Loading...
15 - November 13, 2012 County Council Agenda Package ORDERS OF THE DAY FOR TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2012 –9:00 A.M. ORDER 1st Meeting Called to Order 2nd Adoption of Minutes – October 23, 2012 3rd Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof 4th Presenting Petitions, Presentations and Delegations DELEGATION: 9:00 a.m. Mayor John Lessif, Chair of SCOR EDC and Art Lawson SCOR GM with South Central Ontario Region Economic Development Corporation PowerPoint (attached) 9:30 a.m. John Regan, General Manager, Elgin Business Resource Centre with Elgin Business Resource Centre PowerPoint (attached) PRESENTATION: 11:30 a.m. Tom Marks, St. Thomas Elgin General Hospital Board of Governors’ Representative – Annual Report to Elgin County Council (attached) 11:45 a.m. Jeff Lawrence, Tree Commissioner/Weed Inspector, Year End Report for 2012 (attached) 5thMotion to Move Into “Committee Of The Whole Council” 6th Reports of Council, Outside Boards and Staff 7th Council Correspondence 1) Items for Consideration 2) Items for Information (Consent Agenda) OTHER BUSINESS 8th 1) Statements/Inquiries by Members 2) Notice of Motion 3) Matters of Urgency 9th Closed Meeting Items – Chief Administrative Officer’s Annual Performance (under separate cover) Evaluation 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 LUNCH WILL BE PROVIDED NOTICE: th November 17, 2012 Elgin County’s 11 Annual Holiday Party November 27, 2012 County Council December 11, 2012 Warden’s Election 7:00 p.m. (Official Attire) RECEPTION TO FOLLOW December 13, 2012 County Council 1 DRAFT COUNTY COUNCIL MINUTES Tuesday, October 23, 2012 The Elgin County Council met this day at the Administration Building at 9:00 a.m. with all members present except Councillor Ens (regrets). Warden Walters in the Chair. ADOPTION OF MINUTES Moved by Councillor Mennill Seconded by Councillor McIntyre THAT the minutes of the meeting held on September 25, 2012 be adopted. - Carried. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF – None. DELEGATION Steve Knipe, Vice President, St. Thomas Elgin General Hospital Foundation Board presented a PowerPoint titled “Request for Support, Elgin County”. He presented a letter of request for funding to the Warden. Moved by Councillor McIntyre Seconded by Councillor Marr THAT County Council refer the presentation and gift request for funding of $4.5 million over five years from the St. Thomas Elgin General Hospital Foundation Board to the Joint County/City Hospital Redevelopment Ad Hoc Committee. - Carried. Moved by Councillor McIntyre Seconded by Councillor Mennill THAT, in an effort to assist the Foundation in its important fundraising efforts, Elgin County Council release $500,000 of the hospital redevelopment reserve as a first installment toward Council’s total contribution. - Carried Unanimously. Warden Walters stressed the importance of demonstrating a tacit commitment to the redevelopment project through the release of funds. Moved by Councillor Jenkins Seconded by Councillor McWilliam THAT we do now move into Committee Of The Whole Council. - Carried. REPORTS Accessible Web Site – Accessibility Coordinator The report outlined that the County had to ensure that all web content complies with applicable legislation for accessibility purposes. 2 County Council 2 October 23, 2012 Moved by Councillor Mennill Seconded by Councillor McWilliam THAT the report titled “Accessible Web Site” dated October 16, 2012 be received and filed. - Carried. Multi-Year Accessibility Planning – Accessibility Coordinator The coordinator presented a report on the requirement for creating and updating a multi-year accessibility plan. Moved by Councillor Couckuyt Seconded by Councillor Jenkins THAT the report titled “Multi-Year Accessibility Planning” dated October 16, 2012 be received and filed. - Carried. 2012/2013 Excess Indemnity Coverage and Occupational Accident Insurance Renewals – Director of Human Resources The director presented the report regarding indemnity insurance. Moved by Councillor Mennill Seconded by Councillor Marr THAT both Occupational Accident and Excess Indemnity Insurance polices with Chubb not be renewed; and, THAT a project be established in the amount of $130,000 funded from the savings of not renewing the insurance. - Carried. Employee Performance Management – Director of Human Resources The director presented a report on a new revised performance form. Moved by Councillor Jenkins Seconded by Councillor McIntyre THAT County Council approve the revised and streamlined performance appraisal document titled “Employee Performance Management” for use effective immediately. - Carried. Bobier Villa - Kitchen HVAC Unit Replacement – Building Sciences Technologist The Building Sciences Technologist presented the report on the need to purchase kitchen equipment for Bobier Villa. Moved by Councillor Marr Seconded by Councillor McIntyre THAT the single source purchase of the kitchen HVAC unit from Engineered Air be approved at a total price of $34,385 exclusive of H.S.T.; and, THAT County-contracted electrical and mechanical contractors be approved to replace the unit; and, THAT the funds required to complete the project be allocated from the approved 2012 capital budget. - Carried. 3 County Council 3 October 23, 2012 Ambulance Rental Agreement – Director of Engineering Services The Deputy Director of Engineering Services presented a report outlining an agreement between Thames Emergency Medical Services and the Middlesex-London Emergency Medical Services Authority to rent ambulances from each other. Moved by Councillor McWilliam Seconded by Councillor Jenkins THAT the Warden and Chief Administrative Officer be authorized and directed to sign the Ambulance Rental Agreement. - Carried. Memorandum of Understanding: Base Hospital and Emergency Service Provider – Director of Engineering Services The Deputy Director of Engineering Services presented the report on an agreement for emergency service provision between the London Health Sciences Centre Southwest Ontario Regional Base Hospital Program and Elgin-St. Thomas Emergency Medical Services. Moved by Councillor Mennill Seconded by Councillor McIntyre THAT the Director of Engineering Services be authorized and directed to sign the Memorandum of Understanding between Elgin-St. Thomas Emergency Medical Services and the London Health Sciences Centre Southwest Ontario Regional Base Hospital. - Carried. General Insurance and Risk Management Services Program – Purchasing Coordinator The coordinator presented the report outlining details of insurance coverage for the county. Moved by Councillor McIntyre Seconded by Councillor Mennill THAT Frank Cowan Insurance Company be selected to provide General Insurance and Risk Management Program commencing November 15, 2012 to November 14, 2013 at the proposed annual premium of $273,587 plus applicable taxes; and, THAT the Warden and Chief Administrative Officer be directed and authorized to enter into an agreement for the provision of a General Insurance and Risk Management Program. - Carried. Budget Comparison: September 2012 YTD – Director of Financial Services The director presented the report highlighting budget performances including the sale of 99 Edward Street, St. Thomas. Moved by Councillor Mennill Seconded by Councillor McWilliam THAT the report titled “Budget Comparison: September 2012 YTD” dated October 15, 2012 be received and filed. - Carried. Elgin County Council Student Day – Director of Community and Cultural Services The director presented the report recommending that Council host a Student Day. 4 County Council 4 October 23, 2012 Moved by Councillor McIntyre Seconded by Councillor Jenkins THAT County Council’s Student Day session be held on November 27, 2012; and, THAT the Department of Community and Cultural Services make the appropriate arrangements. - Carried. Courthouse Redevelopment Time Capsule Committee – Director of Community and Cultural Services The director presented the report, outlining that the County has been asked to take the lead to develop a new time capsule for the consolidated Elgin County Courthouse. Moved by Councillor Couckuyt Seconded by Councillor Jenkins THAT the Director of Community and Cultural Services serve as Chair of the St. Thomas Consolidated Courthouse Time Capsule Committee on behalf of the County of Elgin based on the terms of reference in the report; and, THAT the Curator and Manager of Archives serve as ad hoc members of the committee as required. - Carried. Access to Information and Privacy Policy – Director of Community and Cultural Services The director presented the report outlining the County’s commitment to meeting the terms of the Access to Information Act and Privacy Policy. Moved by Councillor Wiehle Seconded by Councillor Marr THAT the attached Access to Information and Privacy Policy be adopted in accordance with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act; and, THAT the Director of Community and Cultural Services act as coordinator under the terms of the Act. - Carried. Review of Strategic Vision, Mission Statement and Corporate Goals – Chief Administrative Officer The Chief Administrative Officer presented the information to council for review. Staff was directed to set aside time at a future council meeting to review the original vision, mission statement and goals in detail. Moved by Councillor Mennill Seconded by Councillor Wiehle THAT the report titled “Review of Strategic Vision, Mission Statement and Corporate Goals” be received and filed. - Carried. Council recessed at 9:45 a.m. for 20 minutes. CORRESPONDENCE Items for Consideration 1. Karen Leibovici, President, Federation of Canadian Municipalities, informing Council of th launch of second round of nominations for Jubilee Medal Program in celebration of the 60 anniversary of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth with December 31, 2012 being the new deadline for nominations. 5 County Council 5 October 23, 2012 2. Rebecca McLean, Supervisor of Planning, London District Catholic School Board, offering St. Gabriel’s Catholic Elementary School, 15 Parish Street, St. Thomas, Ontario as surplus school property. 3. Hon. Bob Chiarelli, Minister of Infrastructure, Minister of Transportation, encouraging Council’s participation in the federal long-term infrastructure plan consultation process. 4. Monika Turner, Director of Policy, Association of Municipalities of Ontario, requesting the County consider supporting arbitration reform in the form of a resolution to the Ontario Legislature. The following recommendation was adopted in regard to Correspondence Item #1: Moved by Councillor Marr Seconded by Councillor McIntyre THAT Correspondence Item #1 be received and filed. - Carried. The following recommendation was adopted in regard to Correspondence Item #2: Moved by Councillor Mennill Seconded by Councillor Couckuyt THAT Correspondence Item #2 be received and filed. - Carried. The following recommendation was adopted in regard to Correspondence Item #3: Moved by Councillor Marr Seconded by Councillor Jenkins THAT correspondence from the Minister of Infrastructure and Minister of Transportation regarding the new infrastructure program be referred to staff for consideration. Staff direction was given to bring a report forward to council. - Carried. The following recommendation was adopted in regard to Correspondence Item #4: Moved by Councillor Jenkins Seconded by Councillor Mennill THAT Elgin County Council requests the provincial government to work collectively in the best interest of Ontario municipalities and Ontario taxpayers by passing arbitration reform legislation. - Carried. Items for Information (Consent Agenda) 1. Closure of the St. Thomas Ontario Disability Support Program Office (ODSP): a) Matt Smale, Administrative Clerk, City of St. Thomas, endorsing Elgin County’s resolution concerning the closure of the ODSP office. b) Hon. Dalton McGuinty, Premier, thanking council for their resolution regarding the ODSP office closure. c) Arlene Berday, Regional Director/A, South West Region, Ministry of Community and Social Services with contact information for relocation of ODSP office. 2. Hon. Deb Matthews, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care with a further update on the St. Thomas Elgin General Hospital (STEGH) redevelopment project. 3. Elgin St. Thomas Public Health Strategic Plan 2013-2015. 6 County Council 6 October 23, 2012 4. Nancie Irving, Clerk/Lottery Licensing Officer, Town of Aylmer, with resolution advising that Aylmer has no concerns or additional comments with regards to the County of Elgin Official Plan. 5. Margaret Underhill, Planning Coordinator/Deputy Clerk, Municipality of Bayham, with a resolution requesting modifications to the County of Elgin Adopted Official Plan. 6. David Warden, Chair, Board of Health, Elgin St. Thomas Public Health with copy of correspondence to Chief Medical Officer of Health, Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, concerning position of Medical Officer of Health at Elgin St. Thomas Public Health. 7. Ontario Association of Non-Profit Homes and Services for Seniors with information on the context and challenges of Municipal Delivery of Long Term Care Services. In response to an inquiry regarding Correspondence Item #1, the Warden responded that there would be a transition process for closure. Barbara Arbuckle, Director, St. Thomas-Elgin Ontario Works, reported her office was working closely with the ODSP office in St. Thomas and on protocols regarding communications with clients, stressing that ODSP services cannot be handled by the Service Ontario office. A direct phone line to ODSP in London from the Service Ontario office is being considered in case of an emergency. Moved by Councillor Jenkins Seconded by Councillor Marr THAT correspondence Items #1 - 7 be received and filed. - Carried. OTHER BUSINESS Statements/Inquiries by Members Councillor McIntyre thanked county staff for the open house held October 19, 2012 at Shedden Library. He noted that there was a strong response to the survey being circulated in the community regarding the future of the library. th Councillor McIntyre requested a certificate of congratulations in honour of the 50 anniversary of the family business, Walker Holsteins. Councillor Jenkins supported the request. The Warden agreed to provide a certificate from the county. Notice of Motion - None Matters of Urgency - None Closed Meeting Items Moved by Councillor Mennill Seconded by Councillor Marr THAT we do now proceed into closed meeting session in accordance with the Municipal Act to discuss matters under Section 240.2 (d); two items: labour relations or employee negotiations – Confirmation of Contract & SEIU Grievance to Arbitration; and, Section 240.2 (a) the security of the property of the municipality or local board - Graham Scott Enns - Memorandum of Understanding and Marianne Barrie - Lease; and, Section 240.2 (e) litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board – Insurance Opinion re: Insurance Proposals. - Carried. The Chief Administrative Officer presented the report on Confirmation of Contract. The Director of Human Resources presented the report on SEIU Grievance to Arbitration. The Deputy Director of Engineering Services presented the report on the Graham Scott Enns Memorandum of Understanding, and, the Marianne Barrie Lease. 7 County Council 7 October 23, 2012 The Warden indicated the Insurance Proposals confidential letter had already been dealt with when the Purchasing Coordinator gave a report on the insurance matter earlier. Moved by Councillor McIntyre Seconded by Councillor Jenkins THAT we do now rise and report. - Carried. Moved by Councillor Mennill Seconded by Councillor McIntyre THAT Steve Evans be appointed as the County Planner; and, THAT the Chief Administrative Officer be authorized and directed to sign the contract extension to December 31, 2014 according to the terms and conditions of the existing employment agreement. - Carried. Moved by Councillor Jenkins Seconded by Councillor Marr THAT the confidential report titled “SEIU Grievance to Arbitration” dated October 16, 2012 be received and filed. - Carried. Moved by Councillor Marr Seconded by Councillor McWilliam THAT the Director of Engineering be authorized and directed to sign the Memorandum of Understanding with Graham Scott Enns for Room #246; and, THAT the lease commence October 1, 2012 with the following lease rates: October 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012 - $14.50/sq.ft., plus H.S.T.; January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013 - $14.75 sq./ft., plus H.S.T.; January 1, 2014 to April 30, 2014 - $15 sq./ft., plus H.S.T.; and, THAT the Warden and Chief Administrative Officer be authorized and directed to sign a lease agreement with Marianne Barrie for Room #236; and, THAT the lease commence October 1, 2012 for a lease rate of $14.80 sq./ft. for the term of the lease, plus the H.S.T. ($3,774 annual payment). - Carried. Moved by Councillor Wiehle Seconded by Councillor Jenkins THAT the confidential correspondence titled “Insurance Proposals” dated September 12, 2011 be received and filed. - Carried. The meeting recessed at 10:40 a.m. and reconvened at 11:20 a.m. Employment Land Strategy – General Manager of Economic Development The manager presented a brief report which contains an analysis of employment lands in the county and introduced the delegate. DELEGATION Lauren Millier of millierdickinsonblais, presented a PowerPoint on the “County of Elgin, Employment Land Strategy.” 8 County Council 8 October 23, 2012 (The Warden excused himself from Chambers at 11:25 a.m. Deputy Warden McIntyre assumed the chair for the remainder of the meeting). Moved by Councillor Couckuyt Seconded by Councillor McWilliam THAT County Council endorse the “County of Elgin Employment Land Strategy” dated October 12, 2012; and, THAT recommendations from the strategy that have financial and/or resource implications for the County of Elgin be considered through Council’s budgetary process. - Carried. Motion to Adopt Recommendations of the Committee of the Whole Moved by Councillor Mennill Seconded by Councillor Marr THAT we do now adopt recommendations of the Committee Of The Whole. - Carried. BY-LAWS Moved by Councillor Jenkins Seconded by Councillor Wiehle THAT By-Law No. 12-29 “Being a By-Law to Confirm Proceedings of the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the County of Elgin at the October 23, 2012 Meeting” be read a first, second and third time and finally passed. - Carried. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Councillor Marr Seconded by Councillor McWilliam THAT we do now adjourn at 11:55 a.m. and meet again on November 13, 2012 at the County Administration Building Council Chambers at 9:00 a.m. - Carried. Mark McDonald, James McIntyre, Chief Administrative Officer. Deputy Warden. 9 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Business Case: Development of an Elgin Business Resource Centre Satellite Office in the West of Elgin County (Pilot Project) John Regan Ec.D (F) Marilyn Crewe November, 2012 44 Executive Summary Elgin Business Resource Centre is home to the Elgin Community Futures Development Corporation, Elgin/St Thomas Small Business Enterprise Centre, Ontario Self Employment Benefits Program, Summer Company Program and the Innovation Centre for Entrepreneurs, hereinafter referred to as Elgin Business Resource CentreorEBRC. The role of EBRCis to support our local business communities. EBRCis a community based not-for-profit organization run by a board of local volunteers and staffed by professionals who encourage entrepreneurship and the pursuit of economic opportunities at a business and community levelwhich includesaccess to capital (business loans), business servicesand project supportthrough strategic community planning. The community has been turning to EBRCto: improve access to financial resources for rural business and community development provide more targetedopportunities for rural youth strengthen rural community capacity-building, leadership and skills development create opportunities for rural communities to maintain and develop infrastructure for business development connect rural Canadians to business in the creativeeconomy and help them acquire the skills to use the technology strengthen economic diversification in rural Canada through targeted business assistance promote rural Canada as a place to live, work and raise a family, recognizing the value of rural Canada to the identity and well-being of the nation. With the current demand at EBRC main officeand the success of the East Elgin office, it isworthwhileto consider thissecond pilot projectto deliver an EBRC satellite officein the west of Elgin County. This western officewill improve accessibility tobusinesses needingsupport,as well as improveaccess for youngentrepreneursviaSummer Company and Youth Entrepreneurship Partnership Program (YEP). Combining the benefits oflocation, increased access to programs and serviceswith themanagement and professional support teams atbothEBRC offices, Elgin County’sEconomic Development “pilot project”in the west of the County will capture lost opportunities and helpsustain our local economy. Currently, the County is recognized for its support to one of Elgin Business Resource Centre’s core programs- the Elgin/St Thomas Small Business Enterprise Centre (SBEC). In partnership withElgin CFDC and the Ministry of Economic Development and Innovation; ElginCounty and City of St Thomas have committed annual matching contributions of $35,000.Most recently theCounty has added the East Elgin “pilot project” to their compliment of Economic Development initiatives for the region with an investment of $110,000 for its inaugural year. 45 Organization and Management Elgin Business Resource Centre is a community-based, non-profit organization overseen by an engaged volunteerBoard of Directors who ably representsthe population of Elgin County. The corporation was federally incorporated as Elgin Community Futures Development Corporation in 1996; it is staffed by business professionals who encourage entrepreneurship and the pursuit of economic opportunities. It was in 1986 that Elgin Community Futures Development Corporation first opened its doors. At that time, we were known as the Elgin Local Employment Assistance and Development Corporation. Ten years later, the organization evolved, merging with the Elgin Community Futures Committee to assist and encourage job creation through the creation of small business enterprises and community economic development throughout Elgin County. As an organization that just keeps on re-inventing itself, we recently (2009) rebranded ourselves as the Elgin Business Resource Centre. The day-to-day operations are the responsibility of the General Manager, John Regan, Ec. D (F). Supporting the General Manager are Lisa King- Accounts Manager, Glenn Thorel- LoansOfficer, Debra Webster- Executive Assistant, Ronda Stewart- SBEC Manager and Summer CompanyCoordinator, Marilyn Crewe- CED Officer and YEPCoordinator, 5 Business Development Counsellors and 1 Business Assistant. Bothsatellite offices will be managed by EBRC main office and adhere to its governance and policies. Bothsatellite offices will provide reports to the County of Elgin’s Economic Development and Tourism Advisory Committee (CEEDTAC)who will act as an advisory committee onlyfor bothsatellite offices. Project Description ElginCounty in partnership with the Elgin Business Resource Centre (EBRC)will enter into a “pilot project”agreement toopen an EBRCsatellite officeinthe west of Elgin County. In order to accomplish this, EBRC will contribute an estimated $25,000 by way of time, management, training, miscellaneous and incidental costs. EBRC will require operational costs as outlined below. To replicate a “pilot project”in the west of Elgin County the operational expenses to the County will be $140,000for a one year period, providing suitable office space isprovided at no charge to EBRC: 1.Wages ($93,500) 2.Benefits & contributions($23,065) 3.Office Expenses ($8,160) 4.Telephone and IT ($2,160) 5.Training and Development ($10,100) 6.Start up Costs/Miscellaneous($3,015) 46 Purpose & Objectives Unemployment rates in Elgin County remainamong the highest in Canada at9.2% (Elgin’s statistical estimate outside of the London area statistics). Historically economic downturns result withincreased self- employmentactivity. Withincreasedself-employmentactivity, there isa corresponding increasedneed for services to assist allbusinesses. Whetherthrough the inception phase, start up, growth and expansion, succession and ongoing businesssupport. The Economic and Strategic Plans for Elgin County recognize theimportance of entrepreneurship and business retention as being critical to the economic growth and sustainability of this area. Currently, EBRCoffers the following business services: Counsellingfor businessesin planning and start-upphase(self employment) Counselling for businesses inretention and expansion phase Information on existing government programs for business (grants, training, etc.) Assistance with the development of applications for access to government programs and funds Financial assistance in the form of loans Partnership and leveraging opportunities in business Advice through anaccountant/lawyer referral service Access to mentorship and entrepreneur-specific resources Workshops and seminars Networking and professional development opportunities Guidance on licenses, permits, registration, regulations and other requirements Onsite business registration Business incubation As in East Elgin, the EBRCsatellite office in the westwill bededicated to helping business owners and entrepreneurs succeed in today's ever-changing business market. Whether they're thinking about opening a business, formulating a business plan, or undergoing change in an established business, the EBRCsatellite office will offer assistance and have access to the resources andhuman capital in the main office. FinancialSummary: Year 1Year 2Year 3 Wages93,50095,37097,277 Benefits & contributions23,06524,55926,185 2,1602,2682,381 Telephone & IT 8,1608,5688,996 Office Expenses Training & Development10,1009,2359,891 Start up Costs/Miscellaneous3,0150269 Final Total140,000140,000145,000 47 General Manager Summary: The Elgin Business Resource Centre (EBRC)has been in business for 26 successful years. In 2011, the Elgin Business Resource Centre with helpfrom its partnership with the County of Elgin created 224jobs andmaintained 353jobs. EBRC providedover 2026in-depth consultations. Also in 2011, EBRC delivered over $1.8million in loans to 19businesses in the Elgin County area. These loans leveraged over $4 million within our community. Further to this success in 2011, EBRCwas responsible for the assistance in the creation of 175new businesses in Elgin Countyand St Thomas.The demand for services did not decreaseas we entered into 2012. In summary, there exists an opportunity today to create an EBRCsatellite office as a “pilot project”in the westthat augments the services of the Elgin Business Resource Centre (EBRC). We expect these business developmentservices will better engage the local entrepreneursand provide economic support to the business communities in the west of the County. Wewill draw fromthe main office supportto assist the satellite office. It would not be prudent to estimate the results of the satellite office, as this is a “pilot project” to determine just that.At the end of the one year “pilot project”, an economic impact report will be presented to Council. This new “pilot project”and the operational expenses are not associated to the County’s current partnership contribution to the Elgin/ St Thomas Small Business Enterprise Centre program as the the programs and services thatEBRC providesfrom its 300 South satelliteoffice will provideALL Edgeware location. It will be at the County’s discretionand initiativeto enter into negotiations with EBRC to extend the satellite office(s)project beyond its pilot phase. John Regan, Ec. D (F) General Manager Elgin Business Resource Centre 519.633.7597 ext. 334 519.636.3186 cell jregan@elgincfdc.ca 48 St.ThomasElginGeneralHospital AnnualReporttoElginCountyCouncil October2012 rd STEGHWinsPlatinumfor3StraightYear! STEGHhaswontheQualityHealthcareWorkplaceAwardatthehighestwtŒ·z“Ò’xlevelforthethird straightyear!ThisawardisadjudicatedbytheMinistryofHealthandtheOntarioHospitalAssociation. Apanelofqualityworkplaceexpertscompletesarigorousassessmentthatfocusesonthedriversof employeeandorganizationalhealth.Thisisagreatachievementandacknowledgesthatothers,who havegreatinsightintowhatmakesanorganizationaw¨ÒŒz·ähealthcareޚ©‰¦Œ-;xrhaveevaluated STEGHandconcludedthatwemeetbestpracticecriteria.Theawardispresentedatthisä;©x­annual OntarioHospitalAssociationconvention. STEGH#1inProvinceforERwaitTimesforAdmittedPatients WecannowconfirmthatSTEGHhadthe#1performanceinERwaittimesforadmittedpatientsinthe firstquarterofthisyear.In2011/12weranked#3intheprovince.Thisresultisaboutdeliveringan excellentpatientcareexperience.Themajorityofpatientsadmittedtohospitalareadmittedthrough theemergencydepartment.Holdingapatientintheemergencydepartmentforlongperiodswhilethe hospitaltriestofreeupabedfortheiradmissionisnotsafecare,isnotqualitycareandisnotagood experienceforthepatientasseenthroughtheireyes. WaittimesareanimportantfocusoftheMinistryofHealthwhoprovidesincentivefundsforthose abletodemonstrateimprovement.Ourperformancein2011/12added$1.4milliontoourrevenueand ourperformancethisyearwilllikelyyieldanadditional$1.6million. KnowledgeTransferFinancialSupportforSTEGHfromLHIN ThesustainedimprovementSTEGHhasachievedinERwaittimesandtheprocessusedhasdrawn attentionfromtheSouthwestLHIN.ItbelievestheknowledgeSTEGHhasgainedthroughitswŒ;“xfocus shouldbesharedwithotherhospitalsintheLHINtohelpthemtoimprovetheirperformance.Recently theLHINBoardapprovedspecialLHINfGHofover$1million(spreadoverthreeyears)to undingforSTE supportaprogramofknowledgetransferfromSTEGHtofourotherLHINhospitals. TransformingCare STEGHhasfocusedonandinvestedin,awŒ;“xapproachtohealthcarethatisgettingattentionforits results(asdescribedabove).Thehospitalisembracingthisimprovementmethodrightfromthe boardroomtothebedside.Itisakeystrategyinthepursuitofthewš­¦z·Œx­visiontodeliveran excellentpatientcareexperience,everytime. ChemotherapyExpansion STEGHhassuccessfullynegotiatedwiththeLondonRegionalCancerCentretoincreasechemotherapy servicefromonedaytothreeandahalfdaysperweekbeginningApril2013.Thiswillbeasignificant 49 convenienceforpatientswhohavetotraveltoLondontoreceivethistreatment.Chemotherapywillbe relocatedfromitspresentfourthfloorlocationtonewpremisesinambulatorycareonthegroundfloor oftheCCCwing. CapitalRedevelopment TheSTEGHcapitalredevelopmentprojectentitled{w;7;Ez“z“mOurCÒ·Ò©;|isvitaltothefutureofour hospitalandourcommunity.WereceivedarenewedapprovalfromOntarioMinisterofHealthandLong TermCare,DebMathewsinAugust2012followingasuccessful{©;­-š¦;7|submissionpresentedto theMinistryinApril2012.Thehospitalwasdirectedtorescopeitsoriginal2009submission(which aseoftheOntariomšÝ;©“’;“·x­budgetinMarch receivedapprovalinAugust2011)followingtherele 2012. Theapprovedrescopedplanretainsanewemergencydepartment,surgicalsuite,sterileprocessing departmentandmentalhealthinpatientunitandoutpatientprogram.Thehospitalcapitalizedon lessonslearnedfromitswŒ;“xexperiencesincethe2009submission,toreducethesquarefoot requirementofthenewbuildwhileenhancingtheuseabilityofthespace.Inaddition,therescopedplan eliminatespreviouslyplannednorth/southandeast/westcorridorsdesignedtoimprovetrafficflow andconnfectioncontrol/transfer.AdecisiontorelocatealloutpatientservicestothevacantCCC taini groundfloortoaccommodateatemporarymentalhealthserviceonthewš­¦z·Œ­xfirstfloor(not anticipatedatthetimeoftheoriginalsubmission),hashelpedtomitigatetheneedforanewcorridor system. ThehospitalFoundationisdevelopingitsfundraisingcampaignforthenewbuildthroughitsvolunteer w/šÒ“-zŒof/wz©­xuWeexpecttogototendersometimeinthefallof2014andtocompletethebuildby June2017. WethankElginCountyCouncilforitscontinuedunwaveringsupportofthisprojectandofSTEGH. InterimMentalHealthPlan Currently,ElginCountyandSt.Thomaspatientsrequiringsecondarylevel(schedule1)mentalhealth carearetypicallyadmittedtotheRegionalMentalHealthfacilityonSunsetDrive,operatedbySt. Wš­;¦wx­HealthcareinLondon.TheSunsetDrivefacilityisrequiredtobecompletelyvacatedbyJune entprogramswilltransfertoSTEGH.Ourcapital 2013,andtheschedule1inpatientunitandoutpati redevelopmentprogramwillseeanewfacilityformentalhealth(asdescribedabove)butsinceitwill notbereadyuntil2017,STEGHwillhavetoaccommodatetheprogramintemporaryspaceuntilthen. Wearerelocatingouroutpatient(orw’,Ҍ·š©äxœservicesfromourfirstfloor,westwingtonewly renovatedspaceonthefirstfloorofourCCCwingtomakeroomforthisaccommodation.Whileour ambulatoryserviceswillbeoperatingintheirnewCCCspaceinearlywinter,thetransferofthemental healthprogramtoSTEGHisexpectedinJune2013. PartofthisdevelopmentistheSnellBuildingdemolitionwhichisarequirementofthebigcapital redevelopmentprojecttocreatenewparkingspace.However,ithasbecomeanearlyworksprojectto accommodatenotonlyparking,butimprovedaccesstotheCCCbuildingtomeetincreasedflowof patientsinthisareaseekingoutpatientservices.Thatdemolitionisunderway. 50 HospitalFunding TheMinistryinitiatedanewprocessforfundinghospitalsonApril1,2012.Thenewformulamoves awayfromwmŒš,ŒEғ7z“mxandtowardsfundingfollowingthepatient.Thisisasignificantchangeand presentsachallengeforOntariohospitalsasweadjust.AtSTEGH,wefeelconfidentthatthesefunding changesactuallysupporttheworkwearedabove. edoingtow·©“­Eš©’-©;xasdescrib 51 REPORTS OF COUNCIL AND STAFF November 13, 2012 Staff Reports – (ATTACHED) Manager of Information Technology – Information Technology Long Term Capital Plan Manager of Information Technology – 2012 Information Technology Capital Budget Reallocation Request Purchasing Coordinator – External Audit Services Purchasing Coordinator – Contractor Performance Appraisal System Director of Engineering Services – Purchase of Ambulance for 2013 Manager of Planning – Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Request for comments: Township of Malahide Five-Year Official Plan Review and Official Plan Amendment No. 11 for the Town of Aylmer Manager of Planning – Provincial Policy Statement - Five Year Review Director of Homes and Seniors Services – Bathing System Replacements - Bobier Villa Director of Homes and Seniors Services – Long Term Care Service Accountability Agreement 2013-2016 Director of Homes and Seniors Services – Residents’ Handbook Director of Community and Cultural Services – Completion of Renovations to Straffordville Library Director of Human Resources – Compensation Review Deferral Director of Human Resources – 2012/2013 Excess Indemnity Coverage Revised Quote Tree Commissioner/Weed Inspector – Year End Report for 2012 52 REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Al Reitsma, Manager of Information Technology DATE: October 29, 2012 SUBJECT: Information Technology Long Term Capital Plan INTRODUCTION: The County of Elgin has approximately $1.2 million dollars invested in information and communication technology (ICT) assets. This report provides a plan for how these assets will be maintained over the next ten years. DISCUSSION: The County of Elgin has approximately 640 ICT valued at approximately $1.2 million, assets including: Desktop Computers (workstations) Network Routers Wireless Access Points Network Switches Servers Storage Area Network (SAN) Network Attached Storage (NAS) Tablets (iPads) Monitors Laptops Touch Screen Computers (Kiosks) Thin Client Computers (Wyse Terminals) Printers Phones Projectors Scanners Kronos Clocks Computers on Wheels (COWs) A decade ago it would have been impossible to predict that the County of Elgin would be using wireless technology, touch screens, tablets, biometric punch clocks and virtual server technology. Therefore, it must be understood that a long term capital plan is a point in time plan based on current technology and should be reviewed and revised annually to take into account advances in technology. Appendix 1 provides a summary of the overall capital budget for Information Technology. The annual allocation for various hardware categories is summarized in Appendix 2. 53 Based on the fact that the County has approximately $1.2 million in ICT assets and an annual hardware capital budget of $87,300 it will take 14 years to replace all assets. It is unreasonable to think that the majority of these assets will last 14 years. The strategy for hardware replacement that has been used successfully over the last 9 years has been to replace hardware only when the asset: cannot be repaired or becomes obsolete. Through the use of Citrix and upgrades to memory, the county has been able to extend the life of many of its workstations well past their normal life expectancy. Because public access computers (PACs) do not use Citrix they should be regularly replaced to avoid degradation in performance. A project to replace all 50 PAC computers is currently underway (see the November 1, 2012 report: “2012 Information Technology Capital Budget Reallocation Request”). The exceptions to the aforementioned asset replacement strategy are: Public Access Computers In order to ensure acceptable computer performance for our library patrons, PACs will be replaced every 5 years iPads All iPads will be replaced every 4 years, concurrent with council elections. However, if the devices are still functional and meet user requirements they will not be replaced. Routers, Access Points and Switches The County’s current wide area network (WAN) and local area network (LAN) topology/design has been in place since 2004. Many of the routers and switches are over 7 years old. The types of devices and number of users using the network have significantly changed since the network was designed. To meet security and productivity requirements the network will be redesigned in 2013. Although IT staff has sufficient knowledge to maintain the routers and switches currently in use, a redesign would require a network engineer to reprogram the routers in order to implement the redesign. New routers and switches have evolved to the point that current IT staff have the knowledge required to setup and maintain a redesigned network without the assistance of a network engineer. Routers and switches currently in use do not provide the capability to diagnose network bandwidth issues that new routers and switches do. The ability to diagnose bandwidth issues is becoming critical as the number of devices and types of applications on the network increases. The IT capital plan includes an allocation of $60,000 in 2013 to replace routers, access points and switches. 54 Servers The County currently operates 9 physical servers and 34 virtual servers (operating on 4 of the physical servers). Servers should be regularly replaced in response to operating system and application load changes. Server replacements are planned for 2013 and 2018 at an estimated cost of $60,000 in each of those years. Multi-function Printers (MFPs) Wherever possible, printers have been consolidated and replaced with multi-function printers (MFPs) capable of printing, faxing and scanning. The County currently has 18 MFPs throughout the organization. In 2013 MFPs will be purchased for the Fred Bodsworth, Shedden and West Lorne Public Libraries. After those replacements, all libraries will have MFPs removing the need to have stand-alone scanners and printers. The annual IT capital budget includes $15,000 for MFPs. After 2013, the annual allocation will be used to replace failing or out-of-date devices. Printers The County strategy regarding printers is to consolidate and use MFPs wherever possible. The exception to this is where a location within a long term care homes is not within reasonable walking distance to an MFP. In those cases a network printer is installed in a central location where it is accessible from multiple workstations. Only in rare cases are printers setup for individual use only. Following this strategy the County has been able to reduce the number of printers that are maintained. An annual allocation of $5,000 has been included in the budget for printer maintenance . Licensing Licensing needs evolve as vendors release new software versions or a better alternative is discovered. The following chart identifies planned projects for this year and 2013: Year20122013 Budget$40,000.00$65,000.00 Spenttodate$5,111.32 Office2010$31,536.78 Windows7PCs$21,244.72 Windows7Laptops$2,880.64 Windows7Kiosks$6,481.44 Server2008$3,594.10 Total$36,648.10$34,200.90 Website It is anticipated that the County of Elgin’s website will require a refresh every two to three years. Therefore the capital budget includes $37,000 for a website refresh in each of 2015, 2018 and 2022. 55 CONCLUSION: All assets naturally wear out or become obsolete over time, the County’s approximately 640 ICT assets are no exception. A plan has been developed for the replacement of these assets. The plan concentrates on an upgrade to servers and network routers and switches in 2013/14. RECOMMENDATION: THAT the report titled “Information Technology Long Term Capital Plan” dated October 29, 2012 be received and filed. All of which is Respectfully Submitted Approved for Submission Al Reitsma Mark G. McDonald Manager of Information Technology Chief Administrative Officer Jim Bundschuh Director of Financial Services 56 REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Al Reitsma, Manager of Information Technology DATE: October 29, 2012 SUBJECT: 2012 Information Technology Capital Budget Reallocation Request INTRODUCTION: The County of Elgin library system includes 50 public access computers (PACs). A project is currently underway to replace 30 of these aging PACs. There exists an opportunity to replace the remaining 20 PACs if council approves the re-allocation of existing Information Technology capital funds. DISCUSSION: A project is currently underway to replace 30 of the 50 aging PACs located at the County’s public libraries.Replacing these PACs will: lead to improved patron experience, reduce staff frustration and reduce maintenance costs. The 2012 Information Technology capital plan included $50,000 for accounts payable software. That project is nearing completion with an anticipated surplus of $40,000. Staff is recommending that some of this surplus be used to replace the remaining 20 PACs at an estimated cost of $20,000. Replacing these PACs now will provide a consistent patron experience at all County libraries and reduce IT maintenance costs. Staff is also recommending that an additional $10,000 of surplus be used to replace 13 staff computers that are 8 years old due to degrading performance. If those replacements are completed the County’s workstation inventory will have no computers older than 7 years. CONCLUSION: An Information Technology project is currently underway to replace 30 PACs and opportunity exists to replace the remaining 20 PACs if surplus funds from the completed accounts payable project are reallocated. There also exist 13 workstations that are 8 years old and experience degrading performance that should be replaced. Staff recommends that funds be reallocated to purchase replacement PACs and staff computers. 58 RECOMMENDATION: THAT $30,000 be re-allocated from the Information Technology Accounts Payable capital project to the Information Technology Hardware capital project. All of which is Respectfully Submitted Approved for Submission Al Reitsma Mark G. McDonald Manager of Information Technology Chief Administrative Officer Jim Bundschuh Director of Financial Services 59 REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Sonia Beavers, Purchasing Coordinator DATE: October 29, 2012 SUBJECT: External Audit Services INTRODUCTION: A Request for Proposal for External Audit Services was advertised and issued as per the County’s Procurement Policy. Submissions were received until October 10, 2012. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Five companies submitted a Proposal for External Audit Services. The five companies were; i) Deloitte Inc., ii) Graham, Scott, Enns, iii) KPMG, iv) Millard, Rouse and Rosebrugh, v) Price Waterhouse Cooper. The Proposal structure was a 2 envelope system. Submissions in envelope one were evaluated against the following criteria, a) Previous Experience of Firm, b) Key Personnel, c) Audit Schedule, d) Value Added – Advisory Services, e) Approach to Methodology of Audit. Firms achieving a minimum score of 70 were shortlisted. Three out of the 5 companies were short listed. The three shortlisted companies were Deloitte Inc., Graham, Scott, Enns and KPMG. Envelope 2 itemizing the fees and expenses submitted by these three firms were opened and evaluated for consideration. An evaluation committee comprised of staff evaluated the proposals and identified Graham, Scott, Enns as receiving the overall highest score. Graham, Scott, Enns submitted the lowest bid and there was no increase in cost for the provision of External Audit Services. The contract shall be for a five (5) year period commencing with the December 31, 2012 fiscal audit. RECOMMENDATION: THAT Graham, Scott, Enns be selected for the Provision of External Audit Services, Proposal No. 09-18-2012 at the proposed 5 year contract fee of $111, 250 plus taxes commencing with the December 31, 2012 fiscal audit and terminating with the December 31, 2016 fiscal audit. 60 All of which is Respectfully Submitted Approved for Submission Sonia Beavers Mark G. McDonald Purchasing Coordinator Chief Administrative Officer Jim Bundschuh Director of Financial Services 61 REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Sonia Beavers, Purchasing Coordinator DATE: October 26, 2012 SUBJECT: Contractor Performance Appraisal System INTRODUCTION: The County of Elgin expects the highest possible performance from all Vendors/ Contractors/Consultants. Monitoring the contractor’s performance provides information needed to help ensure that contracted services purchased are being delivered. Staff is requesting Council’s approval to adopt a Performance Evaluation System by which the Vendors/Contractors/Consultants performance may be ranked at substantial completion of the project or more frequently if deemed necessary. DISCUSSION: The award process must be open, fair and transparent but an open process does not mean that the County is bound to award contracts to bidders who have proved to be inadequate in the past. Most vendors/contractors/consultants meet the budget timing and quality targets. They meet their commitments, honour their obligations and they take pride in their work. However, there are a handful of contractors who do not perform adequately. The Performance Appraisal System is a standard process for assessing and recording contractor performance. It is designed to serve as a permanent record for the County and as a means of evaluating and comparing contractor performance on an ongoing basis throughout the project. The Performance Appraisal System will be used to evaluate all contracts regardless of value. The implementation of the Performance Appraisal System will be at the discretion of the Project Manager and/or the Purchasing Coordinator. Under the direction of the Purchasing Coordinator, the County’s Project Manager will rate the vendor/contractor/consultant’s performance based on how the project is managed, the progress and the quality of the work. Issues and concerns are brought to the vendor/contractor/consultant’s attention for resolution and a final performance appraisal review is held at the end of the project. Contractors who disagree with the performance appraisal will be given the opportunity to appeal the rating. The system is a proactive means of identifying unsatisfactory performance during the course of the project and to ensure that performance improves. The Performance Appraisal System will be an added tool to monitor projects and have documentation on file. Unsatisfactory performance issues will be documented using the Vendor Incident Reporting Form. Performance issues will be addressed with the contractor early in the 62 project allowing the contractor time to improve. The Performance Appraisal System will also be used as a measurement tool for evaluating how the County does business and will serve as a basis of making continuous improvements. CONCLUSION: The use of a Performance Appraisal System is to ensure the County gets the best value for their purchasing dollar and to ensure the best contractors are rewarded for their quality work. Monitoring the contractor’s performance may also strengthen accountability, help improve performance, stimulate productivity and creativity. Before the contract starts, to be fair and transparent the vendor/contractor/consultant is advised if issues arise its performance will be documented. Vendor/contractor/ consultant is provided with a copy of the Performance Appraisal Forms. The contractors know up-front that their performance will be monitored and the contractor also knows that it will be given the opportunity to rectify any problems or issues. Several municipalities have had this system in place for many years and have never had to place a contractor on probation or put the contractor on notice that future bids could result in non award of the contract for a maximum of three years. Usually if the contractor knows they are being watched they are more diligent in providing good quality service. The contractor will have the opportunity to appeal their Performance rating. This process reiterates that the County believes everyone should be treated fairly and it gives the contractor the opportunity to have their performance issues addressed by unbiased individuals. The dispute committee will advise, investigate and whenever possible resolve issues. The results will remain confidential and reported in closed session to County Council. RECOMMENDATION: THAT the “Contractor Performance Appraisal System” be implemented effective January 1, 2013. All of which is Respectfully Submitted Approved for Submission Sonia Beavers Mark G. McDonald Purchasing Coordinator Chief Administrative Officer Jim Bundschuh Director of Financial Services 63 Date To Whom It May Concern: The County of Elgin has adopted a Contractor Performance Appraisal System by which if issues arise, the Vendor’s/Contractor’s/Consultant’s performance is documented. Under the direction of the Purchasing Coordinator, the County’s Project Manager will be asked to record their concerns using the Vendor Incident Reporting Form. Results will be shared with the Vendor/Contractor/Consultant and a verbal warning may be issued by the Purchasing Coordinator. If performance does not improve, a second Vendor Incident Reporting Form will be issued and results will be shared with the Vendor/Contractor/Consultant. The Purchasing Coordinator will issue a written warning to the Vendor/Contractor/Consultant. If performance does not improve a third Vendor Incident Reporting Form will be initiated by the Project Manager and the results will be shared with the Vendor/Contractor/Consultant. Upon completion of the project, if a third Vendor Incident Reporting Form is issued, under the direction of the Purchasing Coordinator, the Project Manager will complete the applicable Performance Report. Once the ranking on the applicable Performance Report has been completed, the results will be shared with the Vendor/Contractor/Consultant to discuss the overall ranking for the project. From this ranking will stem a recommendation to either allow the Vendor/Contractor/Consultant to a) bid on future projects, b) to place the Vendor/Contractor/Consultant on two year probation to closely monitor future work, (fees required to monitor future work may be added to the project); or, c) to put the Vendor/Contractor/Consultant on notice that future bids may result in non award of the contract for a maximum of 3 years. The Vendor, Contractor or Consultant shall be provided with the written results of the performance evaluation. The Vendor, Contractor or Consultant shall have ten (10) days following delivery of the results of the performance evaluation to request an appeal with the Project Manager and Purchasing Coordinator. If the Vendor, Contractor or Consultant disagrees with the results of the meeting with the Project Manager and Purchasing Coordinator, the Vendor, Contractor or Consultant shall have twenty (20) days following the date of the meeting to request an appeal with the Management Dispute Committee. In the event of a disagreement with the Management Dispute Committee’s final ranking, the Vendor/Contractor/ Consultant will have a further 20 days in which to appeal the decision to County Council Dispute Resolution Committee. Both the Management Dispute Committee and if necessary the County Council Dispute Resolution Committee will hear details of the appeal from both the Vendor/ Contractor/Consultant and County Staff. Upon weighing the facts of the appeal, the Management Dispute Committee and the County Council Dispute Committee will pass a decision, which will be provided, in writing, to the Vendor/Contractor/Consultant and County Staff. It must be noted that while overall performance is being evaluated, the County reserves the right to suspend a bidder for extreme or repeated inadequate grades for a) public safety and traffic control, b) compliance with WSIB provision, c) maintenance of employee safety standards, d) compliance Ministry of Labour regulations. 64 A copy of the ranking sheet has been included for your information. If you have any questions regarding this process, please contact the undersigned by telephone or email, the numbers for which are noted below. Yours truly, Sonia Beavers Purchasing Coordinator P. 519- 631-1460 ext 129, Email:sbeavers@elgin-county.on.ca This letter will be included as part of the award letter. 65 Consultant Performance Report SECTION I - DATA SECTION II PROJECT DATA Report Type Tender/RFP Number Tender/RFP Title Interim Final Contractor Legal Description of Project Property County of Elgin Project Manager Promised. Actual Working Actual Start Actual Working Days Days dateCompletion date County of Elgin Director Contract award amount Contract completion amount Project Role (check one) PRIME CONSULTANT SUB-CONSULTANT PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING SERVICES/INVESTAGATIVE/FIELD STUDIES MONITORING/OPERATIONAL/INSPECTION/ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION A – Overall Success of the Project Maximum Points Actual Points Awarded 20 1. PREPLANNING Tender documents should be clear, concise and cover all possible contingencies. There should be no major errors or omissions. The amount of effort that the County has to do to ensure that all necessary forms and documentation are returned. The consultant should also ensure that they have done all necessary investigation prior to submitting their bid 2.DELIVERY10 The level of professionalism shown by the Consultant in planning the work. The collection of all necessary data AND permits to avoid future conflicts. 3.DESIGN:Measures the completeness and correctness of the 10 design and drawings used on the contract. 4.CO-OPERATION: Degree of co-operation with County officials. 5 5.COMPLETION: Any rate below 5 indicates a delay by the consultant in meeting any of the project 5 time frames, or the amount of effort required by the County to get the consultant to meet deadlines. 6.CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION, SUPERVISION & INSPECTION: Measure the degree of 30 professionalism given to these phases of the contract. The consultant should ensure that qualified personnel are in charge of each phase. The County aside from the normal meetings should have little or no intervention in these phases. Normal Professionalism = 20, Exceptional Professionalism = 30 7.COMMUNICATION: Measure the effort by the Consultant to keep the County aware of the contract 10 progress. This is to be done through but not limited to meetings. It should include written and verbal correspondence when necessary. 8.EXTRAS 5 Requests for unreasonable extras. 9.CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION: The Consultant upon completion of the contract should provide the 5 County with adequate contract documentation from all phases of the contract. (i.e. specifications, , plans, meeting minutes, memo’s payment certificates, drawings, etc) GRAND TOTAL 100 Note: A score of less than 75/100 is considered to be Below Average. An explanation must be provided for any Inadequate, below standard and superior rating in Narrative Section. * 1 66 Contract/Tender/RFP Number: _____________________ SECTION V Authentication and Review I certify that I have objectively prepared this report basing it upon data contained in available project records. ____________________________________ ______________________ Project Manager Date I have reviewed this Contractor Performance Report and make the following comments, recommendations and changes as cited herein or on attached sheets. ________________________________ _____________________ Director Date I have reviewed this report for objectivity and accuracy. I have met with and/or given a copy of this report to the rated Contractor and I have advised the Contractor that any appeal must be made in writing to the Purchasing Coordinator within 10 calendar days Comments _________________________________________ ________________________________________ _____________________ Date of Meeting with Contractor Signature of Purchasing Coordinator Date Report Completed ________________________________________ ______________________ Signature of Director, Financial Services Date RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above data and comments, the overall performance recommendation for this Contractor is: Approved to bid on future work (score must be 75 or more) Placed on two year probation to closely monitor future work (score of 60 – 75) (fees required to monitor future work may be added to the project). NOT recommended for future work for a maximum period of 3 years. (score is 60 or below) 2 67 CONSULTANT RATING GUIDELINES Under the direction of the Purchasing Coordinator, the Consultant Rating Form is prepared by the County of Elgin Project Manager. The completed form provides a record of the Consultant’s performance on the contract. If, from a perusal of the completed form, it is felt advisable to discuss this with the parties concerned, the Purchasing Coordinator will schedule a meeting. The following breakdown of the form is provided to assist the County of Elgin Project Manager so that uniformity may be provided in the ratings. This form is prepared in triplicate, one for the Contractor, one for the Purchasing Coordinator and one for the County of Elgin Project Manager. ItemDescriptionPoints 1.Tender documents should be clear, concise and cover all possible 15-20 contingencies. Good preparation of tender documents, little or no intervention required by County. There should be no major errors. No effort required by County to ensure all necessary documentation was returned. Some effort required to ensure Compliance. Some degree of guidance 9-14 required by County in preparing documents. Considerable effort required. Major effort by County to ensure proper 1-8 tender documentation. 2.Thorough effort by Consultant with no conflicts. 8-10 Some minor conflicts, usually not involving direct County intervention. 4-7 Major conflicts requiring County intervention and guidance. 0-3 3.Good engineering practices, no major errors. 8-10 A few errors, omissions or oversights which could cost time or money. 4-7 Severe errors, omissions or oversights which cost amount of time and/or 0-3 money. 4. Excellent. 5 Good.4 Fair.3 Poor. 0-2 5. Excellent. 5 Good.4 Fair.3 Poor. 0-2 6.High degree of professionalism with little or no County intervention. 25-30 Some County intervention necessary in order to ensure compliance. 15-25 Constant County intervention necessary. 0-15 7. Excellent. 10 Good.7-9 Fair.3-6 Poor. 0-3 8. Excellent. 5 Good.4 Fair.3 Poor. 0-2 9. None 5 Few prices high or few quantities high. 4 Some prices high and few quantities high. 3 Most prices high and many quantities high. 0-2 3 68 4 69 Contractor/Subcontractor Performance Report SECTION I - DATA SECTION II PROJECT DATA Report Type Tender/RFP Number Tender/RFP Title Interim Final Contractor Legal Description of Project Property County of Elgin Project Manager Promised. Actual Working Actual Start Actual Working Days Days dateCompletion date County of Elgin Director Contract award amount Contract completion amount Project Role (check one) PRIME CONTRACTOR SUB-CONTRACTOR SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION MONITORING/OPERATIONAL/INSPECTION/ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES A – Overall Success of the Project Maximum Points Actual Points Awarded 1.COMMENCEMENT: Any rating below 5 indicates extent of delay by 5 Contractor in commencing work or the amount of effort required by the County of Elgin Project Manager in order to get the Contractor to commence project on time. 2.ADEQUATE AND PROPER SUPERVISION: The extent to which 10 the County of Elgin Project Manager found it necessary to provide more than normal supervision and guidance due to inadequate supervision by Contractor or Contractor’s designate. 3.ADEQUATE AND PROPER EQUIPMENT: Degree to which 10 Contractor failed to provide adequate equipment to execute work efficiently and expeditiously. 4.WORKMANSHIP/SERVICE: Measure of “finesse” a Contractor gives 30 job or difficulty experienced by the County of Elgin Project Manager in obtaining acceptable work.i.e. normal workmanship/service = 20+/- difficulties encountered achieving acceptable workmanship/service = 0 or 1, Exceptional workmanship = 30. 5.SAFETY PROCEDURES: Degree of pressure required to ensure 10 adequate and proper safety procedures. 6.CO-OPERATION: Degree of co-operation with County of Elgin 5 officials. 7.PUBLIC RELATIONS: Contractor’s consideration of general public, 10 motorists and residents. 8.EXTRAS BUDGET: Services delivered on budget based on agreed 5 upon reasonable revisions to schedule and budget or requests for unreasonable extras. 9.CLEAN UP: Degree of effort by Contractor to have project cleaned 5 up in an acceptable manner. 10.COMPLETION: Degree of effort by Contractor to finish on time or 5 whether the contractor actually finished on time. 11.FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS: Degree of unnecessary effort by 5 Contractor due to assignments by Contractor i.e. liens GRAND TOTAL 100 Note: A score of less than 75/100 is considered to be Below Average. An explanation must be provided for any Inadequate, below standard and superior rating in Narrative Section. * 1 70 Contract/Tender/RFP Number: _____________________ SECTION V Authentication and Review I certify that I have objectively prepared this report basing it upon data contained in available project records. ____________________________________ ______________________ Project Manager Date I have reviewed this Contractor Performance Report and make the following comments, recommendations and changes as cited herein or on attached sheets. ____________________________ _____________________ Director Date I have reviewed this report for objectivity and accuracy. I have met with and/or given a copy of this report to the rated Contractor and I have advised the Contractor that any appeal must be made in writing to the Purchasing Coordinator within 10 calendar days Comments _________________________________________ ________________________________________ _____________________ Date of Meeting with Contractor Signature of Purchasing Coordinator Date Report Completed ________________________________________ ______________________ Signature of Director, Financial Services Date RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above data and comments, the overall performance recommendation for this Contractor is: Approved to bid on future work (score must be 75 or more) Placed on two year probation to closely monitor future work (score of 60 – 75) (fees required to monitor future work may be added to the project). NOT recommended for future work for a maximum period of 3 years. (score is 60 or below) 2 71 CONTRACTOR RATING GUIDELINES The Contractor Rating Form is prepared by the County of Elgin Project Manager after issuance of the Contract Completion Certificate. The completed form provides a record of the Contractor’s performance on the contract. If, from a perusal of the completed form, it is felt advisable to discuss this with the parties concerned, the Purchasing Coordinator will schedule a meeting. The following breakdown of the form is provided to assist the County of Elgin Project Manager so that uniformity may be provided in the ratings. This form is prepared in triplicate, one for the Contractor, one for the . Purchasing Coordinator and one for the County of Elgin Project Manager ItemDescriptionPoints 1.Deduct one point for maximum obtainable for each day where an 0 - 5 unreasonable delay in commencement by Contractor inconvenienced public and/or caused the County undue expense. 2.Little supervision required. 8-10 Moderate supervision required. 4-7 Considerable supervision required. 0-3 3. Adequate Equipment. 10 Short of adequate equipment. 6-9 Inadequate Equipment. 0-5 4.Average to extraordinary workmanship with little or no County effort. 25-30 Average workmanship with some County effort. 15-25 Average workmanship with considerable County effort and pressure. 0-15 5.No pressure to ensure adequate safety. 10 Some pressure to ensure adequate safety. 5-9 Considerable pressure to ensure adequate safety. 0-4 6. Excellent. 5 Good.4 Fair.3 Poor. 0-2 7. Excellent. 10 Good.7-9 Fair.4-6 Poor. 0-3 8. None. 5 Few prices high and few quantities high. 4 Some prices high and few quantities high. 3 Few prices high or few quantities high. 2 Most prices high and many quantities high. 0-1 9.Excellent clean-up without direction. 5 Clean-up with direction. 4 Clean-up with pressure and direction. 3 Clean-up with considerable delay and pressure. 2 Clean-up with considerable delay, pressure and causing inconvenience to 1 the public. Clean-up completed by the County and charged to the Contractor. 0 10.Satisfactory effort to expedite work. 5 Not overly concerned with time allowance. 2-4 No effort to expedite work – very slow. 0-1 11.No effort required. 5 Little effort required. 4 Moderate effort required. 3 Considerable effort required. 0-2 3 72 VENDOR PERFORMANCE REPORT The Vendor Performance Evaluation form will be completed for goods and/or services. The Purchasing Coordinator will initiate the issuance of the Vendor Performance Report to the appropriate Manager to complete. Date: _______________________________ Evaluator’s Name: ______________________________ Evaluator’s Title: ______________________________ Department: ______________________________ Vendor Name: ______________________________ Contract # and Title: ______________________________ User Department Evaluation of Product and Service ProductService Rate the and with regard to the following criteria: Delivery Unacceptable Satisfactory Above Average Delivers on time Provides proper and accurate delivery receipts Holds back – orders to a minimum Goods protected by proper packing. Packaging Delivers to location requested kept to a minimum, uses recyclable materials. Identifies and marks packages correctly 1 73 VENDOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FORM (continued) Quality/Specifications Unacceptable Satisfactory Above Average Provides specified quality and quantity Complies with contract terms and of goodsas requested conditions Support on professional/technical matters Training provided on Promptly replaces rejected items equipment/product/staff Is prompt and accurate on technical assistance Customer Service Unacceptable Satisfactory Above Average Expedites and handles orders courteously Representative shows desire to serve Handles complaints effectively and efficiently Representative provides feedback from Inside sales support courteous and helpful manufacturer Representative assists in cost reduction Provides monthly/quarterly reports as initiativesrequested Financial Implications/Cost Issues Unacceptable Satisfactory Above Average Invoices correctly Charges penalty for late payments Invoices promptly Responds to inquiries efficiently and Issues credit adjustments promptly effectively Offers discount terms for prompt payment Invoices comply with contract terms and Conditions User’s Overall Assessment of Vendor’s Performance Unacceptable Satisfactory Above Average DEFICIENCIES – where performance issues were addressed during the term of the contract. Were deficiencies communicated verbally to vendor? Yes No Were deficiencies resolved to your satisfaction? Yes No If not, was a formal letter sent to the vendor advising them? Yes No Did the Vendor correct the deficiencies outlined in writing? Yes No Are there any outstanding issues that require further action to Yes No be resolved? **Attach any supporting documentation. 2 74 VENDOR INCIDENT REPORTING FORM Complete this form to report unsatisfactory vendor performance on an ongoing contract and forward to the Purchasing Coordinator as soon as possible after the incident has occurred. Reporting Date: Department Report Initiated by: ___________________________ _________________________ __________________ ____ Name Title Phone Number ext. Vendor Name Vendor Telephone Number/or Name of Contact Person (Vendor) email Nature of Report o Response time not acceptable o Services not performed according to specifications o Inferior or defective parts used o Unauthorized service performed o Unsatisfactory services performed o Invoice incorrect o Unauthorized additional billing o Other (explain below) Detailed Explanation: Describe any action taken regarding this report: ATTACH COPIES OF ALL VENDOR CORRESPONDENCE ooo stnd 1 – Verbal Warning 2 – Written Notice Final – Violation Continued Vendor Response: (Be specific – Attach additional sheets if more space is required) Vendor Response Completed by: _____________________ _____________________ ____________________ ____ __________________ Name Title Phone No. Ext. Date Final Disposition: o Resolved – Records retained for future reference. o Contract Cancelled – Report filed against vendor performance records. 1 75 Vendor/Consultant/Contractor/Subcontractor Peformance Appraisal System The County of Elgin has adopted a Contractor Performance Appraisal System by which if issues arise, the Vendor’s/Contractor’s/Consultant’s performance is documented. Under the direction of the Purchasing Coordinator, the County’s Project Manager will be asked to record their concerns using the Vendor Incident Reporting Form. Results will be shared with the Vendor/Contractor/Consultant and a verbal warning may be issued by the Purchasing Coordinator. If performance does not improve, a second Vendor Incident Reporting Form will be issued and results will be shared with the Vendor/Contractor/Consultant. The Purchasing Coordinator will issue a written warning to the Vendor/Contractor/Consultant. If performance does not improve a third Vendor Incident Reporting Form will be initiated by the Project Manager and the results will be shared with the Vendor/Contractor/Consultant. Upon completion of the project, if a third Vendor Incident Reporting Form is issued, under the direction of the Purchasing Coordinator, the Project Manager will complete the applicable Performance Report. Once the ranking on the applicable Performance Report has been completed, the results will be shared with the Vendor/Contractor/Consultant to discuss the overall ranking for the project. The performance evaluation shall determine whether a vendor,contractor or consultant will be allowed: i) to bid on future projects ii) the vendor/contractor/consultant be placed on a probationary list for two years to closely monitor future work, (fees required to monitor future work may be added to the project); or, iii) may not be recommended for future work for a maximum period of three years. The final appeal shall be conducted by a Dispute Committee which will hear from both County staff and the vendor/contractor/consultant at a time and place appointed in writing by the Committee. The Dispute Committee shall be comprised of the Director of Financial Services, the Purchasing Coordinator and two representatives of the relevant Standing Dispute Resolution Committee of Council. The decision of the Dispute Committee shall be in writing, a copy of which shall be provided to the vendor,contractor or consultant, and the decision of a majority of the Dispute Committee shall be final. 76 It must be noted that while overall performance is being evaluated, the County reserves the right to suspend a bidder for extreme or repeated inadequate grades for a) public safety and traffic control, b) compliance with WSIB provision, c) maintenance of employee safety standards, d) compliance Ministry of Labour regulations. In reaching a determination, the Project Manager or the Dispute Committee, shall be entitled to rely upon the evaluation criteria determined in advance of the project, along with any results of prior performance evaluations relating to other contracts performed by the same vendor/ contractor/ consultant or related vendor or related contractor or related consultant. Tenders, Proposals or Quotations will be accepted from any vendor,contractor or consultant during the term of a probation or prohibition however, no prohibited vendor, contractor or consultant shall be permitted to provide work to the County for the term of the prohibition. Procurement Policy will be updated to include Performance Evaluation 77 REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Clayton Watters, Director of Engineering Services Sonia Beavers, Purchasing Coordinator DATE: November 1, 2012 SUBJECT: Purchase of Ambulance for 2013 INTRODUCTION: The County of Elgin has a current ambulance fleet of ten (10) ambulances and two (2) emergency response vehicles (ERV). This report will concentrate on the ambulance fleet and not the emergency response vehicles. DISCUSSION: The County replaces two (2) ambulances per year over a five year period to maintain a five (5) year rotation. All ambulances purchased for use by the EMS provider must be certified compliant with the current Ontario Provincial Land Ambulance and Emergency Response Vehicle Standard (Version 4.1, July 15, 2010). Council at its meeting held on April 24, 2012 approved the purchase of two ambulance vehicles for 2012 from Crestline Coach Limited in the amount of $223,464 inclusive of trade in allowance and exclusive of taxes. Crestline Coach Limited supplies a quality vehicle, robust electrical and lighting system, paint quality, part availability and customer services. The patient care component is laid out for ease of access to patient care equipment and medical supplies. Crestline Coach Limited is a current and compliant Vendor of Record (VOR) with the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long- Term Care Emergency Health Services Branch. In 2013, two ambulance vehicles will need to be replaced. To reserve the purchase price of $244,908 (exclusive of H.S.T.) for the purchase of two ambulances in 2013, Council may want to consider the approval of staff ordering two ambulances in 2012. Delivery of the two new ambulance vehicles will not take place until 2013 therefore the cost of the purchase will be applied to the 2013 budget year. The purchase price does not include a trade-in allowance. Staff are assessing the vehicle compliment. For Council’s information, the cost to purchase two ambulance vehicles since 2009 is as follows; Year Cost to purchase two ambulance vehicles, inclusive of trade in allowance, exclusive of taxes 2009 $171,177 2010 $192,298 2011 $224,291 2012 $223,464 78 The Elgin County EMS (Ambulance) capital budget for 2012 is $240,000 for the purchase of two (2) ambulances. CONCLUSION: In the 2012 capital budget an allowance was made to replace two ambulance vehicles. The ambulance vehicles purchased that best met the needs for the County of Elgin were from Crestline Coach Limited. Crestline Coach Limited is a current and compliant Vendor of Record (VOR) with the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care Emergency Health Services Branch. Vendor of Record (VOR) arrangement means a procurement arrangement, typically established through an RFP, which authorizes one or more qualified vendors to provide goods/services for a defined period on terms and conditions, including pricing. With Council’s approval, staff will allocate $260,000 in the 2013 budget for the purchase of two (2) ambulance vehicles. The ambulance vehicles will be ordered in 2012 with a 2013 delivery date. Since Crestline Coach Limited is a current and compliant Vendor of Record and the ambulance vehicles specifications best meet the needs of the County, the ambulance vehicles will be ordered from Crestline Coach Limited. RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Warden and Chief Administrative Officer be authorized and directed to order in 2012 for 2013 delivery, two ambulance vehicles from Crestline Coach Limited at their quoted price of $244,908 exclusive of trade in allowance and exclusive of taxes; and, THAT Council approves the allocation of $260,000 in the 2013 budget for the purchase of the two ambulances ordered in 2012 with delivery in 2013. All of which is Respectfully Submitted Approved for Submission Clayton Watters Mark G. McDonald Director of Engineering Services Chief Administrative Officer Sonia Beavers Purchasing Coordinator 79 REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Steve Evans, Manager of Planning DATE: November 5, 2012 SUBJECT: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Request for comments: Township of Malahide Five –Year Official Plan Review and Official Plan Amendment No. 11 for the Town of Aylmer INTRODUCTION: As a commenting agency on all planning – related matters, the County of Elgin has been requested to provide comments on the above noted local official plan amendments. DISCUSSION: The Township of Malahide adopted its Official Plan five-year review Amendment No. 11 on August 9, 2012 and forwarded it to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for approval. The document was circulated to various ministries and agencies for comments that are to be submitted by November 19, 2012. The Township of Malahide five-year review is a major official plan amendment that has been prepared to ensure that the document is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, reflects population and growth projections and guides development in the municipality for the next 20 years. The Town of Aylmer adopted its Official Plan Amendment No. 11 on August 7, 2012 and forwarded it to MMAH for approval. The amendment was circulated for comment with a due date of November 27, 2012. The Town of Aylmer OPA No. 11 is a site-specific amendment to create a special policy area that will allow for a low rise apartment building at the northwest corner of Talbot and Elm Streets. The amendment is required to allow for higher density of development than permitted in the current medium density residential land use designation. CONCLUSION: The Manager of Planning has reviewed both of the above noted amendments and has no concerns with their approvals. RECOMMENDATION: THAT this report be received and filed and that the Manager of Planning proceed to send comments to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing expressing Elgin County’s support of Official Plan Amendment No. 11 for the Township of Malahide and Official Plan Amendment No. 11 for the Town of Aylmer. All of which is Respectfully Submitted Approved for Submission Steve Evans Mark G. McDonald Manager of Planning Chief Administrative Officer 80 REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Steve Evans, Manager of Planning DATE: October 30, 2012 SUBJECT: Provincial Policy Statement – Five Year Review INTRODUCTION: Elgin County Council endorsed the attached submission to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing on October 27, 2010. Since that time the MMAH has consulted on the Provincial Policy Statement and has now released a draft of the revised document. The Province is requesting input on the revised PPS and has placed a deadline of November 23, 2012 to submit comments.Consultation questions have also been circulated for consideration. BACKGROUND: In addition to the comments the province received from many municipalities in 2010, the Ministry initiated consultation with two groups made up of various agencies and stakeholders. The Manager of Planning took part in the General Working Group that met three times in Toronto to review the document and to provide input on the revised PPS. The working group included participants from various agencies and stakeholder groups including: Conservation Ontario, BILD, County Planners of Ontario, Regional Planning Commissioners, various social agencies, etc. Another group called the Rural and Northern Ontario Working Group was established by the Province to provide feedback through a similar process. Three meetings were held in various parts of the province. Through this process the Province was able to gather valuable input from various perspectives across Ontario. DISCUSSION: The Elgin County submission of October 27, 2010 made a number of recommendations about how the province could improve the PPS. The following generally describes the County’s recommendations and the Province’s proposed changes to the PPS. 1. Elgin recommended that the province remove the five lot rule for new development in unserviced settlement areas. Draft PPS now states in Policy 1.6.5.4 Where municipal sewage services and municipal water services or private communal sewage services and private communal water services are not provided, individual on-site sewage services and individual on-site water services may be used provided that site conditions are suitable for the long-term provision of such services with no negative impacts. In settlement areas, these services may only be used for infilling and minor rounding out of existing development. 81 2. Elgin recommended that the province revise the PPS to give the owners of land containing natural heritage features and areas the benefit of determining for themselves whether development would negatively affect such features. This could be accomplished by requiring environmental impact studies. Policy 2.1 Natural Heritage has not been changed dramatically. A new subsection has been added for habitat of endangered species and threatened species which states that development and site alteration shall not be permitted except in accordance with provincial and federal requirements. 3. Elgin recommended that where a surplus residence was severed from a farm that a regulation rather than a zoning by-law amendment be considered to prohibit any new residence from being built on the remnant farm parcel. In addition it was suggested that the Province re-introduce the definition of surplus farm residence that was in the 1997 version of the PPS that allowed one of two of more farm residences on the farm to be severed, if one of the dwellings was built prior to 1978. There are no appreciable changes to this section of the PPS except for Policy 2.3.4 c) – which now states that a new surplus residence lot will be limited to a minimum size needed to accommodate the use and appropriate sewage and water services. 4. Policy 2.5 Mineral Aggregate Resources has been revised to make specific reference to rehabilitation requirements in specialty crop areas. The Province continues to state that demonstration of need shall not be required. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS: Part III of the proposed PPS under the heading Geographic Scale of Policies states that the PPS recognizes the diversity of Ontario and that local context is important. The Province is providing some flexibility in this respect and suggests that not all policies will be applicable to every site, feature or area. Policy 1.2 Coordination has added policies encouraging coordination with Aboriginal communities as well as emergency management and other economic and social planning considerations to support efficient and resilient communities. The draft PPS also supports the promotion of local food, energy conservation, the minimization of negative impacts from climate change and active transportation. The draft also suggests that planning authorities should consider and promote archaeological management plans and cultural plans and should also consider the interests of Aboriginal communities in conserving cultural heritage and archaeological resources. The definitions section has been revised to include new definitions for Agri-tourism, Green Infrastructure, Habitat of endangered species and threatened species and On-farm diversified uses (formerly Secondary Uses). The above constitutes only the highlights of the changes that have been proposed. There are other revisions that are more technical in nature. 82 CONSULTATION QUESTIONS: In addition to circulating copies of the revised PPS the province has included consultation questions for Elgin’s consideration and feedback. The questions are: 1. Do the draft policies provide sufficient direction to effectively protect provincial interests in land use planning? 2. Are there additional land use planning matters that require provincial policy direction and which are not included? 3. Do you see any implementation challenges with the draft policies? 4. Is additional support material needed to help implement the PPS? 5. Do you think that the legislated PPS review cycle should be extended from the current 5-year period? These questions are rather technical in nature and would be challenging for Council to respond to without a thorough review of the revised PPS document. The Manager of Planning has reviewed the document and will be involved in further consultation with the province before the revised PPS is approved. The initial review by the Manager of Planning would indicate that the following responses to the above noted questions are appropriate to forward to the province. The draft policies provide sufficient direction to effectively protect provincial interests in land use planning. There are no additional land use planning matters that require provincial policy direction. No implementation challenges are anticipated with the draft policies. No additional support material is needed to help implement the Provincial Policy Statement. We believe that the legislated Provincial Policy Statement review cycle should be extended from the current 5-year period to 7 years. CONCLUSION: The proposed revisions to the PPS can be characterized as “tweaking” in that the overall intent and purpose of the Policy Statement has not been dramatically changed. While a number of recommendations submitted by Elgin County Council have not been acted upon, the general nature of the revised Policy Statement reflects a more flexible approach to the interpretation of the policies and provides a simple and concise set of policy directions to planning authorities. RECOMMENDATION: THAT County Council endorse the responses to questions prepared by the Manager of Planning and direct the Manager to forward these responses on the Draft Provincial Policy Statement to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to meet the November 23, 2012 deadline. All of which is Respectfully Submitted Approved for Submission Steve Evans Mark G. McDonald Manager of Planning Chief Administrative Officer 83 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) Five-Year Review Comments Prepared and Submitted to MMAH By: The County of Elgin October 27, 2010 84 Background Land use planning in Ontario is a provincially led system that, in accordance with the Planning Act, employs the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) to provide direction on matters of Provincial interest related to land use planning and development. The Province is conducting a five year review of the PPS (2005) and is requesting input on how the PPS is working and whether any changes are needed to protect provincial interests and to ensure the PPS is adequately addressing emerging land issues. In this respect the Province has suggested that Elgin County consider a number of questions as set out below. The PPS provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest. It provides the foundation necessary to regulate the development and use of land. The Province is especially interested in comments addressing the effectiveness of the PPS to ensure communities grow efficiently and in a way that respects the environment, promotes economic competitiveness, meets community housing needs, provides adequate infrastructure and municipal services, and protects cultural heritage and natural resources. The Planning Act requires that decisions on land use planning matters made by Municipalities, the Province, the Ontario Municipal Board and other decision-makers “shall be consistent” with the PPS. The County of Elgin and its seven local Municipalities must comply with the legislation in respect of the exercise of any authority that affects a planning matter. The purpose of this report is to identify and comment on policies in the PPS that are difficult to interpret and to apply in Elgin County and to suggest options for consideration in the Province’s five year review process. Questions to consider 1. What policies of the current PPS are working effectively? Policies related to Public Spaces, Parks and Open Space, Transportation Systems and Infrastructure Corridors, Long-term Economic Prosperity, the Protection of Prime Agricultural Land and Natural and Human-made hazards. 2. Are there policies that need clarification or refinement? Yes, the following is provided for consideration. 2.(A) 1.1.3 Settlement Areas Policy 1.1.3 requires planning authorities to “establish and implement phasing policies to ensure orderly progression of development within designated growth areas and the timely provision of infrastructure and public service facilities required to meet current and future needs.” This policy does not speak to designated growth areas that are unserviced and may not meet the definition of infrastructure as set out in the PPS. For small settlement areas which have a history th August 24, 2010- 2 - 85 of slow growth or no growth and where there may be a lack of landowner competition within the designated growth areas a significant limitation for the expansion of a settlement area is imposed by the PPS. In addition, small settlement areas that are unserviced are limited to development at a rate of five or less lots in accordance with Policy 1.6.4.4. In an effort to provide some flexibility in slow and no growth designated growth areas of the Province the PPS should consider such settlement areas in the same way as rural areas located in municipalities are considered. This would allow for limited residential development which is not restricted to five or less lots as set of out in Policy 1.6.4.4 and require that the development shall be appropriate to the infrastructure which is planned or available and avoid the need for unjustified and/or uneconomical expansion of this infrastructure.Currently any proposed development in excess of five lots, in unserviced settlement areas require communal servicing and a mandatory responsibility agreement (MOE requirement) with the municipality. In most cases local municipalities are averse to entering into such agreements. Recommendations: This section of the PPS may benefit from recognizing the diversity between fast and slow/no growthsettlement areas. The definition of settlement areas in the PPS includes rural settlement areas which could be villages and hamlets many of which are not serviced with municipal or communal servicing. In such cases it is suggested that the province consider adding a new policy to the PPS as follows: 1.1.4. a Rural Settlement Areas in Municipalities 1.1.4. a.1 In rural settlement areas located within municipalities: a) permitted uses shall include limited residential, commercial and industrial uses: b) development shall be appropriate to the infrastructure which is planned or available, and avoid the need for the unjustified and/or uneconomical expansion of this infrastructure c) development that is compatible with a rural settlement area and can be sustained by rural service levels should be promoted. 2. (B) 2.1 Natural Heritage Natural Heritage Policy prohibits development and site alteration in: a)significant habitat of endangered species and threatened species; b)significant wetlands in Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E; and c)significant coastal wetlands Natural Heritage Policy also prohibits development and site alteration in: a) significant wetlands in the Canadian Shield north of Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E b) significant woodlands south and east of the Canadian Shield c) significant valleylands south and east of the Canadian Shield d) significant wildlife habitat; and th August 24, 2010- 3 - 86 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. Recommendations: The goal of the Natural heritage Policy of the PPS is to protect natural features and areas for the long term. It is suggested that the Province could better encourage the protection of these areas by giving the land owners the benefit of determining for themselves whether development would negatively impact the natural features or their ecological functions through an evaluation exercise such as an EIS. By taking this approach the Province is requiring the owner to prove his/her case for development and not imposing a restrictive prohibition which runs counter to common law for real property and the “burden of proof” standard. 2 (C) 2.3 Agriculture With regards to surplus residences, the PPS states in Policy 2.3.4.1: “Lot creation in prime agricultural areas is discouraged and may only be permitted for: c)a residence surplus to a farming operation as a result of farm consolidation provided that the planning authority ensures that new residential dwellings are prohibited on any vacant remnant parcel of farmland created by the severance. The approach used to ensure that no new residential dwellings are permitted on the remnant parcel may be recommended by the province, or based on municipal approaches which achieve the same objective; The prohibition of dwellings on any vacant remnant parcel of farmland may be problematic in the long term. In many cases the municipal approach is to impose restrictive zoning to prohibit new residential dwellings on vacant remnant parcels. However, this approach is not permanent, as zoning by-laws can be amended over time. Recommendations: If the intent of the Province is to permanently prohibit new residential dwellings on the remnant parcel then it is suggested that the Province consider introducing an Ontario Regulation rather than relying on municipal approaches. It is also recommended that the Province re-introduce the definition of residence surplus to a farming operation as set out in the 1997 version of the PPS. This would permit the severance of one of two or more existing farm residences built prior to 1978 and surplus to the farm. This type of severance meets the intent of the PPS as such dwelling is surplus to the farm operation. th August 24, 2010- 4 - 87 2.(D) 2.4 Minerals and Petroleum & 2.5 Mineral Aggregate Resources The PPS policies protect resources of provincial interest and yet give pre-eminence to the extraction of mineral aggregate resources. This seems at odds with the Provincial interest of wise use and management of its resources which should be balanced against the protection of all natural resources. Policy 2.5.2.1 states: “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 not analysis, shall be required, notwithstanding the availability, designation or licensing for extraction of mineral aggregate resources locally or elsewhere. Policy 2.5.2.4 states: “Mineral aggregate operations shall be protected from development and activities that would preclude or hinder their expansion or continued use” “Existing mineral aggregate operations shall be permitted to continue without the need for official plan amendment, rezoning or development permit under the Planning Act”. Recommendations: The Province should apply a consistent approach to the protection of its natural resources without giving special status to mineral aggregate extraction that precludes the need for appropriate evaluation. Are there policies that are no longer needed? 3. Policy 1.8 Energy and Air Quality may not be required in the PPS to support energy efficiency and improved air quality through land use and development patterns. The Province has moved the planning approval process for alternative energy systems and energy projects from municipalities to the Province. The Province could omit this section in the PPS or update the provincial Renewable Energy Approval Process. In addition Policy 1.5 Public Spaces, Parks and Open Space could be removed and replaced with a new policy on Healthy Communities. Are there new policy areas or issues that the Province needs to provide land use 4. planning direction on? Healthy Communities and Sustainable Communities. Is additional support material needed to help implement the PPS? 5. No comment. th August 24, 2010- 5 - 88 Do you have any other comments about the PPS? 6. Language Inconsistencies “Employment areas” There are inconsistencies with language and definitions among various Provincial documents including the PPS. For example, employment area is defined as: “areas designated in an official plan for clusters of business and economic activities including, but not limited to, manufacturing, warehousing, offices and associated retail and ancillary facilities”. In contrast, Policy 1.3 Employment Areas states as follows: 1.3.1 Planning authorities shall promote economic development and competitiveness by: a)providing for an appropriate mix and range of employment (including commercial, industrial and institutional uses) to meet long term needs. The Province’s Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2006 includes a definition of employment lands identical to that found in the PPS; however, section 6 of the Growth Plan which provides policies for employment lands states: “For the purposes of this policy, major retail uses are considered non-employment areas.” The Planning Act definition is different again and states in Section 1: “area of employment” means an area of land designated in an official plan for clusters of business and economic uses including, without limitation, the uses listed in subsection (5), or as otherwise prescribed by regulation; (5) Uses re “area of employment” – The uses referred to in the definition of “area of employment” in subsection (1) are, a) manufacturing uses; b) warehousing uses; c) office uses; d) retail uses that are associated with uses mentioned in clauses (a) to (c); and e) facilities that are ancillary to uses mentioned in clauses (a) to (d). The definitions in all Provincial documents should coincide to provide clarity for decision- makers. In Elgin County, employment uses should include commercial, industrial and institutional uses. th August 24, 2010- 6 - 89 “Agriculture-related Uses” farm operation OMAFRA interprets the PPS definition of to mean a single farm parcel when consideringagriculture-related uses. However, the definition of residence surplus to a farming operationhas a different meaning as follows: “means an existing farm residence that is rendered surplus as a result of farm consolidation (the farm operation acquisition of additional farm parcels to be operated as one ).” The Province should ensure farmers have the flexibility to operate secondary and agriculture- related uses as part of a “farm operation” meaning several parcels operated as one farm operation as set out in the definition of residence surplus to a farming operation. The OMAFRA interpretation related to agriculture-related uses seems restrictive for a changing agricultural economy. Respectfully submitted on behalf of Elgin County Council By Steve Evans MCIP RPP Manager of Planning County of Elgin th August 24, 2010- 7 - 90 REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Rhonda Duffy, Director of Homes and Seniors Services DATE: October 29, 2012 SUBJECT: Bathing System Replacements – Bobier Villa INTRODUCTION: Bobier Villa has two bathing systems that have reached the end of their service life as identified through a recent vendor report. This report recommends replacing two existing hydromassage bathing systems with the same type supplied by Arjohuntleigh Getinge Group. ArjoHuntleigh Getinge Group is the homes single source vendor for equipment such as mechanical lifts and medical tubs. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: The cost for the replacement of two Rhapsody System Hydromassage Bathing Systems is $51,784.00 exclusive of H.S.T. Tub replacement was budgeted for in 2012 in the amount of $40,000 which does not cover the total cost for two tubs. Staff have reallocated $20,000 from two 2012 capital projects for Bobier Villa in order to complete this purchase. Staff are also seeking Council’s approval to single source this purchase. The Procurement Policy states; 3.12 (1) Single Sourcing, “In circumstances where there may be more than one source of supply in the open market, but only one of these are recommended for consideration on the grounds that it is more cost effective or beneficial to the County and where the expenditure will exceed $25,000 approval must be obtained from the Senior Management Team and County Council prior to negotiations with the single source.” Some of the reasons why staff is suggesting a single source purchase is: a) For standardization of equipment in each of the Homes b) Resident and staff safety RECOMMENDATION: THAT the single source purchase of two Rhapsody System Hydromassage Bathing Systems for Bobier Villa to ArjoHuntleigh Getinge Group be approved at a total price of $51,784.00 exclusive of H.S.T.; and, THAT $20,000 be reallocated from various 2012 projects to complete this purchase. All of which is Respectfully Submitted Approved for Submission Rhonda Duffy Mark G. McDonald Director of Homes and Seniors Services Chief Administrative Officer Sonia Beavers Purchasing Coordinator 91 REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Rhonda Duffy, Director of Homes and Seniors Services DATE: October 31, 2012 SUBJECT: Long Term Care Service Accountability Agreement-2013-2016 INTRODUCTION: In 2010, the Ministry of Health & Long Term Care (MOHLTC) transferred funding agreement accountability for long term care homes to the Southwest Local Health Integration Network (SWLHIN). As a result, the Long Term Care Service Accountability Agreement (L-SAA) evolved replacing the previous Service Accountability Agreements which were signed annually. The L-SAA terms of agreement are expiring and a new document has been developed for Council approval. DISCUSSION: The L-SAA terms of agreement expire December 31, 2012. The SWLHIN requires all long term care homes to prepare a new 3 year agreement. There are two phases to the L-SAA agreement. The first phase for approval by Council includes a general overview of current quality improvement initiatives/programs, strategic goals and identification of any key risk areas for upcoming years for the homes. There will also be additional funding requirements which relate to quality indicator performance which will be set by the LHIN. This information will be forwarded to the homes from the LHIN in January 2013. Quality/performance indicators may include: 1. Injury that results in transfer or admission to hospital. 2. Medication Incidents 3. Missing Resident 4. Environmental hazards 5. Infection Control 6. Alleged/actual abuse/assault 7. Pressure ulcers 8. Presence of daily physical restraints 9. Weight loss management 10. Continence care and bowel management 11. Falls 12. Behavioural symptoms affecting others From the identified quality indicators performance targets, performance corridors and a performance standard will be set by the LHIN.These targets are key to driving quality improvement initiatives within the homes. Compliance with the indicator performance targets and outcomes will be reviewed by a MOHLTC Inspector. These outcomes may ultimately be linked to funding however there is additional information to follow in 2013. 92 CONCLUSION: Through the evolution of the L-SAA there continues to be a focus on ensuring residents receive consistent care across all long term care homes. The rationale behind targeting an expected performance level is to ensure that potentially serious threats to the health, safety and welfare of long term care home residents are managed. It is unclear at this time how or if the LHIN may link funding to expected performance indicator outcomes. The County of Elgin Homes & Seniors Services, through the 2013-2016 L-SAA agreement will continue to focus on quality improvement in support of it’s’ mission to create a caring environment where residents feel safe, respected and valued. RECOMMENDATION: THAT Council approve the Long-Term Care Service Accountability Agreement for Bobier Villa, Elgin Manor and Terrace Lodge; and, THAT the report titled, “Long Term Care Service Accountability Agreement-2013-2016” dated October 31, 2012 be received and filed. All of which is Respectfully Submitted Approved for Submission Rhonda Duffy Mark G. McDonald Director of Homes and Seniors Services Chief Administrative Officer 93 REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Rhonda Duffy, Director of Homes and Seniors Services DATE: October 31, 2012 SUBJECT: Residents’ Handbook INTRODUCTION: Under the Long Term Care Homes Act (LTCHA) the homes are required to provide a variety of information, in written form, to all new residents. The homes have developed a resident handbook in order to better facilitate the distribution of that information. DISCUSSION: There are numerous pieces of information that are provided to new residents and/or family members on the day of admission, some of which are mandated under the LTCHA. Move in day can be very overwhelming for residents and family from admission agreement review and signing, to the nursing assessments required, to setting up the room and to become acclimated to one’s new surrounding. In order to better service residents and families, a Resident Handbook has been developed by staff to incorporate not only the LTCHA required information but to also serve as an on-going resource of information. The Handbook has been reviewed by the Accessibility Coordinator and meets Ontario Disability Support Program requirements. CONCLUSION: The homes staff is pleased to introduce the new resident handbook. This new handbook will provide for easier access to information for new and current residents as well as family members while meeting legislative guidelines. RECOMMENDATION: THAT the report titled “Residents’ Handbook” dated October 31, 2012 be received and filed. All of which is Respectfully Submitted Approved for Submission Rhonda Duffy Mark G. McDonald Director of Homes and Seniors Services Chief Administrative Officer 94 REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Brian Masschaele, Director of Community and Cultural Services DATE: October 23, 2012 SUBJECT: Completion of Renovations to Straffordville Library INTRODUCTION: Staff are pleased to inform Council that accessibility renovations to the Straffordville Library are now completed and the library has again re-opened at its permanent location. DISCUSSION: Accessibility and facility improvements to the Straffordville branch of the Elgin County Library were completed in October 2012 after a two month process. The scope of renovations and improvements include the following: Installation of door assist hardware at the main entrance; Removal of vestibule and interior walls to create a much more open and inviting space; New, accessible washrooms; New paint, carpet, tiling and lighting on both floors of the building; New ceiling to address previous water damage and smoke detectors; New furnishings and shelving for children’s area; A comfortable seating area and new display racks for magazines; Reconfiguration of existing shelving in accordance with accessibility guidelines; Creation of storage areas in the basement; Exterior improvements to the existing ramp and exterior doors; Technology improvements, including installation of a colour copier / scanner and addition of a public access computer. Installation of roadside signage with a digital display board to advertise library hours and programs is still in progress and will be completed within the coming weeks. Total cost for the project is approximately $161,500.The Municipality of Bayham received an Enabling Accessibility Fund grant from the Government of Canada in the amount of $50,000 towards this project. The Municipality contributed approximately $76,500 and the County contributed approximately $35,000 CONCLUSION: A grand re-opening celebration will take place on November 20, 2012, 2:00 – 4:00 pm, and the public is invited to attend. Library staff are to be commended for their preparation and perseverance through the course of this project. Staff would also like to 95 thank the Municipality of Bayham for facilitating this project and for securing federal funding. The partnership between the Municipality, the Government of Canada and the County has resulted in a much more accessible and modern space that will serve area residents well for many years to come. RECOMMENDATION: THAT the report “Completion of Renovations to Straffordville Library” dated October 23, 2012 be received and filed. All of which is Respectfully Submitted Approved for Submission Brian Masschaele Mark G. McDonald Director of Community and Cultural Services Chief Administrative Officer 96 REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Rob Bryce Director of Human Resources DATE: November 1, 2012 SUBJECT: Compensation Review Deferral INTRODUCTION: By Council resolution adopted in June 2007, Human Resources staff was directed to ensure a compensation review of Council and outside boards is conducted once in every term of Council to remain competitive and to avoid potential spikes/gaps in compensation practises. Since the economic crisis of 2008, Council has taken a number of steps to reduce costs associated with economic adjustments by amending increases downward and avoiding short-term costs by deferring a Request for Proposal (RFP) to conduct a compensation review thus far during this term of Council. The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval to defer a compensation review until the next term of Council. DISCUSSION: Following Council’s direction in 2007, an external consultant was retained with Council approval to undertake such a compensation review. There were a number of findings and recommendations that resulted in a number of compensation changes in subsequent years. In 2011, County Council directed Human Resources staff to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a compensation review in 2012 of Council, outside boards, and non-union staff. At that time, County Council recommended compensation adjustments, if any, arising from said review be implemented in 2013. Subsequent to that and taking into consideration the continuing economic challenges facing taxpayers and encouragement from the province for fiscal restraint, County Council took proactive and responsible action in 2011 to defer such a compensation review, avoiding an estimated cost of $15 - $20,000 that year. In 2012, Human Resources staff received approval from County Council to proceed with a RFP to market examining external offers of service to update a compensation review of non-union employee’s wages and to complete a survey 97 of Council remuneration. In light of the continuing cost pressures facing the County, staff is supportive of further delaying the cost associated with undertaking such a compensation study until the next term of Council. Any potential spikes/gaps in compensation practises can be appropriately addressed at that time. CONCLUSION: In an effort to manage overall cost to County taxpayers, Council has taken a number of reasonable steps to manage the wage costs of staff. In light of continuing economic pressures, a deferral of any compensation review until the next term of Council is viewed as a prudent action. RECOMMENDATION: THAT Human Resources staff defers issuing a RFP for a compensation review of Council, outside boards, and non-union staff until the next term of County Council. All of which is Respectfully Submitted Approved for Submission Rob Bryce Mark G. McDonald Director of Human Resources Chief Administrative Officer 98 REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Rob Bryce, Director of Human Resources DATE: November 1, 2012 SUBJECT: 2012/2013 Excess Indemnity Coverage Revised Quote INTRODUCTION: Since informing the County’s specialty insurance broker, JLT Canada and the current provider, Chubb Insurance Company of Canada (Chubb) of County Council's October 23, 2012 decision not to renew our insurances for November 1, Chubb is offering the County with a revised quote for one of the two insurances - the Excess Indemnity insurance. DISCUSSION: County Council will recall that the Excess Indemnity policy assists with liability for workers’ compensation claims in excess of $500,000. The originally proposed 2012/2013 premium cost for Excess Indemnity insurance for the 12 month period saw a modest cost increase. Chubb is now prepared to leave the premium at the current level. As outlined in the October 23, 2012 report to County Council, the County has paid $714,873.72 in Excess Indemnity premiums since 2000 and has received $269,488.00 for a total of two claims. At the time of those claims’ approval, the retention limit was $250,000. In the revised quote, Chubb is maintaining the proposed uplift of the retention limit to the $500,000.00 level. It is highly unlikely the County will ever hit that threshold. As such, staff is rejecting the revised quote. CONCLUSION: Increasing the retention amount will further protect Chubb from exposure and further limit the County’s ability to make a successful claim against the policy. The County of Elgin has never experienced a claim reaching the minimum threshold now demanded by Chubb. RECOMMENDATION: THAT the report titled “2012/2013 Excess Indemnity Coverage Revised Quote” be received and filed. All of which is Respectfully Submitted Approved for Submission Rob Bryce Mark G. McDonald Director of Human Resources Chief Administrative Officer 99 REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Jeff Lawrence Tree Commissioner/Weed Inspector DATE: October 29, 2012 SUBJECT: Year End Report for 2012 INTRODUCTION: The following is a summary of activity related to the Elgin Woodlands Conservation By- Law for the period of November 1, 2011 and October 31st, 2012 and weed inspection activity for the 2012 season. DISCUSSION: Logging Activity/Applications to Harvest: A total of 110 applications to harvest were submitted from November 1, 2011 to October 31, 2012. This number is up from 89 in 2011.Applications were filed by municipality as follows: West Elgin 23, Dutton/Dunwich 26, Southwold 12, Central Elgin 7, Malahide 25, and Bayham 17. The total volume harvested increased by approximately one third to roughly three million board feet. The total forested area involved in these harvests was 2600 acres. The overall increase in harvest applications was primarily spread between West Elgin, Dutton/Dunwich and the former South Dorchester area of Malahide. Applications for Woodland Clearings: There were four applications received to clear woodlands within the county in 2012, for a total area to be cleared of 1.68 hectares (~4.2 acres). All were approved conditional upon conformity with the Elgin County’s “No Net Loss” policy. Violations: There were three situations where extensive areas of trees were cleared by landowners without first receiving the required permit or authorization. In all cases we are proceeding as directed by the County Prosecutor. Weed Complaints and Orders: A total of 19 weed related complaints were received over the summer of 2012. However, none of these complaints resulted in the issuance of a Weed Order.Consistent with the past few years, the bulk of the complaints were concerns of potential Giant Hogweed. No new Giant Hogweed locations were identified in 2012. 100 Giant Hogweed Control Effort in West Elgin Meetings and Workshops: The Tree By-law Enforcement Officers annual two day workshop was hosted by Dufferin County this year. Topics of discussion included “Lessons Learned from Court Decisions”, “Interesting Court Cases” and “Implications of Emerald Ash Borer”. The Elgin-Middlesex Woodlot Owners Association annual meeting and the Western Fair Farm Show were two venues where the Woodlands Conservation By-law was promoted. The “Measuring Up” presentation was given at the Carolinian Forest Festival. Promotional Campaign: Advertising efforts appear to have improved public awareness of the Elgin County Woodlands Conservation By-law. Newspaper articles and mini-posters have resulted in over 15 confirmed cases of pre-consultation regarding the By-law. Mini-posters have proven to be a cost effective means of advertising the By-law and additional posters will be created and distributed at various locations through-out the county in the spring of 2013. In an attempt to roughly coincide with the completion of crop harvest season, the attached tri-fold brochure will be distributed through the libraries and partner municipality offices, the Conservation Authorities and farm supply stores. 101 Training: The October session of Provincial Offenses Officer training offered by the Municipal Law Enforcement Officers Association has been booked for 2013. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION: THAT the report title “Year End Report for 2012” date November 13, 2012 be received and filed. All of which is Respectfully Submitted Approved for Submission Jeff Lawrence Mark G. McDonald Tree Commissioner/Weed Inspector Chief Administrative Officer 102 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 CORRESPONDENCE – November 13, 2012 Items for Information (Consent Agenda) - (Attached) 1. Art Lawson, General Manager, SCOR EDC, with a recommendation that the request to each partner county for a financial contribution be deferred until project funding is secured. 2. Karen Leibovici, President Federation of Canadian Municipalities, with an update of recent activities. 3. Cathy Fox, Communications and Public Relations Specialist, St. Thomas Elgin General Hospital (STEGH) with a media release announcing that the STEGH won the Platinum Award for Quality Healthcare Workplace. 4. Monika Turner, Director of Policy, Association of Municipalities Ontario, thanking council for the supportive resolution regarding arbitration reform. 5. Solange Desautels, Supervisor (A) Northern/southwest/WC Unit of the Environmental Assessment Services Section, Environmental Approvals Branch, with correspondence regarding the Municipal Engineers Association’s five year review report. 6. Derek Dudek, MCIP, RPP, Associate Consulting Planner to the Municipality of Bayham with copy of correspondence to Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing of Bayham’s comments to the County of Elgin Official Plan. 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 CLOSED MEETING AGENDA November 13, 2012 Staff Report: 1) Director of Human Resources – Municipal Act, Section 240.2 (d) labour relations or employee negotiations – Labour Relations Matters – Update of Collective Bargaining with Ontario Nurses’ Association Correspondence: 1)Municipal Act, Section 240.2 (b) personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees – Solicitor’s Announcement Chief Administrative Officer’s Annual Performance Evaluation 130