) providing for an appropriate mix and range of employment (including industrial, commercial and institutional uses) to meet long -term needs; b) providing opportunities for a diversified economic base, including maintaining a range and choice of suitable sites for employment uses which support a wide range of economic activities and ancillary uses, and take into account the needs of existing and future businesses; c) planning for, protecting and preserving employment areas for current and future uses; and d) ensuring the necessary infrastructure is provided to support current and projected needs. 1.3.2 - Planning authorities may permit This section indicates that the conversion of lands from employment to non - employment uses can only occur through a comprehensive review. This section establishes the criteria that need to be considered when evaluating an expansion of a settlement area boundary. The key term in this section is "comprehensive review ". This term is defined in the PPS as "an Official Plan Review which is initiated by a planning authority; or an Official Plan Amendment which is initiated or adopted by a planning authority which is based on a review of population and growth projections and which reflect projections and allocations by upper tier municipalities and Provincial Plans..." Such a comprehensive review can be initiated by the County or a local municipality. The criteria to consider in either case is the same. conversion of lands within employment areas to non - employment uses through a comprehensive review, only where it has been demonstrated that the land is not required for employment purposes over the long term and that there is a need for the conversion. 1.4.1 - To provide for an appropriate range of This section indicates that planning authorities shall maintain an appropriate land supply for development. The key term in this section "regional market area" which is defined as "an area, generally broader than a lower tier municipality, that has a high degree of social and economic interaction. In Southern Ontario, the upper or single tier municipality will normally serve as the regional market area." In the County of Elgin context, the regional market area is then the County of Elgin itself. This means that not every lower tier municipality is required to maintain the required supply of land for development. housing types and densities required to meet projected requirements of current and future residents of the regional market area identified in policy 1.4.3, planning authorities shall: a) maintain at all times the ability to accommodate residential growth for a minimum of 10 years through residential intensification and redevelopment and, if necessary, lands which are designated and available for residential development; and b) maintain at all times where new development is to occur, land with servicing capacity sufficient to provide at least a 3 year supply of residential units available through lands suitably zoned to facilitate residential intensification and redevelopment, and land in draft approved and registered plans. 1.4.2 - Where planning is conducted by an This section indicates that the land and unit supply maintained by lower tier municipalities shall reflect the allocation of population by the upper tier municipalities, as required by Section 1.1.3.9 of the PPS. It is noted upper -tier municipality: a) the land and unit supply maintained by the County of Elgin Directions Report - Final Draft 49 June 2011 29 lower -tier municipality identified in policy 1.4.1 shall be based on and reflect the allocation of population and units by the upper -tier municipality; and b) the allocation of population and units by the upper -tier municipality shall be based on and reflect provincial plans where these exist. that no Provincial Plans as defined apply in the County of Elgin. 1.4.3 - Planning authorities shall provide for This section again references the regional market area. This section does not differentiate between which planning authority would be responsible for carrying out this function. However, it is noted that the upper tier municipality may identify a higher target. In addition, it is expected that the County Official Plan will establish some affordable housing targets. an appropriate range of housing types and densities to meet projected requirements of current and future residents of the regional market area by: a) establishing and implementing minimum targets for the provision of housing which is affordable to low and moderate income households. However, where planning is conducted by an upper -tier municipality, the upper -tier municipality in consultation with the lower -tier municipalities may identify a higher target(s) which shall represent the minimum target(s) for these lower -tier municipalities; b) permitting and facilitating: 1. all forms of housing required to meet the social, health and well -being requirements of current and future residents, including special needs requirements; and 2. all forms of residential intensification and redevelopment in accordance with policy 1.1.3.3; c) directing the development of new housing towards locations where appropriate levels of infrastructure and public service facilities are or will be available to support current and projected needs; d) promoting densities for new housing which efficiently use land, resources, infrastructure and public service facilities, and support the use of alternative transportation modes and public transit in areas where it exists or is to be developed; and e) establishing development standards for residential intensification, redevelopment and new residential development which minimize the cost of housing and facilitate compact form, while maintaining appropriate levels of public health and safety. 1.6.6.1 - Planning authorities shall plan for This section indicates that planning authorities shall plan for and protect corridors or transportation needs. In the case of the County of Elgin, the Provincial Highway 3 By- pass is an example of a transportation corridor. Given that the by -pass extends through two lower tier municipalities, it is expected that the County Plan will identify this by -pass to implement Section 1.2.2 e) of the PPS. and protect corridors and rights -of -way for transportation, transit and infrastructure facilities to meet current and projected needs. 1.6.6.2 - Planning authorities shall not This section indicates that once a transportation corridor is identified, development that would have an impact on that corridor is not permitted. permit development in planned corridors that could preclude or negatively affect the use of the corridor for the purpose(s) for which it County of Elgin Directions Report - Final Draft 50 June 2011 30 was identified. 1.8.1 - Planning authorities shall support This section indicates that the planning authority shall energy efficiency and improved air quality support energy efficiency and improved air quality through land use and development patterns through land use and development patterns that meet a which: number of criteria. It is expected that the County Plan will provide some basic policy direction in this regard. a) promote compact form and a structure of nodes and corridors; b) promote the use of public transit and other alternative transportation modes in and between residential, employment (including commercial, industrial and institutional uses) and other areas where these exist or are to be developed; c) focus major employment, commercial and other travel - intensive land uses on sites which are well served by public transit where this exists or is to be developed, or designing these to facilitate the establishment of public transit in the future; d) improve the mix of employment and housing uses to shorten commute journeys and decrease transportation congestion; and e) promote design and orientation which maximize the use of alternative or renewable energy, such as solar and wind energy, and the mitigating effects of vegetation. 2.2.1 - Planning authorities shall protect, This section requires planning authorities to protect, improve or restore the quality and quantity of improve or restore the quality and quantity of water by water by: doing certain things. It is anticipated that the source protection plans now being prepared will provide the a) using the watershed as the ecologically basis for the preparation of policies that will have an meaningful scale for planning; impact on areas that have an impact on municipal water b) minimizing potential negative impacts, supplies. These source protections plans will be including cross - jurisdictional and cross- completed by 2013. In the interim, the County Plan will watershed impacts; need to include some policy that protects water c) identifying surface water features, ground resources from incompatible development. water features, hydrologic functions and natural heritage features and areas which are necessary for the ecological and hydrological integrity of the watershed; d) implementing necessary restrictions on development and site alteration to: 1. protect all municipal drinking water supplies and designated vulnerable areas; and 2. protect, improve or restore vulnerable surface and ground water, sensitive surface water features and sensitive ground water features, and their hydrologic functions; e) maintaining linkages and related functions among surface water features, ground water features, hydrologic functions and natural heritage features and areas; f) promoting efficient and sustainable use of water resources, including practices for water conservation and sustaining water quality; and g) ensuring stormwater management practices minimize stormwater volumes and contaminant loads, and maintain or increase the extent of vegetative and pervious surfaces. County of Elgin Directions Report - Final Draft 51 June 2011 31 2.3.2 - Planning authorities shall designate No such speciality crop areas exist in the County of Elgin. specialty crop areas in accordance with evaluation procedures established by the Province, as amended from time to time. 2.3.5.1 Planning authorities may only This section indicates that prime agricultural land can exclude land from prime agricultural areas only be removed for a settlement area expansion at the for: time of a comprehensive review. However, prime agricultural land may be removed for certain types of a) expansions of or identification of other uses as identified. See comments relating to settlement areas in accordance with policy 'comprehensive review' in Sections 1.1.3.9, 1.3.2, 1.4.2 1.1.3.9; and 1.4.3 of the PPS. b) extraction of minerals, petroleum resources and mineral aggregate resources, in accordance with policies 2.4 and 2.5; and c) limited non - residential uses, provided that: 1. the land does not comprise a specialty crop area; 2. there is a demonstrated need within the planning horizon provided for in policy 1.1.2 for additional land to be designated to accommodate the proposed use; 3. there are no reasonable alternative locations which avoid prime agricultural areas; and 4. there are no reasonable alternative locations in prime agricultural areas with lower priority agricultural lands. County of Elgin Directions Report - Final Draft 52 June 2011 32 APPENDIX 2 - THE USE OF THE WORD "SHALL" The use of the word "shall" in the PPS means that the policy is mandatory. This means that the policy is required to be implemented by the planning authority (which could be the upper tier or lower tier planning authority or both) when making decisions on a Planning Act application. Given the mandatory nature of the policy language, most Official Plans simply reproduce the policy by using the same or similar language. Table 2 below identifies those policies that are required to be implemented in a Planning Act decision - making process and which have an impact on the County of Elgin Official Plan. Table 2: The Use of the Word `shall' in the PPS PPS Section 1.1.2 - Sufficient land shall be made available through intensification and redevelopment and, if necessary, designated growth areas, to accommodate an appropriate range and mix of employment opportunities, housing and other land uses to meet projected needs for a time horizon of up to 20 years. However, where an alternate time period has been established for specific areas of the Province as a result of a provincial planning exercise or a provincial plan, that time frame may be used for municipalities within the area. 1.1.3.1 - Settlement areas shall be the focus of growth and their vitality and regeneration shall be promoted. County of Elgin Directions Report - Final Draft 53 June 2011 33 .1.3.2 - Land use patterns within settlement areas shall be based on: a) densities and a mix of land uses which: 1. efficiently use land and resources; 2. are appropriate for, and efficiently use, the infrastructure and public service facilities which are planned or available, and avoid the need for their unjustified and /or uneconomical expansion; and 3. minimize negative impacts to air quality and climate change, and promote energy efficiency in accordance with policy 1.8; and b) a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment in accordance with the criteria in policy 1.1.3.3. 1.6.1 - Infrastructure and public service facilities shall be provided in a coordinated, efficient and cost - effective manner to accommodate projected needs. Planning for infrastructure and public service facilities shall be integrated with planning for growth so that these are available to meet current and projected needs. 1.6.4.1 - Planning for sewage and water services shall: a) direct and accommodate expected growth in a manner that promotes the efficient use of existing: 1. municipal sewage services and municipal water services; and 2. private communal sewage services and private communal water services, where municipal sewage services and municipal water services are not available; b) ensure that these systems are provided in a manner that: 1. can be sustained by the water resources upon which such services rely; 2. is financially viable and complies with all regulatory requirements; and 3. protects human health and the natural environment; c) promote water conservation and water use efficiency; d) integrate servicing and land use considerations at all stages of the planning process; and e) subject to the hierarchy of services provided in policies 1.6.4.2, 1.6.4.3 and 1.6.4.4, allow lot creation only if there is confirmation of sufficient reserve sewage system capacity and reserve water system capacity within municipal sewage services and municipal water services or private communal sewage services and private communal water services. The determination of sufficient reserve sewage system capacity shall include treatment capacity for hauled sewage from private communal sewage services and individual on -site sewage services. 1.6.4.4 - Individual on -site sewage services and individual on -site water services shall be used for a new development of five or less lots or private residences where municipal sewage services and municipal water services or private communal sewage services and private communal water services are not provided and where site conditions are suitable for the long -term provision of such services. Despite this, individual on -site sewage services and individual on -site water services may be used to service more than five lots or private residences in rural areas provided these services are solely for those uses permitted by policy 1.1.4.1(a) and site conditions are suitable for the long -term provision of such services. 1.6.4.5 - Partial services shall only be permitted in the following circumstances: a) where they are necessary to address failed individual on -site sewage services and individual on -site water services in existing development; and b) within settlement areas, to allow for infilling and rounding out of existing development on partial services provided that: 1. the development is within the reserve sewage system capacity and reserve water system capacity; and 2. site conditions are suitable for the long -term provision of such services. 1.6.5.2 - Efficient use shall be made of existing and planned infrastructure. 1.6.5.5 - Transportation and land use considerations shall be integrated at all stages of the planning process. County of Elgin Directions Report - Final Draft 54 June 2011 34 1.6.7.1 - Planning for land uses in the vicinity of airports shall be undertaken so that: a) the long -term operation and economic role of airports is protected; and b) airports and sensitive land uses are appropriately designed, buffered and /or separated from each other to prevent adverse effects from odour, noise and other contaminants. 1.6.7.2 - Airports shall be protected from incompatible land uses and development by: a) prohibiting new residential development and other sensitive land uses in areas near airports above 30 NEF /NEP, as set out on maps (as revised from time to time) that have been reviewed by Transport Canada; b) considering redevelopment of existing residential uses and other sensitive land uses or infilling of residential and other sensitive land uses in areas above 30 NEF /NEP only if it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the long -term function of the airport; and c) discouraging land uses which may cause a potential aviation safety hazard. 1.6.8.1 - Waste management systems need to be provided that are of an appropriate size and type to accommodate present and future requirements, and facilitate, encourage and promote reduction, reuse and recycling objectives. Waste management systems shall be located and designed in accordance with provincial legislation and standards. 1.8.3 - Alternative energy systems and renewable energy systems shall be permitted in settlement areas, rural areas and prime agricultural areas in accordance with provincial and federal requirements. In rural areas and prime agricultural areas, these systems should be designed and constructed to minimize impacts on agricultural operations. 2.1.1 - Natural features and areas shall be protected for the long term. 2.1.3 - Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in: a) significant habitat of endangered species and threatened species; b) significant wetlands in Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E1; and c) significant coastal wetlands. 2.1.4 - Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in: a) significant wetlands in the Canadian Shield north of Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E1; b) significant woodlands south and east of the Canadian Shield2; c) significant valleylands south and east of the Canadian Shield2; d) significant wildlife habitat; and e) significant areas of natural and scientific interest unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions. 2.1.5 - Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in fish habitat except in accordance with provincial and federal requirements. 2.1.6 - Development and site alteration shall not be permitted on adjacent lands to the natural heritage features and areas identified in policies 2.1.3, 2.1.4 and 2.1.5 unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on their ecological functions. 2.2.2 - Development and site alteration shall be restricted in or near sensitive surface water features and sensitive ground water features such that these features and their related hydrologic functions will be protected, improved or restored. Mitigative measures and /or alternative development approaches may be required in order to protect, improve or restore sensitive surface water features, sensitive ground water features, and their hydrologic functions. 2.3.1 - Prime agricultural areas shall be protected for long -term use for agriculture. Prime agricultural areas are areas where prime agricultural lands predominate. Specialty crop areas shall County of Elgin Directions Report - Final Draft 55 June 2011 35 be given the highest priority for protection, followed by Classes 1, 2 and 3 soils, in this order of priority. 2.3.3.2 - In prime agricultural areas, all types, sizes and intensities of agricultural uses and normal farm practices shall be promoted and protected in accordance with provincial standards. 2.3.3.3 - New land uses, including the creation of lots, and new or expanding livestock facilities shall comply with the minimum distance separation formulae. 2.3.4.3 - The creation of new residential lots in prime agricultural areas shall not be permitted, except in accordance with policy 2.3.4.1(c). 2.4.2.1 - Mineral mining operations and petroleum resource operations shall be protected from development and activities that would preclude or hinder their expansion or continued use or which would be incompatible for reasons of public health, public safety or environmental impact. 2.4.2.2 - In areas adjacent to or in known mineral deposits or known petroleum resources, and in significant areas of mineral potential and significant areas of petroleum potential, development and activities which would preclude or hinder the establishment of new operations or access to the resources shall only be permitted if: a) resource use would not be feasible; or b) the proposed land use or development serves a greater long -term public interest; and c) issues of public health, public safety and environmental impact are addressed. 2.4.3.1 - Rehabilitation to accommodate subsequent land uses shall be required after extraction and other related activities have ceased. Progressive rehabilitation should be undertaken wherever feasible. 2.5.1 - Mineral aggregate resources shall be protected for long -term use. 2.5.2.1 - As much of the mineral aggregate resources as is realistically possible shall be made available as close to markets as possible. Demonstration of need for mineral aggregate resources, including any type of supply /demand analysis, shall not be required, notwithstanding the availability, designation or licensing for extraction of mineral aggregate resources locally or elsewhere. 2.5.2.2 - Extraction shall be undertaken in a manner which minimizes social and environmental impacts. 2.5.2.4 - Mineral aggregate operations shall be protected from development and activities that would preclude or hinder their expansion or continued use or which would be incompatible for reasons of public health, public safety or environmental impact. Existing mineral aggregate operations shall be permitted to continue without the need for official plan amendment, rezoning or development permit under the Planning Act. When a license for extraction or operation ceases to exist, policy 2.5.2.5 continues to apply. 2.5.2.5 - In areas adjacent to or in known deposits of mineral aggregate resources, development and activities which would preclude or hinder the establishment of new operations or access to the resources shall only be permitted if: a) resource use would not be feasible; or b) the proposed land use or development serves a greater long -term public interest; and c) issues of public health, public safety and environmental impact are addressed. 2.5.3.1 - Progressive and final rehabilitation shall be required to accommodate subsequent land uses, to promote land use compatibility, and to recognize the interim nature of extraction. Final rehabilitation shall take surrounding land use and approved land use designations into consideration. 2.5.5.1 - Wayside pits and quarries, portable asphalt plants and portable concrete plants used on public authority contracts shall be permitted, without the need for an official plan amendment, rezoning, or development permit under the Planning Act in all areas, except those areas of existing development or particular environmental sensitivity which have been determined to be incompatible with extraction and associated activities. 2.6.2 - Development and site alteration shall only be permitted on lands containing archaeological resources or areas of archaeological potential if the significant archaeological resources have been conserved by removal and documentation, or by preservation on site. Where significant archaeological resources must be preserved on site, only development and site alteration which maintain the heritage integrity of the site may be permitted. County of Elgin Directions Report - Final Draft 56 June 2011 36 3.1.1 - Development shall generally be directed to areas outside of: a) hazardous lands adjacent to the shorelines of the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence River System and large inland lakes which are impacted by flooding hazards, erosion hazards and /or dynamic beach hazards; b) hazardous lands adjacent to river, stream and small inland lake systems which are impacted by flooding hazards and /or erosion hazards; and c) hazardous sites. 3.1.4 - Development shall not be permitted to locate in hazardous lands and hazardous sites where the use is: a) an institutional use associated with hospitals, nursing homes, pre- school, school nurseries, day care and schools, where there is a threat to the safe evacuation of the sick, the elderly, persons with disabilities or the young during an emergency as a result of flooding, failure of floodproofing measures or protection works, or erosion; b) an essential emergency service such as that provided by fire, police and ambulance stations and electrical substations, which would be impaired during an emergency as a result of flooding, the failure of floodproofing measures and /or protection works, and /or erosion; and c) uses associated with the disposal, manufacture, treatment or storage of hazardous substances. 3.2.2 - Contaminated sites shall be remediated as necessary prior to any activity on the site associated with the proposed use such that there will be no adverse effects. County of Elgin Directions Report - Final Draft 57 June 2011 37 Data Source: Data provided by the County of Elgin end the Ministry of Natural Resources Land Information Ontario. Copyright Queen's Printer W 2 .4111111 ml 0 0 0 o J O Nal - pN./ 'EN atOWl3� Dto i/ \ � � P � � E o °w / � / / �/ A rY ti s /P ��.� ,� � / i!a! v 4 P • � �y �"" .' � �, / � � HN 117 • EN TNRe AL ELGIN, 17LMt R p G� rOC/ N MJ A LAHIDE' o s6 f M<� e 36 P � � Z n 841 � • ' C�� F � G O .'y s �aNO y \ / 3 36 E 40 sa a DUTTONIDUNWICHs #1 a, < v �N F • G �< a Q 3 / o= v pN •WHO b 0 g' J 2ti165* N O O II - Provincial Highway © Airport - County Road Active Rail Line Local Road * Active Waste Disposal County of Elgin Official Plan Schedule 'B' Transportation REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Alan Smith, General Manager, Economic Development DATE: July 11th, 2011 SUBJECT: SCOR Resource Committee INTRODUCTION: The County of Elgin along with the counties of Brant, Norfolk, Middlesex, and Oxford form a municipal partnership comprising the South Central Ontario Region or SCOR. In 2010, SCOR became incorporated - the SCOR Economic Development Corporation. A Board of Directors was formed and an economic development office established. Assisting the General Manager of SCOR and the Board of Directors is a Resource Advisory Group consisting of two staff members appointed by each member county. With the retirement of Heather Adams from the Town of Aylmer, leaves the County's General Manager of Economic Development as the only representative from Elgin County on the Committee. Consequently, a request from SCOR has been received by the County of Elgin for a staff appointment to the SCOR Resource Advisory Committee. DISCUSSION: The Resource Advisory Group, now a Standing Committee of SCOR, played a vital role in the establishment of the SCOR Economic Development Corporation. As indicated in appendix one, this role continues to be significant as the Group: • provides continuity with the strategic planning work that is the foundation for SCOR's mandate; • supports integration and coordination of regional activity with municipal and other government work; • informs SCOR decisions with their knowledge of the work of other economic agencies, both public and private; • supports regional communications; • Participates in project work including membership on project steering committees. As mentioned, the Group consists of two staff members appointed by each Member County. The staff appointments are by the CAOs of the respective Counties when vacancies occur. In the two -tier Counties, like Elgin, this appointment can be drawn from staff of either the County or the local municipalities. However, the staff person(s) must have responsibilities associated with economic development. With the retirement of Heather Adams, former Administrator for the Town of Aylmer, a vacancy now exists on the Resource Advisory Group. In a letter dated June 13th, 2011, Mayor Couckuyt has requested that the recently appointed Administrator, Jenny Reynaert, replace Ms. Adams on the Resource Advisory Group (refer to appendix two). Staff supports this appointment as the Town of Aylmer continues to play an active role in local and regional economic development — thus meeting SCOR's requirements for appointments. 60 CONCLUSION: The SCOR EDC office has now been operating for 8 months, and progress has been made on implementing some of the Priorities for Action as described in the SCOR Strategic Management Plan: The Path Forward. In order for SCOR to continue to progress and reach its strategic objectives requires support from the Resource Advisory Group. Due to the retirement of Aylmer's Administrator earlier this year, an Elgin County vacancy now exists on the Group. Given the continuing role the Town of Aylmer has in local and regional economic development, it is recommended that the new Administrator for the Town of Aylmer, Jenny Reynaert, join the County's General Manager of Economic Development to represent Elgin County. RECOMMENDATION: THAT Elgin County Council appoints the Town of Aylmer's Administrator, Jenny Reynaert, to the SCOR Resource Advisory Group. Respectfully Submitted Approved for Submission Alan Smith General Manager, Economic Development Mark G. McDonald Chief Administrative Officer 61 May 11,2011 Mark McDonald, CAO County of Elgin 450 Sunset Drive St Thomas, ON N5R 5V1 Dear Mr. McDonald: RE: REQUEST FOR STAFF APPOINTMENT TO RESOURCE ADVISORY GROUP SCOR EDC is requesting that you appoint a staff member to the Resource Advisory Group, a standing committee of the Board. With the retirement of Heather Adams from the Town of Aylmer, we have a vacancy on our committee. The relevant portion of our policy on Standing Committees is as follows: 1.1.2 Standing Committee — Resource Advisory Group The Resource Advisory Group is a vital resource to the SCOR Board and its staff. The Group will: provide continuity with the strategic planning work that is the foundation for SCOR's mandate; support integration and coordination of regional activity with municipal and other government work; inform SCOR decisions with their knowledge of the work of other economic agencies, both public and private; support regional communications; and, participate in project work including membership on project steering committees. The Resource Advisory Group will make a significant in -kind contribution to the work of SCOR. The Group will provide advice, assistance, information and support to the General Manager of SCOR concerning the implementation and review of the Strategic Management Plan, regional communications and on any other matter affecting the success of the SCOR partnership. The Committee also will act to ensure that linkages are maintained with the staff of the Member Municipalities, provincial ministries, federal departments and CFDCs. South Central Ontario Region Economic Development Corporation (SCOR) 4 Elm Street, Tillsonburg, ON N4G 0C4, P: 519 - 842 -6333 F: 519 - 842 -7123 E: gm @scorregion.com 62 -2- The Resource Advisory Group is established as a Standing Committee of the Board comprised of ten (10) members (non - elected), consisting of two staff members appointed by each Member Municipality. The staff appointments will be made by the CAOs of the respective Counties when vacancies occur. Appointees can be draw from County or local municipal staff of the respective counties. Staff will be drawn from those with economic development responsibilities. A Chair and Vice Chair may be elected from among the members for a term of at least one year and no more than three years in total. As the Member Municipality, it is the County of Elgin that makes the appointment. In the 2 -tier Counties, this appointment can be drawn from staff of either the County or the local municipalities. As noted above, we ask that the staff person have responsibilities associated with economic development. The other Elgin member of the Resource Advisory Group is Alan Smith. If possible, we would like to have this new member in place by June 24th, when the Board and RAG members are participating in a strategic plan review session. Yours truly, Zrda /(/e vm'a7 per Dennis Travale, Chair SCOR Executive Committee South Central Ontario Region (SCOR) 63 r , ontario. Canada 1 r Proud Heritage. Bright Future. The Corporation of the Town of Aylmer 46 Talbot Street, West, Aylmer, Ontario N5H 1j7 Office; 519 -773 -3164 Fax: 51 9- 765 -1446 wwwaylmerca June 13, 2011 Mark McDonald, Administrator County of Elgin 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, Ontario 1 \15R .5V1 Dear Mr. McDonald: RECEIVED JUN 2 0 2011 COUNTY OF ELGIN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE The Town of Aylrrner has recently appointed Jennifer Reynaert a5 Administrator and respectfully request that she replace Heather Adams on the SCOR Resource Committee. Any information that can be passed on to her as background information would also be appreciated (e,g, past minutes, terms of reference etc.}. Thank you in advance for your conslderatiof in this appointment. Yours truly, f %'\ -Jack Couckuyt Mayor, Town of Aylmer c.c. Al Smith, GM, Economic Development & Tourism Department 64 n try- REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Al Reitsma Manager of Information Technology DATE: June 20, 2011 SUBJECT: Remote Access to PCC by Medical Pharmacies and MediSystem Pharmacy INTRODUCTION: Current County of Elgin policy regarding remote access to the PointClickCare (PCC) system dictates that County Council must review and approve remote access before it is granted. The Information Technology Department has received a request for remote access to PCC from Medical Pharmacies. DISCUSSION: Point Click Care (PCC) is a system used to maintain resident healthcare information at the County's long term care facilities. When PCC was initially implemented in 2009 senior management made the decision to allow access to the system only from within the County's network (meaning computers within County of Elgin locations). The primary reason for this was due to privacy concerns regarding residents' medical information. As part of electronic medication administration record (eMAR) component of PCC an electronic prescription ordering system is being implemented at the County's long term care residences. Medical Pharmacies's electronic prescription ordering system is being used at Terrace Lodge. The system integrates with PCC and therefore, Medical Pharmacies staff requires remote access to PCC. Without such access, the implementation of the system could not proceed. It is anticipated that MediSystem Pharmacy staff will also require remote access to PCC when implementation of their system proceeds at Bobier Villa and Elgin Manor. When staff has received these types of request in the past the person being granted remote access is required to sign a confidentiality agreement. However, because remote access is being requested for an organization, staff will ask the county solicitor to draft a confidentiality agreement that pertains to this situation. It should be noted that the Information Technology received an urgent request to grant access on July 4th. Without granting access the project could not have 65 proceeded. Warden Mennill reviewed the request and granted permission for access on July 6th CONCLUSION: Medical Pharmacies and MediSystem Pharmacy staff requires remote access to PCC in order to be able to proceed with the implementation of an electronic prescription ordering system. Therefore, staff is recommending that the remote access be granted for all applicable Medical Pharmacies and MediSystem Pharmacy staff requiring such access on the condition that a confidentiality agreement is signed. RECOMMENDATION: THAT the county solicitor be asked to prepare medical record confidentiality agreement that pertains to an organization and THAT once Medical Pharmacies and MediSystem Pharmacy has signed confidentiality agreement they be given remote access to the County of Elgin's PointClickCare data. All of which is Respectfully Submitted Approved for Submission Al Reitsma Mark G. McDonald Manager of Information Technology Chief Administrative Officer Jim Bundschuh Diriector of Financial Services 66 REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Jim Bundschuh - Director of Financial Services DATE: July 11 tht", 2011 SUBJECT: Capping Options and Tax Relief INTRODUCTION: Each year Council has the opportunity to review its current tax policy. The current policy includes: • Tax ratios as determined by the Province with the exception of industrial which was lowered in 2002. • Selection of the optional class, large industrial. • Tax reductions of 30% and 35% for vacant /excess lands within the commercial and industrial classes. • Lower limit of 100% for new construction. • Tax relief for low income seniors and low income persons with disabilities. • Tax relief for charitable organizations. • Capping options — annualized tax limit increase at 10 %, the prior years' current value assessment (CVA) tax limit increase at 5 %, the CVA threshold for protected (increasing) properties at $250, and "Stay at CVA Tax" set to yes. DISCUSSION /CONCLUSION: The Treasurers were polled regarding the capping options and all agree that the following options should remain the same as in 2009 • set the annualized tax limit increase at 10% • set the prior years current value assessment (CVA) tax limit increase at 5% • set the CVA threshold for protected (increasing) properties at $250 • "Stay at CVA Tax" set to yes In regards to tax relief for low income seniors, low income persons with disabilities and charitable organizations, the Treasurer's are recommending a deadline of November 30th 67 RECOMMENDATION: THAT County tax policy set the annualized tax limit increase at 10 %, the prior years current value assessment (CVA) tax limit increase at 5 %, and the CVA threshold for protected (increasing) properties at $250; and the "Stay at CVA Tax" to yes; and, THAT the application deadline for 2011 tax relief for low income seniors, low income persons with disabilities and charitable organizations be November 30th 2011; and, THAT the County tax policy be reviewed for the 2012 taxation year, and THAT the necessary by -law be amended. Respectfully Submitted Approved for Submission Jim Bundschuh Mark G. McDonald Director of Financial Services Chief Administrative Officer 68 E ilL LInE PAINSiiP0 by ethuiC REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Brian Masschaele, Director of Community and Cultural Services DATE: June 29th, 2011 SUBJECT: Five -Year Lease Renewals for Library Facilities INTRODUCTION: Facility leases for eight of the ten branches of the Elgin County Library expire on December 31St, 2011 with the option to renew for a further five -year term subject to written notice being provided by the County by September 30th, 2011. This report recommends that such notice be given. DISCUSSION: Eight of the Elgin County Library's ten branches are leased under the terms of a standardized lease agreement that was adopted by County Council in 2007 for a five - year term. Of these eight branches, seven are owned by the County's local municipalities and the eighth is owned by the Port Stanley Festival Theatre. The standardized agreement establishes clear roles and responsibilities of each party and pays to the building owner a rate of $12 per square foot indexed to inflation on an annual basis. For most locations, this amounts to an actual rate of approximately $13 per square foot in 2011. The two branches not covered under this standardized lease agreement are Aylmer and Shedden which have separate leases and, as a result, are not covered under the scope of this report. The leases adopted in 2007 have served both parties well. As a result, staff recommend that written notice be provided to extend them for a further five -year term covering the period January 1st, 2012 to December 31St, 2016. The option then exists for a further five -year extension at the end of this term with the same notice procedure. CONCLUSION: Council will be informed of any changes to the terms of these leases or any issues that may arise during this five -year renewal period but none are contemplated at this time. RECOMMENDATION: THAT a written request be issued by the Elgin County Library to Municipalities and the Port Stanley Festival Theatre to extend library facility leases for a further five year period from January 1St, 2012 to December 31St, 2016 at the following locations: Bayham, Port Burwell, Springfield, Belmont, Port Stanley, Dutton, Rodney and West Lorne. All of which is Respectfully Submitted Approved for Submission Brian Masschaele Mark G. McDonald Director of Community and Cultural Servicees9 Chief Administrative Officer l;rnCa -tntirr P.O.;IMitO DI eitir4 IC REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Clayton Watters, Director of Engineering Services DATE: July 8, 2011 SUBJECT: Plank Road and Calton Line Road Side Erosion Update INTRODUCTION: At the April 26, 2010 County Council meeting engineering staff updated Council on the erosion of the roadside on Plank Road, north of Port Burwell, and Calton Line, east of the Calton Bridge. Staff and consultants have completed preliminary investigations, options and cost estimates. DISCUSSION: Two recent erosions of the roadside occurred on Plank Road, north of Port Burwell, and on Calton Line, east of the Calton Bridge. Geotechnical engineering, rehabilitation options and cost estimates have been completed. The rehabilitation to the Calton Line erosion will include: installation of a structural sheet pile wall system; sub drainage; rock rip rap protection; slope re- grading; and minor road repairs. The estimated project cost is $750,000. The rehabilitation to the Plank Road erosion will include: slope re- grading; drainage improvements; safety system replacements; and road surface repairs. The estimated project cost is $250,000. The two above projects were not included in the 2011 Capital Budget. Since these two projects are deemed important road safety improvements, the projects must be completed as soon as possible. Therefore, monies are required from either cancelling projects not yet started this year or utilizing 2011 capital project surpluses and borrowing remaining funds from next year's capital program. The only remaining 2011 Capital Project that has not yet been tendered, and that could be deferred until 2012 is Phase One Reconstruction of Furnvial Road, valued at $960, 000. 70 CONCLUSION: Preliminary engineering and project estimates have been completed for road slide erosions on Calton Line and Plank Road. The work is deemed important and must be completed as soon as possible due the impact on the road safety. Since the two projects were not included in the 2011 capital program, projects would have to be cancelled that were proposed in the 2011 budget, or funds could be allocated from anticipated 2011 surpluses and the 2012 capital budget. It is estimated that there will be at least $300,000 in surpluses generated from the 2011 capital budget. The only project remaining in 2011 that could be deferred until 2012 is Phase One Reconstruction of Furnival Road, valued at $960,000. In an effort not to postpone this project another year, staff prefers to utilize surpluses generated in the 2011 capital budget and allocated the net overspending from the 2012 capital budget. In either case, to accommodate these road slope repairs, less road work will be completed in 2012 and this will cascade a shortfall over the 10 year capital plan. For example, up to $700,000 of the Belmont Road resurfacing may need to be delayed from 2012 to 2013 in order to keep spending for 2011/12 within the business plan commitment. RECOMMENDATION THAT staff complete the necessary engineering and contract administration to complete the project as soon as possible: and, THAT the monies required for the two projects (Calton Line and Plank Road roadside structural erosion) be allocated from 2011 Capital Budget surplus with the remainder allocated from the 2012 Capital Program. All of which is Respectfully Submitted, Clayton Watters Director of Engineering Services 71 Approved for Submission, Mark G. McDonald Chief Administrative Officer E1ginCounty Progressive by Nature REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Peter Dutchak, Deputy Director of Engineering Services DATE: July 8, 2011 SUBJECT: Tender Pre - approvals INTRODUCTION: As part of the approved 2011 Capital Budget, tenders will be advertised as per the County's Procurement Policy and submissions will be received in August for exterior improvements to the King George Lift Bridge towers and bridge repairs on Warren Street and Belmont Bridges. This report seeks pre - approval to permit staff to award the tenders so that the projects are not delayed. DISCUSSION / CONCLUSION: The 2011 Capital Budget has allocated $165,000 towards exterior improvements to the Lift Bridge towers in Port Stanley. Two separate tenders, one for a new roof and one for new exteriors will be advertised. The project has been designed and tender packages are being prepared for advertisement in July and will be closed in August. Also included in the 2011 Capital Budget are bridge and culvert repairs to the Warren Street and Belmont bridges and various repairs to concrete culverts on Belmont Road valued at a total of $300,000. One tender will group all this concrete work and be advertised in July and closed in August. The next regular County Council meeting is scheduled for September 13, 2011 when the tender would normally be awarded by Council. The construction projects must begin promptly to ensure their completion before winter. Therefore, staff requests the authority to award the tenders so long as County policies are adhered to, the lowest price is selected and the awarded price is within the budget allocation, so that the project is not unnecessarily delayed. Tender results will be reported to Council at their September 13th meeting. 72 RECOMMENDATION THAT staff is authorized to award the following tenders so long as they are awarded to the lowest bidders and that the awarded price is within the budget allocation: Lift Bridge Exterior Improvements — Contract No. 6200 -10 -10 Warren Street Bridge Expansion Joints — Contract No. 6290 -10 -04 Belmont Bridge Expansion Joints — Contract No. 6290 -10 -05 Culvert Rehabilitations — Contract No. 6290 -11 -01 THAT, the Warden and Chief Administrative Officer be authorized to enter into agreements with the awarded bidders. All of which is Respectfully Submitted, Peter Dutchak Deputy Director of Engineering Services Clayton Watters Director of Engineering Services 73 Approved for Submission, Mark G. McDonald Chief Administrative Officer Aso- ElglnCounty Progress &ve by Nature REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Peter Dutchak, Deputy Director of Engineering Services Brian Masschaele, Director of Community and Cultural Services DATE: July 4, 2011 SUBJECT: Elgin County Gateway Signs - Maintenance Introduction The County of Elgin installed six (6) Elgin County gateway signs along various County roads entering the County in 2010. Now that they are installed, they require some annual maintenance to ensure they continue to deliver a positive message. Discussion / Conclusion The County received funding to install gateway signage on Highway 401 and six other County road locations. A large gateway sign was installed on the west side of Furnival Road on Highway 401 in the Municipality of West Elgin. Smaller versions of this sign were also installed on the following Elgin County Roads: • West limits of Talbot Line in the Municipality of West Elgin • North limits of Wellington Road in the Township of Southwold • North limits of Highbury Avenue in the Municipality of Central Elgin • North limits of Belmont Road in the Municipality of Central Elgin • North limits of Imperial Road in the Township of Malahide • North limits of Plank Road in the Municipality of Bayham Since they have been installed, many motorists have positively commented on the sign's uniqueness portraying Elgin's new logo. In order to maintain the image of the County's corporate brand, these signs require some maintenance and housekeeping, mainly cutting of weeds and tall grass around the sign at least twice annually. Currently, each local municipality has their own gateway or entrance sign in the vicinity of the County's gateway signs. Therefore, staff requests that local roads staff remove vegetation around the County sign when maintenance is being completed around their own municipality's signs. 74 Recommendation THAT local municipalities maintain the County of Elgin gateway signs when they complete maintenance of their own gateway signs. All of which is Respectfully Submitted, Peter Dutchak Deputy Director of Engineering Services Clayton Watters Director of Engineering Services 75 Approved for Submission, Mark G. McDonald Chief Administrative Officer REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Peter Dutchak, Deputy Director of Engineering Services Sonia Beavers, Purchasing Coordinator DATE: July 6, 2011 SUBJECT: Highbury Ave and Ferguson Line Intersection Improvements INTRODUCTION: As part of the approved 2011 Capital Budget, a tender was advertised as per the County's Procurement Policy and submissions were received until Tuesday, July 5, 2011 for the Highbury Ave and Ferguson Line Intersection Improvements, Contract No. 6220- 11 -01. DISCUSSION: Five companies submitted bids, one was declared non compliant. The submitted bids are as follows: COMPANY TENDER BID (exclusive of H.S.T.) Jetstream Construction Limited $491,593.00 McCann Paving Inc. $563,350.05 Elgin Construction $580,701.71 Coco Paving Inc. $645,925.25 Jetstream Construction Limited submitted the lowest bid for the Highbury Ave and Ferguson Line Intersection Improvements Tender at a total price of $491,593.00 inclusive of a $25,000.00 contingency allowance and exclusive of H.S.T. The lowest submitted bid is within budget estimates. As per the County of Elgin's Purchasing Policy, if change orders are required and the cost increases above the tender amount approved by Council by less than 10 %, and the amount is within the overall budgeted project amount, work will proceed upon authorization by the Director. However, 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. RECOMMENDATION THAT Jetstream Construction Limited be selected for the Highbury Ave and Ferguson Line Intersection Improvements, Contract No. 6220 -11 -01 at a total price of $491,593.00, inclusive of a $25,000.00 contingency allowance, exclusive of H.S.T. and; 76 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 sign the contract. All of which is Respectfully Submitted; Approved for Submission by; Peter Dutchak Mark G. McDonald Deputy Director of Engineering Services Chief Administrative Officer Sonia Beavers Purchasing Coordinator Clayton Watters Director of Engineering Services 77 Aso- ElglnCounty Progressive by Nature REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Clayton Watters, Director of Engineering Services DATE: July 12, 2011 SUBJECT: Elgin Tourism Sign — Request for Relocation Introduction Council has received a letter and a series of pictures documenting a St. Thomas resident's objection to the placement of a tourism directional sign on a county road allowance behind the resident's home abutting onto Ron McNeil Line, County Road #52. The purpose of this report is to present information to council of the steps that were taken to review this complaint and to illustrate the factual situation. Discussion: Council should be made aware that the accepted practice when installing signs of any nature throughout the county is first to ensure the signs are properly and safely installed in a location that provides appropriate and useable information for the travelling public. To the extent possible, staff do take into consideration other factors such as whether or not the sign or signs obstruct views but this is secondary to installing signs in safe locations. County staff investigated the complaint from the St. Thomas resident shortly after receiving the concern. After a site investigation, staff wrote the respondent the attached email explaining the county's position. The respondent then sent a number of emails asking for reconsideration. Following this exchange, the Director and Deputy Director of Engineering attended at the property and met with the property owners. No new or compelling information was provided at this meeting that would suggest a new location for the sign was warranted. Staff did suggest that since the sign was properly installed in a safe location, following consistent criteria, that it was not necessary to relocate it for purely aesthetic reasons. However, the home owner at his /her expense ($600) could request that the sign be moved to a suitable and safe location away from the home. Apparently this option is not acceptable. The Biq Picture: Council is aware that county staff install and replace many types of signs throughout the road system every year. The standard practice is to locate these signs in a safe and strategic location. In this particular case, upon investigation and two site visits, staff have determined that there is no reason to remove the sign from its current location. It would be an unnecessary expense. In addition, should council decide to relocate this sign for purely aesthetic reasons, it will send a confusing message to staff and perhaps create an unintended consequence -that is, by allowing an exception to the unwritten policy will be 78 that when anyone complains about the location of a sign, then that sign shall be relocated. Council will have created, perhaps unintentionally, sign location by plebiscite. Conclusion: Upon site review and meeting with the home owner, staff believe that relocating the sign in question is an unnecessary municipal expense and may create an unwanted precedent in the future. Recommendation: That the report titled "Elgin Tourism Sign — Request for Relocation ", dated July 12, 2011 be received and filed. All of which is Respectfully Submitted, Approved for Submission, Clayton Watters Mark G. McDonald Director of Engineering Services Chief Administrative Officer 79 Large sign has been erected along Highway 52 Peter Dutchak Sent: June 22, 2011 3:32 ?M To: micklb61@yahoo.com Cc: Mark McDonald; Clayton Watters Attachments: County Road 52 Slgn.jpg (116 KB) Thank you for your email ofJune 17, 201 I expressing concerns about the tourism signage recently installed on Ron McNeil Line, County Road #52. Upon receipt of your message, I attended the location of the sign (see attached photo) and contemplated options to satisfy your concern. You should also be made aware that other signs may be erected along this stretch of road hi the future, either on the north or south side. Roadways inherently come with inconvenient realities. They generate traffic noise, house unsightly overhead utilities and are home to roadway signage to direct motorists. As a matter of process we consider many things when locating signage on roadways, including: intersection sightiines, message density and ability to digest information, height, offset, future signs and other signs that require motorist's attention. The placement of the sign follows established and well- considered County of Elgin sign protocol. The only criteria that would be considered for a possible sign location change would be for safety reasons, specifically regarding sight lines. In this instance, this was the most suitable location. Again, thank you for contacting the office with your inquiry. Yours truly, Peter Dutchak, CET, CRS Deputy Director of Engineering Services County of Elgin phone (519) 631 -1460 ext. 14 fax (519) 631 -4297 pdutchak®elgin- county.on.ca From: Micki Burger rmickib6llyahoo.comj Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 7:02 AM To: Clayton Wafters Subject: large sign has been erected along Highway 52 Hello: I'm sending this email to let you know how disappointed I ant that no one bothered to consult with me regarding a large road sign that has been erected behind my house. I had a beautiful view from my backyard (one of the reasons why 1 purchased this house was because it backed onto the highway & farmer's field) and now my eyes are drawn to a huge billboard. I don't understand why this had to be erected behind my house. This sign could have easily been placed closer to the daycare down the street or a little fiirther past Highbury Ave near the fannland in that area. I am a cancer survivor & I really appreciate the beauty of nature & it has now been blighted by this ugly sign! Is there any way this monstrosity can be move to another location? This ugly thing is really causing me some anxiety & that is not good for my physical or mental health as I recover from she most horrible time oftny life! 1 hope that you will respond to my email. Thank you for your time & consideration. Sincerely, 80 81 E]gt„ REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Peter Dutchak Deputy Director of Engineering Services DATE: July 14, 2011 SUBJECT: Microsurfacing Benefits and County Road 73 (Imperial Road) Concerns INTRODUCTION: The County of Elgin continues to maximize its road infrastructure investments by preserving and extending the life of its roads with preventative maintenance products such as Microsurfacing. This report summarizes Microsurfacing's benefits and addresses some recent road issues along parts of County Road 73 (Imperial Road). DISCUSSION: For many years, the County of Elgin has been using thin surfacings on its roadways to preserve their condition and extend their lifecycle. The County now uses Microsurfacing predominantly as a preventative maintenance tool for aging roadways. Roads begin to deteriorate as soon as they are constructed. A road's longevity is affected by heavy traffic, drainage, freeze /thaw cycles and age. Through its life, a road surface will receive additional layers of hot mix asphalt, until the road surface becomes 6 to 8 inches thick. At that point, the road is near the end of its lifecycle and additional lifts of asphalt on the roadway will not perform as expected and the road looses its flexible pavement qualities. Preventative maintenance activities play a vital role in extending the life of aging pavements. The key to preventative maintenance's success is to select candidate roads that have not deteriorated structurally, but are simply aging surfaces that will no longer benefit from additional asphalt paving. Preventative maintenance can be defined as the right treatment, to the right road at the right time. Thin surfacings, such as Microsurfacing can be applied to the roadway to extend its life and defer inevitable and much costlier reconstruction. Microsurfacing has been successfully applied to both lower and higher volume roadways in Elgin County and will last between 5 to 7 years. Most recently, Microsurfacing has been applied to Imperial Road and Nova Scotia Line in the Township of Malahide. Microsurfacing provides the following benefits: • Provides a new wearing surface to polished and oxidized (grey) surfaces • Fills small cracks and minor surface irregularities • Improves traction and skid resistence • Provides a dark surface for road marking contrast and aids in snow melt • Cost effective means of extending surface life and deferring costlier treatments 82 While Microsurfacing's expected life is shorter than asphalt, it's cost is also significantly less. The following table lists the costs of various activities normally applied to roadways. Activity Average Cost per Kilometre of Road Microsurfacing (1 Lift) $16,000 Tar and Chip (1 Lift) $19,000 Asphalt Paving (50mm) and shoulding $100,000 Rehabilitation (Recycling, Paving, Drainage) $350,000 Rural Reconstruction $600,000 Urban Reconstruction $1,200,000 Another example of Microsurfacing's effectiveness is illustrated in the following comparison. Cost to apply 2 lifts of Microsurfacing and granular shoulders over 12.2km of Imperial Road in 2010 and 2011 Cost to apply 50mm asphalt pavement and granular shoulders over 12.2km of Imperial Road $500,000 $1,300,000 In 2011, the County will be applying 42 kilometres of Microsurfacing at a cost of $780,000. If these roads were to receive asphalt pavement in lieu of Microsurfacing, the cost would be $4,200,000. Because asphalt is expected to last twice as long as Microsurfacing, a direct comparison of investment towards the road system's life would be half of the $4.2 million, or $2.1 million. Therefore the difference in cost between Microsurfacing and asphalt is approximately $1.3 million for 2011, or a 5.6% tax increase (above the 4% increase already approved for 2011). Preventative maintenance activities such as Microsurfacing play an important and effective role in managing the County's road infrastructure by maintaining roads in good condition and allowing roads in poor condition to systematically fail and be reconstructed. The County's 10 year capital plan utilizes preventative maintenance as a philosophy to discourage a "worst first" approach to infrastructure investments. IMPERIAL ROAD MATTER: Recently, staff have received comments that three humps, along County Road 73, need repair. Staff reviewed each area and there are several options to make improvements to the extent possible. The available options are: leave as is; grind and pave; asphalt feathering; and cross shave. It should be noted that there are similar depressions / humps on other County roads, none of which are a safety concern. The maximum cost for improvements is $7,000 for either the grind and pave or asphalt feathering. The cross shave would be a minor expense of the municipality, since the municipality has the appropriate equipment and staff. It should be noted that if the cross shaving was completed more damage can occur to the road sections if the smoothing process is not respected. 83 Staff recognize that there is a perception that the humps have worsened since the application of the TCMO. Staff also appreciates the public bringing concerns to the attention of the County of Elgin. CONCLUSION: The County of Elgin has 700 kilometers of roads with each road being at different states of surface condition. There are many humps or depressions across any road system. Staff have driven the specific areas of concern raised by the resident at speeds at and above the posted limit, with no vehicles put in a unsafe position. Since the road poses no safety concerns, staff recommend assisting the Township of Malahide to cosmetically improve the situation in cross shaving the areas to the extent possible. RECOMMENDATION: THAT staff be directed to work with the Township of Malahide to improve the areas of public concern along County Road 73, Imperial Road, with all costs being borne by the County of Elgin. All of which is Respectfully Submitted, Approved for Submission, Peter Dutchak Mark G. McDonald Deputy Director of Engineering Services Chief Administrative Officer Clayton Watters Director of Engineering Services 84 CLOSED MEETING AGENDA July 26, 2011 Staff Reports: (NOT ATTACHED) 1) Steve Gibson, Solicitor - Municipal Act, Section 240.2 (e) litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board — Report on Prosecution of Violations of Woodlands Conservation By- Law. 2) Councillor Cameron McWilliam and Chief Administrative Officer - Municipal Act, Section 240.2 (d) labour relations or employee negotiations — Part -time Regional Health Recruiter for Health Recruitment Partnership. 3) Director of Community and Cultural Services - Municipal Act, Section 240.2 (d) labour relations or employee negotiations — Closure of Library Branches During Holiday Season. 4) Director of Community and Cultural Services - Municipal Act, Section 240.2 (b) personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees — Recognition for Steve Peters. 154 The Funding Model In 2002 the compensation formula was once ag ain adjusted to reflect additional urban maintenance responsibilities. In 2006 the allocations were increased by 10% to more accurately reflect equipment rates understandi ng that the County equi pment provided to the municipalities at amalgamation was being replaced. The compensation is also increased annually by the C onsumer Price Index. The County inspects the r oad system quarterly and identif ies maintenance deficiencies and reports these to the munici pality. The municipality is t hen requested to rectify the specific condition and sign and date when the work was completed and return the notice back to the County of Elgin. Quarterly ma intenance inspections are completed together with County staff and the local Road Supe rintendent to encourage dialogue and clarify deficiencies noted. County staff also hosts monthly road supervisor meetings to discu ss capital planning and operational issues. An annual capital account in the amount of $100,000 is established and expended on areas requiring on-going maintenance activities. These small co- operative capital projects are requested by the local road superviso r and completed in partnership with local forces. The County pa ys for the increased cost of materials and hired equipment. 2010 Maintenance Expenditures – as reported The following table examines ex penditures per municipality and their surplus / deficit for maintenance activities during 2010 as they have reported to the County and are not audited. Municipality 2010 2010 Variance % Number of Allocation Expenditure Spent Kilometres (as reported) Maintained Aylmer 4.070 $17,093.55 $17,664.31 -$570.76 103% Bayham 97.567 $376,087.09 $479,084.41 -$102,997.32 127% Central Elgin 137.419 $541,792.25 $610,968.97 -$69,176.72 113% Dutton / Dunwich 96.787 $371,464.48 $364,591.81 $6,872.67 98% Malahide 146.135 $574,196.03 $544,837.01 $29,359.02 95% Southwold 106.593 $416,164.19 $367,682.15 $48,482.04 88% West Elgin 99.453 $384,297.22 $379,346.00 $4,951.22 99% Totals 688.024 $2,681,094.81 $2,764,174.66 ($83,079.85) 103% 86 Long Term Expenditures The following table summarises the total expendi tures by each munici pality (as reported) for the last 13 years and the cumulative differences. Municipality Total Amount Spent Total Amount Spent Total OVER Maintenance UNDER Maintenance Allocation to Allocation over the Allocation over the Municipality last 13 years (as last 13 years (as over last 13 reported) reported) years Aylmer $9,021 $162,727 Bayham $17,779 $3,845,674 Central Elgin $413,217 $5,953,274 Dutton / Dunwich $71,564 $4,283,514 Malahide $89,301 $6,285,200 Southwold $13,190 $4,721,387 West Elgin $363,665 $4,266,537 Total $542,508 $435,229 $29,518,313 Collectively, the municipalitie s over spent their maintenance allocations by $83,000 in 2010. Since 1998, the municipalities have coll ectively over spent their maintenance allocations by $107,000. Over this per iod, the municipalities have been paid approximately $30 Million to main tain the County Road system. Therefore, after 13 years of experience, m unicipalities have been ab le to maintain the county roads within the allocations provided. Winter Control Costs Winter maintenance activities typically exha ust 50 – 60% of the ma intenance allocations and therefore, the cost management of this activity play s an important role in overall expenditures. New technologies , training, techniques and the County’s Salt Management Plan all help to reduce costs while incr easing the level of service provided. In 2010 it cost approximately $1 .5 million to provide winter co ntrol services on County roads, or 55% of the total a llocation to municipalities. Winter minimum maintenance standards are c onsistently met and exceeded by all municipalities, however, the leve l of service provided varies between municipalities. For example, some municipalities are able to provide winter control services for half the cost of what other municipalities expend. The follo wing table examines winter control costs in each municipality as reported. 87 Winter Control Costs Municipality 2010 2010 Winter % Number of Winter Allocation Control of Total Kilometres Control Costs spent on Maintained Costs per (as reported) Winter Kilometre Control of Road Aylmer 4.070 $17,093.55 $8,745.22 51% $2,149 Bayham 97.567 $376,087.09 $264,625.49 70% $2,728 Central Elgin 137.419 $541,792.25 $326,578.00 60% $2,377 Dutton / Dunwich 96.787 $371,464.48 $145,387.82 39% $1,502 Malahide 146.135 $574,196.03 $371,049.09 65% $2,539 Southwold 106.593 $416,164.19 $207,358.79 50% $1,945 West Elgin 99.453 $384,297.22 $145,207.00 38% $1,460 Totals 688.024 $2,681,094.81 $1,468,951.41 55% $2,135 Conclusion Maintenance costs are manag ed and reported differently ac ross the County. While minimum maintenance standards are consistently achieved, level of service and costs vary across the County. Given the latitude available for each participant to control costs and the level of service provided, a funding principl e exists that states maintenance allocations not be exceeded. Although Minimum Maintenance Standards are being met, other road maintenance activities are being neglected. The Cooperative Capital Projects funding has helped to address some of these issues, however, not all mu nicipalities participate. This topic will be further discussed in the report ti tled, “Road Maintenance Agreement”. As Council is aware, a revised maintenance agreement is being prep ared by the County solicitor and staff, in conjunc tion with staff from our muni cipal partners. The new maintenance agreement is proposed to be implemented for January 1, 2012. Recommendation THAT this report be received and filed. All of which is Respectfully Submitted, Approved for Submission, Peter Dutchak Mark G. McDonald Deputy Director of Engineering Services Chief Administrative Officer Clayton Watters Director of Engineering Services 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 EPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL R FROM: Peter Dutchak, Deputy Director of Engineering Services DATE: July 4, 2011 SUBJECT: Bike Lane Petition – Furnival Road Introduction The County of Elgin has received a resoluti on from the Municipality of West Elgin supporting a local petition for the construction of a “Bike Lane” on Furnival Road during the planned road reconstruction. Discussion The County is planning to reconstruct Furniv al Road between Pioneer Line and Talbot Line (5.5 km) during 2011 and 2012 at a project estimate of $2.5 million. The scope of the project includes: replacing sub-surface drai nage, widening the driving lane structure, recycling the road surface, asphalt resurfacing and gravel shouldering to create two, 3.75m lanes and gravel shoulders. A local petition has been received requesting t hat a bike lane be cons tructed from Pioneer Line to the Aldborough Public School, a distance of 350 meters. The existing sidewalk on Furnival Road terminates 150 meters north of Pioneer Line, therefore a continuance of a dedicated pedestrian facility from the end of the existing sidewalk to the school would be a distance of 500 meters. The petition also ident ifies safety as the upmost priority for the children, teachers and volunteers that walk or bicycle to school , and that a bike lane would be extremely beneficial. Staff concurs that a separated pedestrian facili ty to accommodate school children is safer than using the roadway or road s houlder to walk or ride a bi cycle to and from school. The County of Elgin’s Road Master Plan also suppor ts the practice of working with local municipalities who fund the construction and ma intenance of sidewalks. The County does not construct pedestrian facilities. Section 3.7.2 of the R oad Master Plan states: “The County shall encourage local municipalities to provide safe and convenient pedestrian facilities by: a) co-ordinating the installation of si dewalks on both sides of County Roads within settlement areas identified in local Official Plans; b) working with local municipalities to ensur e that sidewalks are sufficiently set back from the roadway, are well drained and are of barrier free design” 118 The construction and maintenance of sidewalks, bike lanes and multi-use trails remains under the jurisdiction of local municipalities, and the County cooperat es with municipalities who plan to construct these fac ilities on County road property. County staff met with school officials respons ible for ensuring children leave the school property safely and they stated that only about 6 children ride their bikes to school in good weather and no children walk to school. Although the preferred and safest solution to accommodate pedestrians is with a separated sidewalk or path, the existing r oad shoulder is partially hard surf aced (tar and chip). An option exists for Council to reconstruct a fully paved shoulder on the west side of Furnival Road, from Pioneer Line to t he Aldborough Public School to reinstate the same level of service that previously existed at an estimated cost of $25,000. The County has approximately 20 kilometres of fully paved shoulders and approximately 80 kilometres of partially paved shoulders in its 700 kilometre road syst em. These features have been constructed for the pur pose to reduce road maintenan ce (i.e. shoulder grading, drop offs, potholes, sheet flow drainage, etc.). Roads, including road shoulders are permitted to be used by pedestrians and cyclists per the Highway Traffic Act. Although permitted, it is recommended that dedicated pedestrian facilities (i.e. sidewalks, bike lanes, etc.) be separated from the trave lled lanes of a roadway by a physical barrier (i.e. curb and gutter), or by a “clear zone” distance. This is especially true if the majority of the users are children. If Council were to contemplate constructing a pav ed road shoulder for the purpose of a bike lane and walkway, staff would ca ution that a precedent would be made for all similar future requests. Also, the construction of a paved s houlder may appear to be a safer solution and a compromise, however, staff would also caution that its construction would be encouraging school children to use the road s houlder adjacent to live traffic in lieu of a proper sidewalk and without a barrier or a safe distance separation. Conclusion The County has received a resolution from the Municipality of West Elgin supporting a local petition to construct a bike lane on the west side of Furnival Road fr om Pioneer Line to Aldborough Public School, a distance of 350 metres. The County of Elgin’s Road Master Plan s upports the practice of working with local municipalities who fund the construction and maintenance of pedestrian facilities. 119 Recommendation THAT the County of Elgin suppo rts and will cooperate with any local municipality who plans on constructing a pedestrian facility on a County road. All of which is Respectfully Submitted, Approved for Submission, Peter Dutchak Mark G. McDonald Deputy Director of Engineering Services Chief Administrative Officer Clayton Watters Director of Engineering Services 120 121 REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Clayton Watters, Director of Engineering Services DATE: July 22, 2011 SUBJECT: Simpson Bridge Temporary Closure INTRODUCTION: Simpson Bridge is located on Graham Road, nor th of West Lorne at the Thames River. In the fall 2011 and summer 2012 work will be completed on the superstructure, deck and safety system. DISCUSSION: Simpson Bridge is a steel deck truss bridge constructed in 1960 on Graham Road north of West Lorne at the Thames River. Replacement of the guard ra il system and bearings will be co mpleted in fall of 2011. Abrasive steel cleaning and painting are pl anned for 2012. Funding has been included in the capital budget. The 2011 work will require a complete closur e, September 6 to Oc tober 28, 2011 of the bridge due to physical space required to co mplete bearing replacement. The positive consequence of closing the bridge is a reduction in costs, while improving quality and workers’ safety. The bridge closure will require public notification; theref ore signage will be erected two weeks in advance. There will also be a detour on the county road system in Elgin and Middlesex. CONCLUSION: In the fall of 2011, Simpson Bridge requires ex tensive structural work to the bearings and safety systems. Due to the type and loca tion of the work, the bridge will be closed. Signs will be posted two weeks in advance of the closure to notify the travelling public. RECOMMENDATION: THAT this report titled “Simpson Bridge Te mporary Closure” dated July 22, 2011 be received and filed. All of which is Respectfully Submitted, Approved for Submission, Clayton Watters Mark G. McDonald Director of Engineering Services Chief Administrative Officer 122 REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Clayton Watters, Director of Engineering Services DATE: July 22, 2011 SUBJECT: McBain Line and Water Tower Line – Property Transfer INTRODUCTION: More than 40 years ago Elgin County had under its jurisdiction the old County Road 29. The roads, McBain Line and Water Tower Line ar e located in Central Elgin, in the old Yarmouth Township, from Wellington Road to Dale wood Road. Once the Highway 3 by-pass was completed the jurisdiction of the road was transferred from the County of Elgin to the Township of Yarmouth. DISCUSSION: After the transfer the Township of Yarmouth took on respons ibility for all maintenance and capital works on the two roads. Due to a proposed new development on McBain Line near the by-pass, a search of the property revealed that the r egistry office identifies that road property is under the jurisdiction of the County of Elgin. T he property is legally described as part road allowance for Edgewar e Road Yarmouth; Part Lots 1 to 4, Range 1 North of Edgeware Road Yarm outh; Part Lots 1 to 3, Range 1 South Edgeware Road Yarmouth as in D899, D896 AKA County Road #29 between Wellington Road and Dalewood Road, Municipalit y of Central Elgin. In order to change the Registry Office Parcel Register a tr ansfer of property is required from the County of Elgin to the Municipality of Central Elgin. This requires authorization from County Council to sign the necessary documents. CONCLUSION: McBain Line and Water Tower Line in Cent ral Elgin have been maintained by Central Elgin for more than three decades. Both the County of Elgi n and Central Elgin understood that the ownership was under the jurisdiction of Central Elgin. In order to change the inaccurate registry office documen ts the County of Elgin must transfer the road property to Central Elgin. RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Warden and Chief Administrative Officer be authorized and directed to sign the necessary documents to transfer road proper ty McBain Line and Water Tower Line in Central Elgin to the Municipality of Central Elgin. All of which is Respectfully Submitted, Approved for Submission, Clayton Watters Mark G. McDonald Director of Engineering Services Chief Administrative Officer 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 CORRESPONDENCE – July 26, 2011 Items for Information (Consent Agenda) - (Attached) 1. Association of Municipalities of Ontario Provincial Election Check List: AMO’s Top 12 Asks which outlines AMO’s key topics of conc ern and policy positions in priority areas to be used during the election period. 2. Elizabeth Sebestyen, Social Housing Admini strator, St. Thomas – Elgin Ontario Works, inviting County Council to celebration of the completion of the Renewable Energy Initiation project located at 58 Myrtle Street, Aylmer on Friday July 29, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. 3. Nancy J. Irving, CMO, Town of Aylmer, with two resolutions for Elgin County regarding the Fuel Surcharge Request Report and the New Roads Maintenance Agreement report. (Walked in to council a nd circulated prior to the start of the council meeting). 141 142 143 144 145 COUNTY OF ELGIN By-Law No. 11-16 "BEING A BY-LAW TO REPEAL BY-LAW NO. 11-08 BEING A BY-LAW TO ESTABLISH A PAY SCHEDULE FOR EMPLOYEES COVERED BY THE JOB EVALUATION SCALE” WHEREAS pursuant to Section 5(3) of t he Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25, a municipal power, including a municipality’s c apacity, rights, powers and privileges under Section 8, shall be exercised by by-law unless the municipality is specifically authorized to do otherwise; and WHEREAS pursuant to Section 8 of t he Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25, a municipality has the capacity, rights, powers and privileges of a natural person for the purpose of exercising its authority under this or any other Act; and WHEREAS pursuant to Section 9(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25, broad authority is conferred on m unicipalities to enable them to govern their affairs as they consider appropriate; and WHEREAS By-Law No. 11-08 presently establishes pay schedules for positions not covered by agreements or otherwise; and WHEREAS it is necessary to amend a position description contained within said By- Law; and NOW THEREFORE the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the County of Elgin enacts as follows: 1. THAT By-Law No. 11-08 be and is hereby repealed. 2. THAT By-Law No. 11-16 be and the same is hereby approved. TH READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 26 DAY OF JULY 2011. Mark G. McDonald, Dave Mennill, Chief Administrative Offi cer. Warden. 146 SCHEDULE “A” By-Law No. 11-16 POSITIONS ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1. Chief Administrative Officer Level 18 Manager of Administrative Services Level 10 Ambulance and Emergency Management Coordinator Level 10 Administrative Services Coordinator Level 6 Tree/Weed Inspector/By-Law Enforcement Officer Level 5 Administrative Assistant Level 3 Administrative Assistant Level 2 COMMUNITY & CULTURAL SERVICES 2. Director of Community & Cultural Services Level 13 Manager of Cultural Services Level 10 Library Coordinator Level 8 Manager of Archives Level 6 Branch Supervisor Level 6 Curator of Elgin County Museum Level 6 Assistant Archivist Level 5 Manager of Elgin County Museum Level 5 Administrative Assistant Level 3 Archivist Assistant Level 3 Museum Assistant Level 2 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & TOURISM 3. General Manager of Economic Development Level 12 Business Development Coordinator Level 7 Tourism Development Coordinator Level 6 Marketing & Communications Coordinator Level 5 Marketing Assistant Level 3 Economic Development Assistant Level 3 ENGINEERING SERVICES 4. Director of Engineering Services Level 14 Deputy Director of Engineering Services Level 12 Manager of Corporate Facilities Level 9 Quality Assurance Supervisor/Emergency Management Coordinator Level 7 Building Sciences Technologist Level 6 Land Division Secretary-Treasurer Level 5 Administrative Assistant Level 3 FINANCIAL SERVICES 5. Director of Financial Services Level 15 Manager of Information Technologies Level 12 POA Supervisor Level 7 Financial Analyst Level 7 Purchasing Coordinator Level 7 Payroll and Benefits Coordinator Level 7 Network Analyst Level 6 Provincial Offences Administrative Clerk Level 5 Provincial Offences Collections Officer Level 5 Accounts Clerk Level 3 HUMAN RESOURCES 6. Director of Human Resources Level 14 Manager of Human Resources Level 10 Human Resources Coordinator Level 8 Human Resources Assistant Level 6 Administrative Assistant Level 3 Administrative Assistant Level 2 LONG-TERM CARE HOMES 7. Director of Homes & Seniors Services Level 14 Administrator, Elgin Manor & Bobier Villa Level 14 Administrator/Manager of Resident Care Level 12 Manager of Resident Care Level 12 Manager of Resident Care/Nurse Educator Level 12 Manager of Support Services Level 8 Manager of Program and Therapy Services Level 8 Administrative Assistant Level 3 Ward Clerk Level 3 147 Year 2011 Non-Union Salary Grid January 1, 2011 Estimated Estimated Special Purpose Levels (Job Rate) Salary Annual Salary (Base) Annual Salary Step 5 Level at base rate Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 at Job rate Step 6 Step 7 89.55 18 139,321.00 76.55 79.61 82.79 86.10 162,981.00 93.13 96.86 82.15 17 127,818.60 70.23 73.04 75.96 79.00 149,513.00 85.44 88.86 75.37 16 117,262.60 64.43 67.00 69.69 72.47 137,173.40 78.39 81.52 69.15 15 107,580.20 59.11 61.47 63.93 66.49 125,853.00 71.91 74.79 63.44 14 98,698.60 54.23 56.40 58.65 61.00 115,460.80 65.98 68.62 58.20 13 90,545.00 49.75 51.74 53.81 55.96 105,924.00 60.53 62.95 53.40 12 83,064.80 45.64 47.47 49.37 51.34 97,188.00 55.53 57.75 48.99 11 76,203.40 41.87 43.55 45.29 47.10 89,161.80 50.95 52.98 44.94 10 69,924.40 38.42 39.95 41.55 43.21 81,790.80 46.74 48.61 41.61 9 64,737.40 35.57 36.99 38.47 40.01 75,730.20 43.28 45.01 38.53 8 59,950.80 32.94 34.25 35.62 37.05 70,124.60 40.07 41.67 35.68 7 55,510.00 30.50 31.72 32.98 34.30 64,937.60 37.10 38.59 33.03 6 51,396.80 28.24 29.37 30.54 31.76 60,114.60 34.35 35.73 30.87 5 48,029.80 26.39 27.45 28.54 29.68 56,183.40 32.11 33.39 28.85 4 44,881.20 24.66 25.65 26.68 27.74 52,507.00 30.01 31.21 26.97 3 41,951.00 23.05 23.97 24.93 25.93 49,085.40 28.04 29.17 25.20 2 39,202.80 21.54 22.40 23.30 24.23 45,864.00 26.21 27.26 23.55 1 36,636.60 20.13 20.94 21.78 22.65 42,861.00 24.49 25.47 148 COUNTY OF ELGIN By-Law No. 11-17 “BEING A BY-LAW TO ADOPT OPT IONAL TOOLS FOR THE PURPOSES OF ADMINISTERING LIMITS FOR THE COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND MULTI-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY CLASSES” WHEREAS the County of Elgin (hereinafter called the “Municipality”), in accordance , with Section 329.1 of the Municipal Act, 2001 S.0. 2001, c.25, as amended (hereinafter called the “Act”), may modify t he provisions and limits as set out in Section 329 of the Act, with respect to the calculation of taxes for municipal and school purposes payable in respect of property in the co mmercial, industrial and multi-re sidential property class; and WHEREAS the Municipality must similarly m odify the provisions and limits as set out in Section 332 of the Act with respec t to the “tenant cap” calculations; and WHEREAS this by-law shall only apply to properties in any of the Commercial, Industrial and Multi-Resident ial property classes to which Part IX of the Act applies; and WHEREAS for the purposes of this by -law the commercial classes shall be considered a single property class and the industrial classes shall be deemed to be a single property class; and WHEREAS “uncapped taxes” means, the ta xes for municipal and school purposes that would be levied for the taxation year, but fo r the application of Part IX of The Act; and WHEREAS the Council may pass a by-law to apply any one or any combination of the following options: a) Set the annualized tax lim it increase at 10% b) Set the prior year’s current value assessment (CVA) tax limit increase at 5% c) Set the CVA threshold for protec ted (increasing) properties at $250 d) Set the option for “Stay at CVA Tax” to yes. WHEREAS a by-law passed to adopt t he provisions of Subsection 329.1 paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Act, prov ides that such provisions shall also apply to Section 332 of the Act with respect to t he “tenant cap” calculations; and WHEREAS the Council has reviewed the prov isions of Section 32 9.1 of the Act and hereby deems it necessary and appropriate to adopt optional tools for the purpose of administering limits for the Commercial, Industr ial and Multi-Residentia l property classes. NOW THEREFORE the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the County of Elgin hereby enacts as follows: 1. THAT paragraphs 1, 2, and 3, of Subsec tion 329.1(1) of the Act shall apply to the Commercial, Industrial and Multi-Resi dential property classes for 2011. 2. THAT: a) In determining the amount of taxes fo r municipal and school purposes for the year under Subsection 329(1) and the am ount of the tenant’s cap under Subsection 332(5), the greater of t he amounts determined under paragraphs a) and b) as set out below shall appl y in determining the amount to be added under paragraph 2 of Subsection 329(1), and the increasing amount under paragraph 2 of Subsection 332(5), i) The percentage set out in S ubsection 329(1) paragraph 2 and in Subsection 332(5) paragraph 2 shall be ten per cent (10%), and 149 – 2 – ii) The amount of the uncapped taxes for t he previous year multiplied by five per cent (5%). b) The amount of the taxes for municipal and school purposes for a property for a taxation year shall be the amount of the uncapped taxes fo r the property for the year if the amount of t he uncapped taxes exceeds the amount of the taxes for municipal and school purposes for the property for the taxation year as determined under Section 329, as modifi ed under Section 329.1 of the Act and this by-law, by two-hundred and fifty dollars ($250.00) or less. c) The option for “Stay at C VA Tax” shall be set to yes. 3. THAT this By-Law shall come into force and take effect upon its passing TH READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 26 DAY OF JULY 2011. Mark G. McDonald, Dave Mennill, Chie f Administrative Officer. Warden. 150 COUNTY OF ELGIN By-Law No. 11-18 “BEING A BY-LAW TO ESTABLISH REVENUE NEUTRAL CLAWBACK PERCENTAGES FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY CLASSES” WHEREAS Section 330(1) OF THE Municipa l Act, S.O. 2001, c. 25 states that the Council of a municipality other than a lowe r-tier municipality, may pass a by-law to establish a percentage by which tax decreases are limited for a ta xation year in respect of properties in any property class subject to Part IX of the said Act in order to recover all or part of the revenues foregone as a result of the application of Section 329 of the said Act to other properties in the property class; and WHEREAS for the purposes of this by -law, the commercial classes shall be considered a single property class and the i ndustrial classes shall be deemed to be a single property class; and WHEREAS limits to tax decreases for any class may only be established in order to recover all or part of the foregone revenue in respect of the same property class. NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the County of Elgin enacts as follows: 1. THAT for the taxation year 2011, the percentage determined und er Section 330(1) of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001 are as follows: Multi-residential Commercial Industrial Decrease Clawback 7.4739% 32.2499% 29.0094% Decrease Retained 92.5261% 67.7501% 70.9906% 2. THAT in accordance with the provisions of the Section 330(1) of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001 the County is deemed to be the banker and no lower tier member municipality shall have a surplus or a shortfall as a result of the application of th is By-Law, and further, if the County experiences a shortf all or excess as a result of the application of the banking function under this By-Law, any such shor tfall/excess shall belong to the County. 3. THAT the intra-municipal adjustment due to the application of this by-law, with the County acting as the banker, shall be paid by the member municipalities on December th 15 , 2011. TH READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 26 DAY OF JULY 2011. Mark G. McDonald, Dave Mennill, Chie f Administrative Officer. Warden. 151 COUNTY OF ELGIN By-Law No. 11-19 “BEING A BY-LAW TO AUTHORIZE THE REMOVAL OF PART OF COUNTY ROAD 29 KNOWN AS MCBAIN LINE AND WATER TOWER LINE, AS DESCRIBED ON SCHEDULE ‘A’ ATTACHED HERETO, FROM THE COUNTY OF ELGIN HIGHWAY SYSTEM AND FURTHER TO AUTHORIZE THE WARDEN AND CHIEF ADMINI STRATIVE OFFICER TO EXECUTE A TRANSFER/ DEED OF LAND OF S UCH HIGHWAY IN FAVOUR OF THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CENTRAL ELGIN AS LOWER-TIER HIGHWAY.” Municipal Act WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 52. (4) of the , The Corporation of the County of Elgin wishes to remove from it s highway system those lands described in Schedule ‘A’ attached hereto (hereina fter referred to as the “highway”); AND WHEREAS the Council for The Corporat ion of the County of Elgin deems it necessary and expedient to transfer such highw ay to The Corporati on of the Municipality of Central Elgin as a lower-tier highway; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF ELGIN ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: Municipal Act 1. THAT, pur suant to Section 52 of the , the said portion of highway be removed from the highway system of The Corporation of the County of Elgin for addition to the highway system of The Corporation of th e Municipality of Central Elgin. 2. THAT the Warden and Chief Administrati ve Officer be and are hereby authorized to execute a Transfer/ Deed of Land for the said portion of highway in favour of The Corporation of the Municipality of Central Elgin. 3. THAT this By-Law shall take effect upon the date of its passing. 4. THAT this By-Law and the Transfer/ Deed of Land shall be registered in the Land Registry Office for the Registry Divisi on of Elgin No. 11. TH READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 26 DAY OF JULY 2011. Mark G. McDonald, Dave Mennill, Chief Administra tive Officer. Warden. 152 SCHEDULE ‘A’ By-Law No. 11-19 Property description : Part road allowance for Edgeware Road Yarmout h; Part Lots 1 to 4, Range 1 North of Edgeware Road Yarmouth; Part Lots 1 to 3, Range 1 South E dgeware Road Yarmouth as in D899, D896 AKA County Road #29 betw een Wellington Road and Dalewood Road, Municipality of Central Elgin, bei ng the whole of PIN 35165-0159(LT). 153 CLOSED MEETING AGENDA July 26, 2011 Staff Reports: (NOT ATTACHED) 1) Steve Gibson, Solicitor - Municipal Act, Section 240.2 (e ) litigation or potential litigation, including ma tters before administrative tri bunals, affecting the municipality or local board – Report on Prosecution of Violations of Woodlands Conservation By- Law. 2) Councillor Cameron McWilliam and Chief Administrative Officer - Municipal Act, Section 240.2 (d) labour relations or employee negotiations – Part-time Regional Health Recruiter for Health Recruitment Partnership. 3) Director of Community and Cultural Services - Municipal Act, Section 240.2 (d) labour relations or employee negotiations – Closure of Library Branches During Holiday Season. 4) Director of Community and Cultural Services - Municipal Act, Section 240.2 (b) personal matters about an identif iable individual, including municipal or local board employees – Recognition for Steve Peters. 154