Loading...
17 - December 13, 2012 County Council Agenda Package.dis-1•■- El/ ginCounty ORDERS OF THE DAY FOR THURSDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2012 - 10 :00 A.M. ORDER 1st Meeting Called to Order 2nd Adoption of Minutes — November 27, 2012 3rd Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof 4th Presenting Petitions, Presentations and Delegations PRESENTATIONS: 10:00 a.m. Retirement Recognition: Dorothy Schaap — Human Resources 12:00 noon Years of Service Employee Recognition — employees will join Council for lunch at which time the presentations will be made DELEGATIONS: 10:05 a.m. Bonnie Rowe, Committee Coordinator, Elgin Elder Abuse Resource Committee providing Council with information on elder abuse (attached) 10:20 a.m. Ian Raven, Dan McNeil and Allan Weatherall, Project Ojibwa, with PowerPoint presentation titled "The Elgin Military Museum of Naval History, Port Burwell, Ontario - Project Ojibwa" (attached) 5th Motion 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) 8th OTHER BUSINESS 1) Statements /Inquiries by Members 2) Notice of Motion 3) Matters of Urgency 9th Closed Meeting Items 10th Recess 11th Motion to Rise and Report 12th Motion to Adopt Recommendations from the Committee Of The Whole 13th Consideration of By -Laws 14th ADJOURNMENT LUNCH WILL BE PROVIDED NOTICE: Christmas Schedule — All County Departments in the Administration Building will be closed from 12:00 noon on December 24, 2012 to January 2, 2013 at 8:30 a.m. (Branch Libraries located throughout the County will close on December 24, 2012 at 1:00 P.M. and reopen on January 2, 2013 — contact your local Branch for hours) January 8, 2013 Special County Council Meeting — Budget Challenges and Options Revisited — 1:30 p.m. January 22, 2013 County Council - 9:00 a.m. February 12, 2013 County Council - 9:00 a.m. February 24 - 27, 2013 ROMA /OGRA Combined Conference - Toronto November 15, 2013 2013 Warden's Banquet — Dutton - Dunwich Community 1 Centre COUNTY COUNCIL MINUTES Tuesday, November 27, 2012 The Elgin County Council met this day at the Administration Building at 9:00 a.m. with all members present. Warden Walters in the Chair. Guest student Josie Ferguson of St. Joseph's High School opened the meeting on behalf of the warden. ADOPTION OF MINUTES Moved by Councillor McIntyre Seconded by Councillor Jenkins THAT the minutes of the meeting held on November 13, 2012 be adopted. - Carried. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF — None. STUDENT EDUCATION DAY The Director of Community and Cultural Services made a brief presentation regarding Students' Day at Council. He presented the itinerary and asked those who had brought students for the program to introduce their guests. Councillor Wiehle introduced Ali Goos of West Elgin Secondary School (WESS); Councillor McWilliam introduced Kayla Ross (WESS); Councillor McIntyre introduced Amanda Thiessen of Parkside Collegiate Institute; Councillor Marr introduced Kyle J. Warne of Central Elgin Collegiate; Councillor Couckuyt introduced Kaitlyn Pond and Daphne Zampaloni both of East Elgin Secondary School (EESS); Councillor Jenkins introduced Jessica Jenkins and Amanda Helka (EESS); Councillor Mennill introduced Dennis Catt (EESS); Councillor Ens noted his student was observing the installation of the Ojibwa submarine in Port Burwell and was not able to attend; The Director of Financial Services introduced Mathew Waite, the new financial analyst; and, the Director of Community & Cultural Services introduced Tyson Ford, a WESS graduate currently studying civil engineering at Fanshawe College. The Warden welcomed the guests. DELEGATION The County's Town Crier, Dave Phillips, presented the 2011 Town Crier's Annual Report. Moved by Councillor Marr Seconded by Councillor Mennill THAT the report titled "Town Crier's Annual Report" dated November 13, 2012 be received and filed; and, THAT a letter of support be provided by County Council for the Town Crier to attend the world competition. - Carried. PRESENTATION The Economic Development Tourism Coordinator presented the recently awarded International Economic Development Council trophy for the Elgin Arts Trail Discovery Guide; and copies of the Elgin County Heritage Guides. 2 Moved by Councillor McIntyre Seconded by Councillor Wiehle THAT the verbal report on the Elgin Arts Trail Discovery Guide award be received and filed. - Carried. Moved by Councillor Marr Seconded by Councillor Jenkins THAT we do now move into Committee Of The Whole Council. - Carried. REPORTS Quarterly Information Report — Contract Awards June 1, 2012 to September 30, 2012 — Purchasinq Coordinator The coordinator presented the report outlining contracts awarded from June 1, 2012 to September 30, 2012. Moved by Councillor Ens Seconded by Councillor McWilliam THAT the report titled "Quarterly Information Report — Contract Awards June 1, 2012 to September 30, 2012" dated November 1, 2012 be received and filed. - Carried. Budget Comparison - October 2012 — Director of Financial Services The director presented the report outlining financial highlights and a favourable year -to -date performance of $1 million. Moved by Councillor McWilliam Seconded by Councillor Marr THAT the report titled "Budget Comparison — October 2012" dated November 30, 2012 be received and filed. - Carried. Interactive Realtor Mapping Program — Marketing & Communications Coordinator The coordinator presented the report about the benefits of an interactive mapping computer program. Moved by Councillor Couckuyt Seconded by Councillor Mennill THAT GiantGoat Web Development be retained to create an interactive realtor mapping program for integration into the land and space section of the economic development website; and, THAT $12,600 for this project be found through efficiencies in the economic development department budget. - Carried. Schedule of Council Meetinqs for 2013 — Administrative Services Coordinator The coordinator presented the proposed schedule of meetings for 2013. 3 Moved by Councillor Marr Seconded by Councillor McWilliam THAT the report titled "Schedule of Meetings for 2013" dated November 16, 2012 be adopted. - Carried. Township of Southwold Shedden Library Committee — Director of Community & Cultural Services The director presented an update on the activities of the library committee. Councillors McIntyre and Mennill thanked the county staff for their work. Moved by Councillor Wiehle Seconded by Councillor Ens THAT the report titled "Township of Southwold Shedden Library Committee" dated November 5, 2012 be received and filed; and, THAT the report be forwarded to Southwold Township Council as well as the Shedden Library Committee. - Carried. Land Ambulance Emergency Medical Services: Go Forward Position — Director of Engineering Services The director presented the report regarding a Request for Proposals for delivery of land ambulance emergency services in Elgin County and St. Thomas. Closed Meeting Item Moved by Councillor Jenkins Seconded by Councillor McIntyre THAT we do now proceed into closed meeting session in accordance with the Municipal Act to discuss matters under Section 240.2 (d); labour relations or employee negotiations regarding contract negotiations — EMS Proposal. - Carried. Moved by Councillor Mennill Seconded by Councillor McWilliam THAT we do now rise without reporting. - Carried. Moved by Councillor Mennill Seconded by Councillor Wiehle THAT the County of Elgin advertise a Request for Proposal for the provision of land ambulance services for the County and City of St. Thomas; and, THAT staff report to Council the results of the Request for Proposal by April 2013. - Carried. Federal Infrastructure Plan Recommendations — Deputy Director of Engineering Services The director presented the report on the province's request for municipalities to support the province's list of recommendations for the federal program. 4 Moved by Councillor McWilliam Seconded by Councillor Marr THAT the report titled "Federal Infrastructure Plan Recommendations" dated November 13, 2012 be received and filed. - Carried. The meeting was recessed for 25 minutes while the St. Thomas Elgin General Hospital donation photograph was taken. Warden Walters and Councillors Mennill and McIntyre and hospital representatives Susan O'Brien, Paul Collins and Steve Knipe posed for a media photograph regarding Council's donation of $500,000 to the hospital's capital campaign. Dexter Line Environmental Assessment Status Report — Deputy Director of Engineering Services The deputy director presented the report updating Council on the work on County Road 24 (Dexter Line). Students' Day representative Kyle Warne gave an overview of the option the students agreed to for this project. Moved by Councillor Mennill Seconded by Councillor Marr THAT the report titled "Dexter Line Environmental Assessment Status Report" dated November 13, 2012 be received and filed. - Carried. CORRESPONDENCE Item for Consideration 1. Karen Leibovici, President, Federation of Canadian Municipalities with information regarding the renewal of Elgin County's annual membership. The following recommendation was adopted in regard to Correspondence Item #1: Moved by Councillor Mennill Seconded by Councillor McIntyre THAT Council approve the payment of $6,965.46 to renew the annual membership in the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. - Carried. Items for Information (Consent Agenda) 1. Jeff Yurek, MPP, Elgin- Middlesex- London with correspondence regarding the St. Thomas - Elgin General Hospital infrastructure program. 2. Tony Difazio, Resource Planning Coordinator, Catfish Creek Conservation Authority with comments relative to the recently adopted County of Elgin Official Plan policies. 3. Cathy Cox, Communications and Public Relations Specialist, St. Thomas Elgin General Hospital (STEGH) with a press release regarding the STEGH being recognized as Provincial Leader in Low ER Wait Times and for being awarded an additional $1.4 million in funding for the excellent performance. 4. Andre Martin, Ombudsman, Ombudsman Ontario with a copy of the first Annual Report on the investigations of closed municipal meetings for the period of April 1, 2011 to August 31, 2012. 5. Hon. Bob Chiarelli, Minister of Infrastructure with an update on Ontario's Municipal Infrastructure Strategy. 5 6. Hon. Dwight Duncan, Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance with an update on the review of the Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund and program allocations for 2013. 7. J. W. Tiernay, Executive Director, Ontario Good Roads Association (OGRA), with information regarding the changes to the OGRA Constitution. Moved by Councillor Jenkins Seconded by Councillor Marr THAT correspondence Items #1 - 7 be received and filed. - Carried. DELEGATIONS Laura Woermke, Executive Director, St. Thomas -Elgin Public Art Centre, presented the centre's 2012 annual report. Councillor Jenkins, the council representative on the Centre's board, expressed his appreciation for the opportunity to serve on the board. Moved by Councillor Jenkins Seconded by Councillor McIntyre THAT the 2012 Annual Report of the St. Thomas -Elgin Public Art Centre be received and filed. - Carried. Stan Lidster, Member, Elgin County Land Division Committee, presented the committee's 2012 Land Division annual report. He updated the total number from 92 approved applications to 104. Moved by Councillor Marr Seconded by Councillor McIntyre THAT the report titled "Land Division Committee Report 2012" dated November 27, 2012 be received and filed. - Carried. OTHER BUSINESS Statements /Inquiries by Members Warden Walters reported on the recent joint committee meeting with the County and City of St. Thomas regarding the St. Thomas Elgin General Hospital. A letter has been sent to the hospital and foundation, among others, requesting additional information regarding the request for a donation to the hospital's capital campaign of $4.5 million. The committee is set to meet again on December 5, 2012. Warden Walters thanked and expressed his appreciation to council and staff for support in his role as warden this year. Notice of Motion - None Matters of Urgency - None Budget Challenges for 2013 — Chief Administrative Officer & Director of Financial Services The Chief Administrative Officer and director presented the PowerPoint on the financial challenges facing the County for 2013. It was agreed that council review the budget and council's goals at a time set aside for this purpose on January 8, 2013. Moved by Councillor Mennill Seconded by Councillor McWilliam THAT the PowerPoint titled "Budget Challenges for 2013" be received and filed. - Carried. 6 County Council 6 November 27, 2012 Motion to Adopt Recommendations of the Committee of the Whole Moved by Councillor Marr Seconded by Councillor McIntyre THAT we do now adopt recommendations of the Committee Of The Whole. - Carried. BY -LAW Moved by Councillor Ens Seconded by Councillor Jenkins THAT By -Law No. 12 -31 "Being a By -Law to Confirm Proceedings of the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the County of Elgin at the November 27, 2012 Meeting" be read a first, second and third time and finally passed. - Carried. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Councillor Wiehle Seconded by Councillor McIntyre THAT we do now adjourn at 12:05 p.m. and meet again on December 11, 2012 at the County Administration Building Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m. Mark McDonald, Chief Administrative Officer. 7 - Carried. Bill Walters, Warden. March 13, 2012 History and activities of EEARC EEARC History: EEARC is a group of volunteer representatives of agencies and organizations that work with seniors; membership also includes seniors themselves. We have been meeting as EEARC since 1994; originally the lead was taken by CCAC, but now there is an executive structure with leadership from among membership. We meet 4 times per year to review activities of committees, share challenges, ideas for development, and activities of Ontario Network for the Prevention of Elder Abuse (ONPEA) through our Western area Rep. This is a volunteer committee, i.e. not mandated by government as domestic violence & child abuse is. Organizations donate the time that their representatives spend with EEARC work, and community seniors are volunteers with an interest in Elder Abuse prevention and intervention. The provincial body for Elder Abuse prevention is the Ontario Network for the prevention of Elder Abuse (ONPEA). They have 7 Regional reps; our western rep is Deana Johnston, who covers all of the areas in LHIN 1 & 2 and part of 3 (that is, Windsor to Brantford, and Tobermory to Lake Erie). Her role is to support the work of the local networks. Each county has a network and there are a variety of structures /activities. ONPEA links with national and international EA organizations EEARC Membership: We have over 25 members; about half of those actively support our work through meeting or committee work. Member activity often depends on the demands of their organization; most work for a health, social service, justice, or banking organization, or Provincial Ministry; we also have a few senior volunteers. (See attached membership list and Terms of Reference) EEARC organizational structure: Chair — Shirley Biro (community volunteer); Vice-Chair — Tobi Maniacco (Social Worker with WECHC) ; Secretary — Amber Lord (VON Elgin - Community Support Services); Treasurer — Rhonda Duffy (Director, Elgin County Homes); EEARC Coordinator — Bonnie Rowe (paid contract position- part -time) 1 8 Strategic Planning Process June 2011: As a result of this process, we have adopted the following Vision and Goals. Vision Statement: We envision an Elgin County where seniors have a strong voice, feel safe and respected. Goals for 2011 -2014: 1. Funding — Investigate opportunities to secure funding for committee 2. Public Education & Awareness — Increase knowledge in the community about the issues of Elder Abuse 3. Partnerships — Create & strengthen partnerships to support our work 4. Case Consultation — Provide advice to service providers, clients and family members on specific Elder Abuse cases, and collect data. Funding Committee: Chair — Sharon Noad (Community Volunteer) Meet bi- monthly to explore options for acquiring stable funding for the work of EEARC. Currently we receive no regular funding from government or other sources. We have received funds from the Seniors Secretariat in the past but not any longer. Public Education & Awareness: Chair - Shirley Biro(Community Volunteer) — educational events such as recent regional workshop sponsored by ONPEA, and attendance at seniors events with our display; public awareness events such as tree planting and dedication yearly on World Elder Abuse Awareness Day; presentations at service clubs, seniors groups; training of front -line staff using recently updated training materials — recent training Yurek's pharmacists /Valleyview Long Term Care home staff /Fanshawe PSW classes Partnerships Committee: Chair — Amber Lord (Community Support Services for seniors, Elgin VON) Meet quarterly to strengthen existing & develop new connections with area partners to enhance the work of EEARC Case Consultation Committee: Chair- Kathy Kinsella (Social Worker at STEGH) — various professionals are called together as needed to discuss challenging cases and offer advice. 2 9 Past Activities - In addition to above — Grant applications: some successful New Horizons application was successful in 1997 with a project completed on assessing community awareness of EA. Results - that Elgin response must include improvement in referrals and interventions. Recommended that there be a centralized resource to help abused seniors navigate the human service system to get help. This could be accomplished possibly through a seniors' peer advisory group, or other counseling service. 2007 — Successful Ontario Trillium Grant and New Horizons grants which provided a Senior Support Coordinator. Roles of improving coordination of services for seniors being or at risk of being abuse along with interventions for same; development of a community protocol; public education; development of a Seniors Help Line and a team of senior volunteers to support this. Hired in partnership with WECHC, who were looking for a part -time Social Worker for seniors. Position ended in 2009. Results: Senior Help Line not used much despite large marketing approach. We have since stopped the HelpLine and partnered with ONPEA Seniors Safety Line which began shortly after we started our local HelpLine. The Coordinator position filled a need in that a number of abused seniors do fall through the cracks of the social service systems. Many organizations relied on the Coordinator to assist them in dealing with cases. Development of a Regional South West Ontario EA Network: SWOREAN in 2009 (Elgin was leading force in this development) Goals: partner to share resources, develop consistent approaches to EA; provide a stronger collective voice; explore opportunities for stable EA funding Activities: 1. developed and expanded membership to all SWLHIN EA networks, pertinent regional Ministry and other organizational reps 2. Created a set of Guidelines for Developing an EA Protocol for use by organizations Acquisition of Project Funding through Partners: 1. Successful funding through West Elgin Community Health Centre in 2009 to support work of EEARC Development of an EEARC Coordinator 2011: Bonnie Rowe (paid position with funds from above) Goals: to support the work of the EEARC executive (trouble finding executive members willing /able to stand); be the lead member of EEARC in the community; increase awareness, knowledge and understanding of EA in Elgin County; connect with ONPEA, SWOREAN and Elgin County organizations regarding EA coordination, education, intervention and research. Work to secure sustainable project funding. Two year funding — 1 day per week. NO CASE MANAGEMENT role 3 10 Seniors Safety Line (SSL) — 1- 866 - 200 -1011 — This is a Seniors hotline, created by ONPEA through a Trillium Grant (2009 - 2012). This confidential safety line is available 24/7, in 150 languages, to all seniors across Ontario. The line is staffed by trained and caring individuals, who are available to listen, support, advise and refer senior callers who are experiencing elder abuse, or their concerned families and friends. Our network has been supporting and marketing this SSL in Elgin County as a way for seniors to get help & guidance and we know that Elgin seniors have been calling the helpline. (latest statistics show over 19% of SSL calls are from Southwestern Ontario — that's the highest usage out of the Toronto and GTA area — about 2400 calls per year from SWO) Attachments: EEARC membership Terms of Reference EEARC 4 11 Elgin County Community Response Elgin County seniors and service providers are committed to working together to address abuse of older adults. As a result of a collaborative effort over many years, the following mechanisms have been put in place to support a community wide response: ® Elgin Elder Abuse Resource Committee — Meets quarterly to work with existing services to make Elgin County a place where older adults can live free from any form of abuse. For more information about the activities of the committee or to become a member, please contact the Committee Coordinator, Bonnie Rowe at (519) 639 -5415 bonniepiper2002 @hotmail.com • Case Consultation Committee — a multidisciplinary group of professionals that provide consultation on complex cases of suspected elder abuse. To present a case, service providers or concerned individuals contact the Consultation Committee chair, Kathy Kinsella at (519) 631 -2030 ext 2130/ kkinsell @stegh.on.ca • Senior Safety Line in partnership with ONPEA — Trained and caring staff are available in a confidential setting to listen, support and assist senior callers or anyone concerned about a senior with a variety of issues including abuse. 24/7 in 150 languages 1- 866 - 299 -1011 • Speakers Bureau — Speakers for presentations and training, community -wide workshops as well as resource materials. If you would like to request a speaker or training session for your organization /agency, please contact the Committee Coordinator, Bonnie Rowe at (519) 639 -5415 or bonniepiper2002(c�hotmail.com Please remember: Elder abuse is the responsibility of our community as a whole, and in Elgin we are committed to a collaborative response to identify and eliminate the mistreatment of older adults. Last Updated: June /12 Community Partners ✓ Alzheimer Society of Elgin -St. Thomas ✓ Bank of Montreal ✓ Canadian Mental Health Association ✓ Central Community Health Centre ✓ Community Seniors ✓ East Elgin Family Health Team ✓ Elgin County Homes ✓ Elgin County OPP ✓ Elgin- Oxford Legal Clinic ✓ Elgin St. Thomas Public Health ✓ Gunn & Associates ✓ Ontario Ministry of Health Promotion ✓ Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General ✓ Ontario Ministry of Government Services ✓ Ontario Network for the Prevention of Elder Abuse (ONPEA) ✓ Parkinson's Society of Southwestern Ontario ✓ Retired Teachers of Ontario ✓ South West Community Care Access Centre ✓ St. Thomas Elgin General Hospital ✓ St. Thomas -Elgin Ontario Works ✓ St. Thomas Police Services ✓ Victim Services Elgin ✓ Violence Against Women Services Elgin ✓ VON ® Elgin Branch ✓ West Elgin Community Health Centre Last updated — June /12 Seniors Have Rights A senior, like all capable adults, has the right to make his or her own decisions, based on his or her own values and beliefs. Adults have the right to: 1. Basic requirements for life: to be guaranteed food, shelter, clothing, health care and social interaction 2. Autonomy /self- determination: to live life as they wish and control their affairs to the full extent of their ability 3. Safety and protection: to live their lives free from abuse 4. Freedom: to accept or refuse assistance, intervention or medical treatments, and to live at risk, provided they are competent to choose and do not harm others 5. Privacy: to share only that which they wish to share 6. Confidentiality: to be assured information, which becomes known about them, will only be shared with other professionals after providing informed consent 7. Dignity and Respect: to have their dignity and information respected 8. Access to Information: to be able to access the information necessary to make meaningful and informed choices; and to be fully informed about their civil and legal rights Source: International Federation on Ageing, 1999 ELGIN ELDER ABUSE RESOURCE COMMITTEE ( "EEARC ") TERMS OF REFERENCE Revised December 2011 What is EEARC? A non - profit group committed to addressing the issues of Elder Abuse in Elgin County through education, advocacy and liaison with community resources. What is "Elder Abuse "? A single, or repeated act, or lack of appropriate action, occurring within any relationship where there is an expectation of trust, which causes harm or distress to an older person. (World Health Organization 2002) The Vision of EEARC: We envision an Elgin County where seniors have a strong voice, feel safe and respected. The Goals of EEARC: 1. Funding - Investigate opportunities to secure funding for the committee 2. Public Education and Awareness — Increase knowledge in the community about the issues of Elder Abuse 3. Partnerships — Create and strengthen partnerships to support our work 4. Case Consultation — Provide advice to service providers, clients, family members, on specific Elder Abuse cases & collect data Membership: EEARC members will be volunteers from various organizations within Elgin County that, in some way, have dealings with the elderly, or members may be seniors themselves. Voting members: Will be EEARC members who regularly attend the meetings of the group (at least one meeting per 12 month period) Ad hoc members: Will be EEARC members who do not attend the meetings, but wish to receive minutes and other information from the activities of the group. Composition: Because of their work experience, community involvement, or perhaps being seniors themselves, members will possess special skills, knowledge, and resources to assist in furthering the work of EEARC. It is suggested that members be drawn from the following areas: seniors, caregivers, justice, health care, law enforcement, seniors housing, finance, mental health, community health, community care and social services agencies, multicultural groups, government services and advocacy. For the purposes of voting on matters, each agency represented at the table will hold one vote, regardless of the number of members attending from that agency. The number of EEARC members will fluctuate as is necessitated by the needs of Elgin County and the projects being undertaken from time to time, but shall never be less than five (5) voting 15 members. Structure and Terms of Office: The EEARC will have a Chair, Vice - chair, Treasurer and Secretary. The financial signing officers will be any two of the before mentioned executive positions. The executive shall be elected by and from the membership on a bi- annual basis and may serve up to two (2) consecutive two -year terms. Sub - Committees: The EEARC shall create sub - committees for the purpose of carrying out the strategic goals of EEARC, and shall appoint members to serve on those sub - committees. When a sub - committee is created, the EEARC shall clearly define, in writing, the terms of reference and responsibilities of any such sub - committee, and shall ensure that the sub- committee adheres to and fulfills those terms of reference and responsibilities. Meetings: The EEARC will meet a minimum four (4) times per calendar year. Administration: The Chair will organize and conduct meetings. The Secretary will carry out administrative duties for the EEARC, including the recording of minutes at all meetings. The Chair will be responsible for calling meetings, setting the meeting agendas, ensuring that members receive notice of the meetings, and circulating minutes as soon as possible following each meeting. In the absence of the Chair, the Vice -chair will carry out these duties. The Treasurer will be responsible for the financial matters of the committee and provide a written report at each scheduled meeting. Quorum: A minimum of five (5) voting members will be required to conduct a meeting. Decisions will be made by a majority of the voting members present. Review of Terms of Reference: The Terms of Reference for the EEARC shall be reviewed once every two (2) years. Assets: If, at any time, the members of the EEARC determine that the EEARC should be dissolved, the remaining assets of the EEARC, after the payment of all debts and liabilities, shall be distributed to one or more charitable organizations recognized as such by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and serving the elderly within Elgin County. The distribution of the remaining assets will be decided by a quorum of voting members." 16 Free and confidential support in Elgin County. 24 hours a day 7 days a week 15fl languages Friendly supportive listwthig _ -- E. Information on ber �'_c fur uIu' r a duDts Help wo'king through problems ernoWnal abuse and neglect �o 9ow oh, lo`neo qow # i c(Ji i aGout (teed, Please call now 1-866-299-101 Seniors Safety 17 a service provided by: ELGIN ELDER ABUSE R :Jourc e C?jmmlH e. In partnership with: The Ontario Network for the Prevention of Elder Abuse www.onpea.org Z 0 W W s J a o LL d 0 W • m Jo > • - ee L O N d c W m - 0� Z <-9 O 0 0 U 0 010 • o c 0 W o Zm • o Z < W ci U p c d 0. a N c :5_4 d )p m o a d U d a y N y w c U Q d � O d L C E y C E r '`‘,2, o a .2 U O co U N • am y m 20 y •"' a O `d `o o. d m E L > m r o ° '-' °� E O O U O T O u>i 3 n _c '^ co a m O = '� T a O O) f0 _c y T E'3 c•y N oo d N - OU - O N N N d O C o m E 2 °> O c m E ° d o 0 o 'o. ° a0i a0i E y N 9 N N O m 11 Q Q = 0 0) 0 d `N " C '.. d d O O m O U E m o L.; 0 O 0 O U j 0 U d �O 'O-j U L E .5 •= N O y 0° C • • >� U d 3 C d ` 0.52.5 O1 d o r h 5.s.-55 -' c 8 t E r 0” N d? d d d � >; N O N iC N d m C 0 dIea >a E °•- c Dap o c m 0 0�; EL rn° U EC d os d N O o gi g U § Ei N W ? d, d l0 C C d N N N 7-E P L o O. d )5 W d C " a ° c G' aye -0 re, y °E�dw =3E� F C => E 0 ▪ • 0 61- 4 o d m v a .o d c E Z: o o o u —8 m �p O E owT 2 1 8 o n m L d d d °''o)Z'na0iO12' °m= 505 ° Nd D 25 2 = = _amQ7- ma O d 2)-_• 0 L 0 .. L • 3v •0 a C O O) 20 • 0 y N = d U L ` d d L O N d y E d w a 0 > o ri ma 0 o_ ° 212' d m s C d E 9 d `0 r E Q o U O) 3 - o d • U C d N c w '5.2 0 >..2 N d d d • d c o E d d 2 O 8 y C d dc'3T Y oaoi O C > m d Y E d t ? c o x d U d d g c o O 2 L d v a r c o aEi 2 . d� m o 0 N A � , _ C Y E `L'-Oama a 4'w`o� f d Mil' N d d L u d d 'O y a �d L� E � d ° a 2tn aY r OO a (V 4 N N 0 01 N N N O 00))04 �� 04 0 V (o N (o A I � co co ma mom m o 0 0 N G O N o? N N ■ -Lk9 ;If J wcn u) cc LI ILI 04, o c E th ._ i . ■ E2 y� 0 ■ a service provided by: I W 7 N' O O /5 a) 0 O fd a--, C C O . � t Q +`� 0 C a) at Q co a. > O ,. ` `~J T D) C N .N O U O 4) c, O O Q O A CO CI a. CDO cO td (I) O,_ O O '7 C -C O n -O -p C O L � +e O _ +(Q � .7) C 0 C CO V N (i)C1 E ,— co 0 0 ;� 2 O a -51:3 O C°� L ) y a N O ., `' E I) O 'O > O W O O O. O � 0 0 0>, 'E -63) C 1 ®_o CO o . P . ro > ° c w c r O N co o ° 0 7 0 a) a) L -O ro N N Q 4 C° r i+ � � n3 °� m E a Wa°C)°o) c CI N N_ O U N p Cl.. d O N �� o2 t c E° C 0 c E o a a�oi � C (0 (IS 0 co co co 0 �o E m—° oro ca) o 0ir° c) CI O o o f OO U 'X a) a) G) O N -O O t To 2 as N O c +a U -i--' '� N ro d a m N (1' N ro a CO C L Co. cta �m °cow O tea) 30 �. °ro Eoo co co -O O) 7 0 a o a° E a° o as ca a N l0 _° 'C c Z C °2o° urn ° Occ _dam no _O C o)ro ° w° ro E U °° c a " ro c°n >%. v +a CD 20 o c d w ro° co 0 a ro 0 d >. O ro « .0 5 a a a O N 0 o a) 0 O . .> Q U E y° c ai CO of oU N N c� N �_ 'm p 7 Q.2 O Y N Z m co d- 0 L 0 '�fn U 0 E °-0C w �W a) UE-°o _CD a) ° `o c oN E WI CC °)E o a) ° a D 0 0 a) E o� c a°_ aci °.ro ° o) C w o o_8 T I E > 0< a 5 coca a N9H m ro° Li- these services call: Seniors Safety Line at 1- 866 - 299 -1011 o) C 0 0 0 C" O co -p C C a) L 0 O (� N Q 0 0 C a) 0.) > a) 05°) 0) 0 a) V a) ro°)mro C C- -° ro= .Q°� °m°).idm o)o cro)�c) °°)roc ac _c 0 _'_'� m '= co 0 0E ca a� x m CO "-�_ a00CmEvro)o �cou°'ia a • • • • Z cn • • LE • • • i Elder Abuse r Are you or is someone you know... physically : .ndf or vu tally Jay mistre :it :1 by a caregiver or fam:y member? having difficulty keel: ' nloney safe? or • of .�:...:..: oo 0:.:: >.;:.. b.: • pt isolated friends, or caregivers? Help is available St. Thomati.. 'olice 519-631-1274 Aylmer Pc•'i.:,e 419 -77 �� i 1 er - b se is mistreatment of a older adult by someone that the hould be able to rust: a caregiver, spouse, a child, another family tuber or ev No one deserves to be abused! Senior Safety Line (24 hour) 1- 866- 299 -1011 Created by th 22 significant contribution to econom 0 1 MIN 1 ME Lai • • 1 MN 1 ME 1 0 0 CU 0 1 ME 1 MN ;y. Off -load of 2.8M pound CS Ojibwa .,r vo fcs "Z O k to cio fd 4.0 iv 4.0 ca CIJ 4-) 4-) k 4-0 0-0 •$. CIO IV 411) AZ 0 0 P 1.1 cis gi 0 '11 01 0 :4 = 7 •E Clo co* alO 110 ° 7 O 0 (0 0 p 2 c a (413 o . . . , 88 -■0 0 11.1 Pli 1=° E .44 14 t g , 0 C13 •I* 0 0 '; E Ow q" ° IliN ON • • p CN New WI 0 D (IN CN 0 U p (IN CO fte c N c6 Cd To N 00 Pli'w 00 LT.P t1cY)COV' 0 Cri C4 tYi 4.0 cu 1 • E i O • < < v _° < M M W Z: M (a) 0 _.) 0 id5P C E 0 w occ 0 = 0 CD dp,_ ,=: am° mc E -, c 0 L) CV LL ai 0 d 1 ° • 3 m c s. 'o c co L' L 0 1., L 2 dC G : r• o Z ro 2 `7:0 a) All a) 710 0 0 0 0 Z 4 46 t .' 1) ° 0 0 C a4 OS (0) 0 $.° 4 � 11PS 1) 0 ' �E° -�zw • • • • • REPORTS OF COUNCIL AND STAFF December 13, 2012 Council Report — (ATTACHED) Councillors Walters, McIntyre and Mennill — Hospital Redevelopment Recommendation and City of St. Thomas Correspondence Item dated December 7, 2012 re: Funding Request Staff Reports — (ATTACHED) Emergency Management Coordinator — Municipal Disaster Response Agreement Manager of Information Technology — Staffing Review Deputy Director of Engineering Services — Electrical Servicing Agreement Director of Engineering Services — Emergency Medical Services - Bayham Director of Homes & Seniors Services — 2012 -2013 Late Career Nurse Initiative Director of Homes & Seniors Services Director of Homes & Seniors Services — Victorian Order of Nurses Hospice Volunteer Program — Terrace Lodge and Bobier Villa Adult Day Program Community Accountability Planning Submission 2013/14 (1 Year Refresh) Director of Human Resources — Vacation Carry-Over 36 RECOMMENDATION FROM THE JOINT AD HOC COMMITTEE ON HOSPITAL REDEVELOPMENT TO COUNTY AND CITY COUNCILS - DECEMBER 5TH, 2012 SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLORS: WALTERS, MCINTYRE AND MENNILL FOR CONSIDERATION ON DECEMBER 13TI , 2012 THAT, IN VIEW OF THE SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT THE HOSPITAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT BRINGS TO THE ELGIN /ST. THOMAS AREA; AND, THE TREMENDOUS BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH A MODERN, REDEVELOPED COMMUNITY BASED HOSPITAL WHICH WILL PROVIDE STATE -OF- THE -ART HEALTH CARE; AND, IN LIGHT OF THE EXPRESSED NEED TO DEMONSTRATE STRONG COMMUNITY FINANCIAL COMMITMENT TO THE PROJECT; AND, IN RECOGNITION THAT THE "RE- SCOPED PROJECT" REPRESENTS AN APPROXIMATE REDUCTION OF 25% OF THE FORMER PROJECT COSTS: THAT THE JOINT CITY - COUNTY AD HOC COMMITTEEE ON HOSPITAL REDEVELOPMENT RECOMMEND TO CITY AND COUNTY COUNCIL A COMBINED CONTRIBUTION OF $7M ($3.5 EACH) (25% LESS THAN ORIGINAL ESTIMATE) TO BE RAISED OVER A 10 YEAR TERM, COMMENCING IN 2013. ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. 37 Wendell Graves CAO/ Cleric December 7, 2012 Mayor H. Jackson and Members of City Council and Members of County Council THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF ST. THOMAS Office of the CAO/Cleric P. O. Box 520, City Hall St. Thomas, Ontario N5P 3V7 Telephone: (519) 631 -1680, ext. # 4123 Fax: (519) 633-9019 Warden B. Walters Re: St, Thomas Elgin General Hospital Redevelopment Project - Funding Request Dear Mayor Jackson and Warden Walters: Please be advised that on December 5, 2012, your City - County Ad Hoc Committee on Hospital Redevelopment passed the following resolution: "THAT: In view of the significant investment the hospital redevelopment project brings to the Elgin - St. Thomas area; and, The tremendous benefits associated with a modern, redeveloped community -based hospital which will provide state -of -the -art health care; and, In light of the expressed need to demonstrate strong community financial commitment to the project; and, In recognition that the "re- scoped project" represents an approximate reduction of 25% of the former project costs: The Joint City - County Ad Hoc Committee on Hospital Redevelopment recommends to City and County Councils a combined contribution of $7 million ($3.5 million each) (25% less than original estimate) to be raised over a 10 year term, commencing in 2013." Sincerely, Mi &ITV Maria Konefal, Assistant to the CAO /Clerk 38 REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Kevin Englehart, Emergency Management Coordinator DATE: November 29, 2012 SUBJECT: Municipal Disaster Response Agreement INTRODUCTION: As part of being prepared in the event of an Emergency, shelter management has been a key item identified as needing improvement within the municipalities in Elgin by the Community Emergency Management Coordinators. The City of St Thomas and the County of Elgin have been in discussion with the Canadian Red Cross Society (CRCS) to provide services for shelter management to the City as well as municipalities within Elgin County in the event of a declared emergency. DISCUSSION: The Director of St. Thomas — Elgin Ontario Works has led a discussion with the CRCS to provide shelter management on behalf of the City and the County. The Director's report to City of St. Thomas Council is attached for your information. Ontario Works is currently required to provide staffing to manage Emergency Shelters in a declared emergency within Elgin as per community Emergency Management Plans. CRCS as part of their annual service fee will provide Reception Center staff, Registration and Inquiry Services, Information Services and Emergency lodging to those requiring shelter. Food and Clothing Services will be provided by the Salvation Army if required. Medical First Aid will be provided by St John Ambulance and will also be coordinated by the CRCS. Shelter inspections to determine suitability of the facilities to be used for shelters as well as training will be provided as per the agreement. Supplies such as cots and blankets will be loaned to the affected municipalities by the CRCS. Upon entering into this agreement, municipalities will have the ability to acquire supplies from large distributers such as WalMart , Canadian Tire etc. at significant cost savings. This is due to an agreement CRCS has in place with distributers to assist in the event of an emergency. Municipalities would be required to enter into a written agreement with the City of St. Thomas to access the services provided in the agreement. The County of Elgin is funding the annual fee on behalf of the municipalities. 39 Upon signing of the agreement a fee of $10,000 will be paid to the Canadian Red Cross Society for the first year to fund an assessment of potential shelters assessments across Elgin, provide training and to ensure appropriate equipment and supplies are in reserve. In subsequent years, there will be a fixed annual fee of $7,500 to provide ongoing training and to ensure equipment and supplies are available. The annual fee is distributed between the Province, the County of Elgin and the City of St. Thomas as follows: Annual costs: 2013 2014+ Total Gross Annually $10,000 $7,500 Less: Provincial portion- administrative costs (50 %) $ 5,000 $3,750 Less:City of St.Thomas portion (31.67 %) $ 3,167 $2,375 Estimated Annual Net Cost to the County of Elgin (18.33 %) $ 1,833 $1,375 CONCLUSION: The City of St. Thomas and the County of Elgin are partnering with the Canadian Red Cross to provide services for shelter management in the event of a declared emergency. The County of Elgin will fund the County's portion of the annual agreement fee on behalf of its partner municipalities. To utilize the services provided by the Canadian Red Cross, as outlined in the agreement, municipalities must enter into separate agreements with St. Thomas — Elgin Ontario Works which is managed by the City of St. Thomas. RECOMMENDATION: THAT the County of Elgin enter into an agreement with the City of St. Thomas to provide shelter services to the municipalities of Elgin County in the event of a declared emergency, and; THAT municipalities are encouraged to enter into an agreement with the City of St. Thomas to access the services provided by the Canadian Red Cross, and; THAT the annual fees be allocated from the Emergency Measures budget. All of which is Respectfully Submitted Approved for Submission Kevin Englehart Emergency Management Coordinator Clayton Waters Director of Engineering Services 40 Mark G. McDonald Chief Administrative Officer -...-+=.•I-7,—.1. ...• ... "AS -. 1-•■ •-, • ..., •,--•-,•—• ..... -•-••■•-. —.-■,-.... , rr , . •.1, [4...1 ..• • ' ....J.. II ' i,." t•-•""' '" s -.,y,' ,, 07 ---=.— le— .•-• -- 1 ..e.:‘"-^3.:' -,-,,- .2,-se-q_lekr• 1 I I ,, I • 1, ? 1 1 -5.1.....P4 [ c.., ; . Z.' • 4. 41_,. VI 1 "r , ..... ,. " . 4. • - - ,i 11 — ' 121A,"4.'• - ,Yr,•.',R4 ' 1',.'. , , I 11 ......k. .- sr.,— 4,-, I k ..f •-''' -‘' 7 -, , " 1 k --„,..-7.-• .-_--,7--=.4,77,-----_,7_-_,_,„7.,.._-- --_,,.-_---, ,-,..7-1--..7._.-r...7....5,577--- _---..----_------. -_ _ ,.. ,-...„.„-.-. -2; r 1 1.! 3. ....... - 7 ,C1)••••:-'4 ,f• lti‘,.-4 L2C,J .%!11/4. rr- r., -.1 .7, .. Ly4,....-...LE. ii •:. ..e..dr ....... ,...-....A II ij r-,..A........ t.X'4-......, on II Zr '1 c -r . C • ‘'.1 V II i', .., 2...... .,-.2 u.s..IL I., .,...,., e, -• ...e' - j7"—"....---' .., --' '-' .... , .1 , j 1 I 1-=. +-P'='°. . -•••••'4 e. ''. - .. - ,4'1$—D-,'..-=-F-E-g-46==c0. ,-.--4.66,:.-;ibl-i-1.7-..i,A-ar-I--.t.'1`,.%.----4..,4-i-1., ,r...„..--,-.3,-:?...-,......--,L,-.,....,3-:..... __--...-1 :. ' I ili - - - - - - -_ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I I Ii II jk r . 41 The specific services offered by the Red Cross are based on the community's needs during the disaster and the role assigned to Red Cross in the local disaster response plan which may include: • Personal Disaster Assistance • Fundraising • Registration and Inquiry • Assessment and Recovery Assistance • Reception and Information Centers • Personal Supports • Emergency Lodging /Shelter Management • Public Education/Training • Disaster Response Team Analysis: On June 15, 2009 the City of St. Thomas entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Canadian Red Cross Society for the provision of Emergency Services (Council Report OW- 08 -09). Due to multiple factors, the agreement could not be fulfilled and the contract expired. The St. Thomas -Elgin Ontario Works and Social Housing Dept ( STEOW), the City of St. Thomas, the County of Elgin and the Canadian Red Cross Society have considered a partnership in the creation of a new service agreement which specifies: • The geographic area the agreement covers and details the varying municipal structures; • "Who does what" in a disaster situation thereby reducing service duplications and miscommunication; • Completion of shelter assessments surveys to ensure all identified shelters are adequately profiled for use by the control group in a declared emergency; • Provision of annual training; • Initial completion and annual updating of the STEOW Emergency Business Continuity Plan; • That during a disaster, minimal municipal staff is participating in the emergency response thereby freeing up remaining staff to participate in the daily running of departmental business; • Financial approval system during a disaster, invoicing and recovery details. Financial Implications: Upon signing this agreement a fee will be paid to the Canadian Red Cross Society of $10,000 for the first year of the term of this agreement in order to ensure the completion of shelter assessments within the geographic area, adequate human resources, appropriate equipment and supplies are in reserve. There will be a fixed fee of $7,500 for each subsequent year of the term in order to ensure ongoing human resources, local training, annual updating of STEOW Emergency Business Continuity Plan, appropriate equipment and supplies are in reserve. The following chart details the breakdown of the cost sharing. The 2012 budget includes $10,000 in account 61- 1 -01 -1- 0003 -4035 for this cost. nnual Cos s._ 201 3 Total Gross Costs Annually $ 10,000 $ 7,500 Less: Provincial portion - administrative costs (50 %) $ 5,000 $ 3,750 Less: City of St. Thomas portion (31.67 %) $ 3,167 $ 2,375 Estimated Annual Net Cost to County of Elgin (18.33 %) $ 1,833 $ 1,375 Conclusion: In entering into a partnership with the City of St. Thomas, the County of Elgin and the Canadian Red Cross Society for the provision of coordinated disaster response ensures streamlined, efficient and effective services at a time of crisis. Funding for the County's portion is available with the emergency operations portion of the annual STEOW budget. Council's endorsement of this report is respectfully requested. The Director is available to answer any questions that Council members may have. Respectfully submitted, Barbara Arbuckle, Director St. Thomas -Elgin Ontario Works and Social Housing 42 ENREPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Al Reitsma, Manager of Information Technology DATE: October 29, 2012 SUBJECT: Staffing Review INTRODUCTION: The County of Elgin has been very progressive in its adoption of technology in the workplace. Whereas a decade ago the use of computers was limited to only administrative departments and the libraries, all staff now use computers with the most significant increases in use being seen at the County's long term care (LTC) homes. The proliferation of technology has placed an increased demand on Information Technology (IT) staff. IT management has started to receive negative feedback regarding the time taken to respond to and resolve issues. This report reviews the impact of increased demands on IT Department staff and makes recommendations for dealing with those demands and addressing service level expectations. DISCUSSION: The general role of the IT Department is to provide information and communication technology (ICT) services and support to enable County of Elgin departments to achieve their goals and objectives, including: • Providing ICT hardware and maintenance support services • Implementing security policies to safeguard the security of County hardware and data • Provide IT software support services In 2003 the number of employees requiring a network account was about 100. Following the recent addition of 60 accounts for support staff at the LTC homes for the Surge Online Training Initiative, all 450 County employees now have network accounts. Since 2003 the impact of a service disruption has significantly increased. A service outage in the present day has a greater impact to staff as compared to the effect it would have had in 2003. 43 From 2003 to the present the number of networked devices (desktop computers, touch screens, wireless access points, laptops, telephone, servers and routers) has also increased 500% from 113 to 528 devices. This increase in users and devices being supported has an effect on the demands placed on IT staff and will impact service request response times. As a result of customer feedback, a detail staff time study was completed for the 22 week (109 working day) period from February 21, 2012 to July 27, 2012. During the study period: • 715 hours were spent resolving tickets (requests for support /help) • 1430 hours were spent working on requests without tickets, project work, planning, meetings and department administration • 917 tickets were submitted • 841 tickets were closed • 86 tickets were left open (unresolved) The average time to close a ticket was eight days. The length of time being taken to service some tickets is one of the main pieces of feedback being received Time to work on tickets is driven by: • The rate at which new tickets are submitted. Each ticket is reviewed immediately to determine its priority. See Appendix B for the scheme used to set a ticket's priority. • The rate at which service requests not submitted via a ticket are received • Resource availability • Projects in progress (some projects may have a higher priority than an incoming ticket). Analysis of the time study (see detailed results in Appendix A) revealed that 70% of the activities performed by the department are based on user requests and the remaining 30% was either project or system maintenance activities. An analysis was completed to determine how to reduce time taken on each activity. 1. FAQ Web Page Once the new County web site has been completed IT will add an FAQ section to the department web page. Users will be encouraged to visit the website in order to find a solution to their problem or question. The FAQ page will be constantly updated as help calls are received and common issues are identified. The FAQ page should reduce some of the time taken with systems and user support (the top two categories). 2. DeepFreeze Operating system (OS) reinstalls are most commonly performed on public access computers (PACs). PACs are predominantly located at the County's libraries and are mainly used to surf the internet, with gaming and social media being the most common activities. Surfing the internet 44rries a high risk of introducing viruses to the workstation. Although the County utilizes McAfee, a leading anti -virus system, there are always new viruses being introduced which may not be immediately caught. As a result IT staff attempts to remove the virus manually or failing that has to reinstall the workstations operating system. Staff analysed several options to reduce or eliminate the need to reinstall OSs and as a result DeepFreeze, a software application, will be installed on all PACs. This software allows the OS on the workstation to be returned to its original state by restarting the workstation. 3. Staff Efficiency Staff efficiency was reviewed to insure that staff time was properly focused. Several issues were address in order to improve staff productivity. It should be noted that other steps have been taken in the past to optimize staff productivity. These steps include: • the use of LANDesk which allows remote access to staff computers thereby removing the need to travel to branch locations • the use of Citrix which removes the need to install software on workstations 4. Cloud Based Applications Cloud based applications is a term used to describe software that is accessed via the internet. The application is typically housed on a third party server thereby reducing the workload on IT staff. The County currently uses three cloud based applications: • PointClickCare — maintain LTC homes resident information (i.e. care plans, account information) • eMAR — electronic medication administration record • PMWorx — building maintenance management system The IT department continues to look for and identify cloud solutions that will reduce workload. 5. Consultants Consultants are typically employed when staff lack the required knowledge to complete system changes or to diagnose complex system problems. For example, network router changes or issues with our virtual server environment. As staff skill and knowledge has increased it has been possible to reduce the IT consulting budget from a high of $100,000 in 2003 to the current level of $30,000. Although the use of consultants is ideal for tasks that require specialized knowledge, it is more cost effective to perform work in -house whenever possible given the consultant's billing rate of $120 per hour. With the over two - thirds of IT staff time taken up with responding to user initiated requests critical future work is at risk of not being completed on time. This includes: 45 • Regular server operating system updates. Updates can affect the security of the server. Not installing server updates poses a security risk to the County's network • Server \Workstation \laptop operating system (OS) upgrades. The majority of the County's workstations and laptops have the Windows XP OS installed. Microsoft support for that OS will end in Q1 of 2014. All servers, workstations and laptops must have their OS upgraded before then; not doing so poses a high security risk to the County's network • Software upgrades (AutoCAD, Accpac, Citrix). In most cases the County subscribes to annual maintenance, which includes upgrades, for many of our software systems, some of which can be considered critical. • Network monitoring and planning. The network has not evolved to meet the demands put on the infrastructure. For example, a separate network for each of the following is required: LTC home residents, guest users, phone traffic and server traffic. With the ever growing number of networked devices joining the network congestion is being noticed • Documentation. Much of the operation of our servers, software systems, networks, backup and disaster recovery has out of date or no documentation. This will become an issue if there is a prolonged staff absence or staff turnover During the period from 2003 to 2012 the IT operational budget has gone from $284,667 to $308,272; an increase of $23,605 or an annual increase of 0.89 %. Despite the significant growth in users and equipment, the budget has decreased in real terms. This has been accomplished by bringing in -house work that was previously outsourced to consultants without having to add staff to the department's role. With the latest increases in users and equipment, this trend of doing more cannot continue without negatively impacting County operations. Although steps have been taken to increase the efficiency of IT staff, the backlog of ticket requests continues. Much needed projects, maintenance and planning tasks are delayed. A staffing increase will address these issues. A help desk support person would have the following tasks: The help desk support person would responsible for: • First contact for all support calls • Resolution of low level help calls, for example: o Password resets o Account creation /deletion o Diagnosing simple workstation issues o Help with Microsoft Office (i.e. Word, Excel, PowerPoint) o Assist with application support (i.e. Laserfiche) • Laptop /projector booking • Hardware replacement (i.e. monitors) • Simple admin building phone system maintenance (i.e. adding /deleting phones) • Lost/corrupt file retrieval Having a new staff member take on these value added tasks would free senior staff to address the more complicated tickets, complete maintenance activities and complete 46 projects. A copy of the job description for the proposed position is included in Appendix C. In order to fall in line with the naming conventions used within the County, the current Network Analyst position will be renamed to Senior Network Analyst position and the new position will be called Network Analyst. The salary and benefits for the Network Analyst position is $66,954. The position will be funded from the 2012 surplus and therefore will have no impact on the 2013 levy. CONCLUSION: Since 2003 the number of users that IT supports has quadrupled and the number of devices supported has increased five -fold; during that same period IT staffing levels have remained unchanged. An increase in the staffing complement is required to keep pace with the increased demand for IT support. This will ensure the delivery of satisfactory service levels and customer satisfaction while maintaining existing infrastructure and ultimately the security of data. RECOMMENDATION: THAT a full -time Network Analyst position be created in the IT Department; and, THAT the position will be funded from the existing operating budget with no impact on the levy; and, THAT the costs of the full -time Network Analyst be included in the 2013 budget deliberations. All of which is Respectfully Submitted Approved for Submission Al Reitsma Manager of IT Jim Bundschuh Director of Financial Services 47 Mark G. McDonald Chief Administrative Officer Appendix A — Detailed Breakdown of Activities Completed �otiv�ty ........ Prcen... Systems Support1 16.4% User Support1 11.9% Project2 10.7% O/S Reinstall' 7.3% Network Maintenance2 6.5% Administration2 5.1% Hardware Maintenance' 5.1 Website Support1 4.1% Dept Management2 4.0% Planning2 3.7% Software Installation' 3.3% Equipment Move /Setup' 3.1% Server Maintenance2 3.0% Travel' 1.1% User Training' 1.1 Printer Issues' 0.8% Inventory Management2 0.6% Virus Removal' 0.6% Equipment Booking' 0.6% Council Support1 0.5% Resident Support1 0.1% 1 Activity based on a user request. 2 Activity not based on a user request. Systems Support: Support for software systems used (i.e. PRDS, Workflows, Accpac, Entrapass, In- Magic). User Support: Includes activities such as diagnosing and resolving problems with software (i.e. Word, Excel, Publisher, Laserfiche, Accpac), password resets, diagnosing and resolving problems with hardware (i.e. workstations, printers, scanners). Project: Scheduled department projects, work not considered support. For example: implementation of the automated invoicing process, installation of wireless LAN (local area network) controllers in the administration building and the 3 LTC homes, Entrapass upgrade and the McAfee web filtering and anti -virus implementation. 0/S Reinstall: Installing an operating system (OS) (i.e. Windows XP or 7) on a workstation that has a corrupt OS. 48 Network Maintenance: Includes activities such as setting up wireless access points, routers and switches. Administration: Includes activities such as completing time sheets and expense reports, planning tasks and managing help tickets. Hardware Maintenance: Includes activities such as diagnosing hardware problems, cleaning PCs and maintaining UPSs. Website Support: Updating County website content. Department Management: Performance appraisals and tracking, budget planning and tracking. Planning: Planning day -to -day activities, prioritizing support requests. Software Installation: Installing software on workstations. Equipment Move /Setup: Setup or move workstations. Server Maintenance: Install server operating system and software updates. Travel: Travel between the County Administration Building and one of 13 remote locations. User Training: Provide one -on -one training related to software systems (i.e. Laserfiche, Word, Excel). Printer Issues: Diagnosing and resolving printer problems. Inventory Management: Tracking the location, usage and value of almost 500 assets managed by the IT department. Virus Removal: Identifying and executing virus removals for infected workstations. Equipment Booking: Scheduling and managing sign -out laptops and projectors. Council Support: Laptop and project setup and iPad support. Resident Support: Setting up LTC homes residents with internet access and providing advise with regard to type laptop required to be able to access the County's wireless network. 49 Appendix B - Ticket Prioritization Response Time As soon as possible. Usually within 15 - 60 minutes. As soon as possible. Usually within 30 - 90 minutes unless there is an active high priority ticket. Subject to resource availability. Usually 7 - 14 business days. ^O LL Outage of a service that impacts several staff or a critical application is not available. Examples would include a complete inability to use any one of the following: email, internet, phone system, Dynamics GP. No satisfactory workaround is available. Business operations can continue but there is a major impact to productivity or one employee is unable to perform their job function whatsoever. • A medium issue with a satisfactory work around in place. • A problem that does not significantly affect productivity (i.e. less than 3 hours down -time over the period of one work week). • All tickets initially submitted are given a low priority until they are reviewed. Exclusions CO a) O = a)) c1 _Q o a) -o o u) o a) o -o -0 a) _ c O 75 a� Zvi �( u) CO c o a) a) CD (T5 U (6 a) -0 L a) N O 2 a) 0 - (6 O N a O O N U U O (I) a N CT a) F _a Ct Z — >, W 0 O rajj u) D a) a) 0-) •(!) L N 0) O O = Q O L 0 O 0 0 O O > Q N N 0 0 O1 U (5 U) O Q U)E< 2 • Appendix C - Network Analyst Job Description Title: N Status: F Department: IT Reports To: Ma etwork Analyst u1I -time n ag er of S UMMARY OF POSITION': Reporting to the Manager o County staff reg Netwo troub IT the Network Analyst p arding County of Elgin supported computer rovid es rk Analyst is the first point of contact es h WORK P ootin g ERFO problems and providing RMED: Responds to requests for technica Diagnoses and reso Researches User qt. ap for County staff propriate advise assistance in'pers assistance and customer service to applications and platforms. The and will assist system users through a n d/or initializing suita b e actions.» on, via phon ves technical hardware and software issues estions utilizing available information resources e and /or e ly Advises Users on appropriate actions Follows standard help desk procedures to Logs all help desk interactions by tracking Administers help desk job req Redirects problems to a Identifies and escalates Maintains a curre uests tra ppropriate res situations req t knowled resolve routine com an d routing a king software ources uinn I req puter - related ests and reso problems lutions g urgent attention ge of system information, ch ang es and u QUALIFICATI ONS: Experience diagn osing and resolving computer problems Working ;,knowledg the fun d Minimu A+ Cer e of M icrosoft Active Directory and Microsoft Exchange 2 amental operations of relevan m if ed a ucational requirements of ion Post- secondary softwa re, ha rdware and other eq a Grade 12 Diploma alo level education' in Computer Science and/o Technology preferred Strong oral and written commu nication skills Advanced customer service and conflict resolu Ability to quickly and accurately iden resolution Valid "G'' C ass Ontario Motor Vehicle License a ion skills tify and analyze critica �g with a Com pu 010 uipmen curre it as we as Com er Systems p TIA issues a �d prioritize steps to �d the use of a reliable vehicle for County bL sin ess. 51 REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Peter Dutchak, Deputy Director of Engineering Services DATE: November 28, 2012 SUBJECT: Electrical Servicing Agreement INTRODUCTION: The County of Elgin owns various electrical infrastructure on its roads and these facilities must be inspected and maintained by a certified contractor. The County of Elgin has partnered with the County of Middlesex who issued a tender to secure a three year electrical servicing contract for traffic signals, intersection beacons and luminaries in the counties of Elgin and Middlesex. DISCUSSION / CONCLUSION: The County of Elgin owns traffic signals, intersection control beacons and luminaries on its road system. Under the existing road maintenance agreement, municipalities are required to fund the cost of maintaining these facilities within the annual allocation provided to municipalities. The new road maintenance agreement has removed the cost to maintain these facilities from the municipalities and has placed this responsibility upon the County. Although the new maintenance agreement has not yet been formally adopted, many aspects of the new agreement have been implemented practically to create a seamless transition once the agreement is executed by all parties. For example, increased allocations have been provided to municipalities in 2012 and quarterly county inspections follow the new agreement protocol. The County of Elgin has partnered with the County of Middlesex to secure a single contractor to inspect and maintain these electrical facilities across the counties of Elgin and Middlesex in an effort to attract a service at the lowest cost. The County of Middlesex received five quotations for emergency and routine traffic signal maintenance services for the term of January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2015. Middlesex County selected Southwold Diversified Ltd., who submitted the lowest overall bid when evaluated against normal traffic signal maintenance annual expenditures. Southwold Diversified Ltd. has held this contract with the County of Middlesex for many years and has provided this service to Elgin County for the majority of 2012. The total estimated cost for routine inspections, conflict monitoring and service calls is approximately $35,000 for Elgin County. 52 RECOMMENDATION: THAT the County of Elgin enter into an agreement with Southwold Diversified Ltd. to provide electrical servicing between January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2015. All of which is Respectfully Submitted Peter Dutchak Deputy Director of Engineering Services Clayton Watters Director of Engineering Services 53 Approved for Submission Mark G. McDonald Chief Administrative Officer REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Clayton Watters, Director of Engineering Services DATE: October 5, 2012 SUBJECT: Emergency Medical Services - Bayham INTRODUCTION: At the April 10, 2012 County Council meeting the following was adopted, " THAT staff be directed to investigate ways and means and associated costs of improving the ambulance response times for the Municipality of Bayham bringing them in closer to the provincial standard of 14 minutes 15 seconds response time and report back to Council with available options." This report will review the present standards for the County of Elgin as they relate to the service in the Municipality of Bayham, and methods to improve response times there. DISCUSSION: Emergency medical services have two time criteria that are important to meet or exceed: Reaction Time and Response Time. The Reaction Time is when the call centre, Central Ambulance Communication Centre (CACC), has notified the ambulance to respond to a medical call. The ambulance is required to leave the base within 1.5 minutes 90% of the time. Response Time starts when the vehicle has left the base and ends when the vehicle has arrived at the location where the emergency medical call originated. From 1997 until 2011 the response time was 14 minutes 15 seconds (14.25 minutes) 90% of the time for Code 4 calls (urgent calls). The County of Elgin most of the time, has overall met the response time requirement of 14.25 minutes, which is the time required for the ambulance to travel from the ambulance base and to arrive at the patient's address. The Ontario Ministry of Health has mandated that Designated Delivery Agents change the reporting of Response Times from one time and percentage, 14.25 minutes 90% of the time, to six: Canadian Triage Acuity Scale (CTAS) Vital Signs Absent (VSA); CTAS 1; CTAS 2; CTAS 3; CTAS 4; and CTAS 5, rather than the 14.25 minutes, see Appendix A. The most important response time is for a VSA patient, i.e. sudden cardiac arrest. The time of six minutes is critical to survivability to patient's outcome. From the beginning of the request for medical assistance to the moment the paramedics are diagnosing the patient's condition the process is as follows: a call to the ambulance communication centre; the ambulance call centre must ascertain the patient's condition and notify the nearest available ambulance; the ambulance then leaves the base; the ambulance travels to the patient that requires medical attention; the paramedics unload the stretcher, equipment and consumables and transport all necessary materials and 54 equipment to the site where the patient is situated; the paramedics check the important vital signs in order to start treatment. All must be completed within six minutes in order to dramatically improve patient's outcomes. As described above arriving within six minutes after the onset of a VSA is difficult to achieve. For information purposes, in 2009 there were 11,713 total calls of which there were 62 VSA. Of the 62 VSA calls, 35 were in the City of St Thomas and 27 in the County of Elgin. Of the 27 County VSA's, five occurred in Bayham and four of those calls the Bayham Fire Service arrived before the ambulance. Staff does not have VSA information for 2010 or 2011. Information will be available in the 2012 year due to the electronic patient call reporting system that was being initiated this year. Appendix B, lists the calls per population within each municipality. Bayham has the lowest calls per population 44 respectively per 1,000 population compared to the County average of 69 and the City of St. Thomas average of 98. The chart below lists the response times for each municipality / township for the last three years. Response Time Municipality 2009 2010 2011 Aylmer 6.60 6.58 6.87 Bayham 23.90 23.55 24.42 Central Elgin 13.47 14.12 13.52 Dutton Dunwich 13.05 14.10 14.27 Malahide 13.83 14.90 15.15 Southwold 15.13 15.68 15.02 West Elgin 11.92 13.22 12.80 St. Thomas 7.22 7.76 7.53 Overall for DDA 12.20 12.53 12.55 Mandated 14.25 14.25 14.25 In 2011 there are four municipalities / townships where the response times were greater than the provincial standard response times of 14.25 minutes (Bayham, Dutton /Dunwich, Malahide and Southwold). Generally in the last three years all the response times have marginally increased. The increase in response time is usually related to weather and distance. There are at least four options to improve response times in Bayham: status quo; re- allocate a night shift from Rodney base to Bayham; fund an additional day shift at Bayham; and refer the challenge to the service provider under the next contract. Option one, status quo, would seek to improve the response times to Bayham by improving the time the paramedics are mobilized to a call. This minor improvement would reduce the overall response time by 10 to 15 seconds. Option two would reallocate existing paramedic's hours within the system. This would result in a reduction in hours at one location and re- allocate these hours at a proposed Bayham base. The majority of calls across the County are from 7 am to 7 pm. Staff reviewed the day time (7 am to 7 pm) and night time (7 pm to 7 am) calls for each 55 municipality to ascertain if one area's night shift could be eliminated and those hours be transferred to a day shift in Straffordville. A review of the call volumes for each municipality indicated that the night time call volumes at each municipality were higher than the day time calls within Bayham. Staff also compared the calls at the Rodney base and the call volumes in Bayham and determined that there were higher call volumes at the Rodney base than in Bayham. Therefore, re- allocating hours within the system would increase response times overall for the County of Elgin. Option three would involve adding additional paramedic hours. In the 2011 budget there was an allocation of 96,360 hours of service. One additional 12 hour shift for 52 weeks would increase the paramedics' hours by 8,736 or 9.1 % to system wide hours. Improving response times for Bayham to move closer to the provincial time of 14.25 requires the addition of: one vehicle and one paramedic; or one vehicle and two paramedics. Additional parameters for consideration would be to adjust the shift hours to capture the majority of calls, such as a 12 hour shift or two 12 hour shifts that would capture 100 % of the calls. First, it is important to discuss one paramedic versus the two paramedics of improving patient care during a traumatic event, which is the goal of emergency medical services. Having one paramedic versus two paramedics to complete the emergency medical services has been discussed and pilot projects have been tried in other jurisdictions. The single paramedic can complete certain assessments such as vital signs, but the time to perform the medical services is greatly extended. One vehicle /one paramedic could not transport the person to a hospital, the patient would need to wait until a vehicle with two paramedics arrived at the scene for transport. The normal practice within most, if not all, designated delivery agents including the County of Elgin is providing two paramedics and that would improve patient's care and be able to transport to the hospital. With additional hours of service, staff needed to find the shift coverage that is the most beneficial for the service to be provided. In 2011 there was 194 Code 4 calls in Bayham, and a review of the Code 4 calls for each hour indicated that: from 7 am to 3 pm were 40% (77) of the calls; from 7 am to 5 pm were 50% (95) of the calls; from 7 am to 7 pm were 63 % (122) of the calls; and 7 am to 7 am would address 100% (194) of the calls. If additional service is requested by County Council, staff would recommend a 12 hour shift from 7 am till 7 pm. Rodney and Dutton bases were originally 12 hour shifts and in 2002 to 2004 went to two 12 hour shifts. Since we are initiating an enhanced service in this area, starting with one 12 hour shift, seven days a week, it would certainly improve the response times in Bayham. A review of the service enhancement should be undertaken no more than two years after service commenced with a report back to County Council on the findings. In relation to the above, staff has reviewed several locations within and near the Municipality of Bayham that would be appropriate locations to house the vehicle and 56 two paramedics. The most logical temporary location is the Straffordville Fire hall. This location is geographic centric to the municipality, at the crossroads of two major County roads, Plank Road and Heritage Line. The building has a generator for power interruptions, and the facility has the personal amenities for staff use. There are increased annual costs to the system for the additional service provided to the eastern portion of the County including Bayham. The approximate costs include: vehicle; paramedics; consumables; buildings; and others. A vehicle operating cost is $15,000, vehicle amortization cost is $40,000, one paramedic shift is $275,000, consumables is $5,000, building operating and capital cost is $65,000, defibrillator amortization is $5,000 and other miscellaneous costs are $10,000. The cost for the paramedics includes 12 working hours per day and 365 days per week or 4,380 worked hours. A paramedic averages 42 hours per week and with holidays and sick time, approximately 2.5 paramedics are required to cover the one shift. If Council requires additional staff for Bayham then two paramedics for 12 hours, 7 am to 7 pm stationed at the Straffordville Fire Hall would be beneficial. The cost for the service is estimated at $625,000 for a 12 -month period. Staff requested clarification from the Field Manager of Emergency Health Services Branch to ascertain whether the ministry would continue with its 50% funding for an enhanced service. The response regarding funding for additional hours of service to achieve a standard response time in all geographic areas within the County and City, response is attached as Appendix C. In summary the Province has indicated that the response times were recommended by the county and "accepted as a revenue neutral initiative anticipating that the municipalities would use resources within their respective budgets to satisfy their locally determined response time standards ". If Council approves a service enhancement, direction is required on a reasonable starting date, since the budget will not be approved until after January 1, 2013, and time is required to stock the vehicle with the appropriate supplies and equipment. In 2011 the response time was 24.42 minutes 90% of the time. If an enhancement is requested by Council for Bayham, staff estimates a reduction to 16.75 minutes. This was calculated using the County average response times (2011) for 67 percent of the day call volumes and the 2011 Bayham response times (2011) for 33 percent for the night call volumes. The fourth option that Council may wish to consider would be to challenge the next service provider. In 2012 Council authorized an RFP for the provision of land ambulance services commencing in 2014. As part of that RFP, staff could build in a requirement that the successful service provider must provide options to address the response time lag currently being experienced in Bayham. While the suggestion will postpone a decision until 2014, it may be prudent to challenge the respondents with recommending creative options to meet the goals of improved response times in Bayham which are closer to the standard. 57 CONCLUSION: Upon careful review of the available options, six salient facts come to light, as follows: • The projected annual cost of approximately $625,000 will improve response times but not to the standard of 14 minutes and 15 seconds; • The Province will not fund 50% of this additional cost because the standard is met as a regional service; • The reallocation of existing resources actually worsens the problem on a county- wide basis; • Across the province there are numerous instances where response times do not match the standard based on specific municipal boundaries. Response times have never been equal between and amongst municipalities even when the province ran the service; • Scientifically a response time above six minutes does not improve ones chances of survival for VSA patients; and, • An improved response time does not necessarily translate into better patient outcomes except for VSA's and under six minutes. Keeping the conclusion in mind there appears to be at least four options: 1) Maintain the status quo largely because of cost and lack of provincial funding and the fact that the county already meets the provincial standard. 2) Relocate a night shift from Rodney to a day shift for Bayham on a one year trail basis (should improve response times in Bayham and affect response time in West Elgin.) 3) Fund the annual cost of $625,000 by increasing the County levy by an equivalent amount (2.5 %). 4) Refer the challenge to the service provider under the next contract (2014) by tasking them in the RFP with designing a system wide approach to improve response times in Bayham. RECOMMENDATION: THAT this report "Emergency Medical Services — Bayham" dated October 5, 2012 be received and filed; and, THAT staff direction be given on the appropriate option. All of which is Respectfully Submitted Approved for Submission Clayton Watters Mark G. McDonald Director of Engineering Services Chief Administrative Officer 58 Appendix A Response Times County approved Response times that commenced on January 1, 2012 are stated above. Provincially mandated Response Time standard from 1996 until December 31, 2011, was 14 minutes 15 seconds 90% of the time. 59 Target Response Time % Achieved Sudden Cardiac Arrest 6 minutes 45 CTAS 1 8 minutes 60 CTAS 2 10 minutes 75 CTAS 3 14 minutes 85 CTAS 4 20 minutes 90 CTAS 5 20 minutes 90 County approved Response times that commenced on January 1, 2012 are stated above. Provincially mandated Response Time standard from 1996 until December 31, 2011, was 14 minutes 15 seconds 90% of the time. 59 Appendix B Call volumes for Code 3 (Prompt) and 4 (Urgent) by municipality in 2011: Municipality # of Calls Population Calls per 1,000 pop Aylmer 699 7,249 96 Bayham 307 6,989 44 Central Elgin 898 12,743 71 Dutton - Dunwich 299 3,876 77 Malahide 417 9,146 46 Southwold 384 4,494 85 West Elgin 433 5,157 84 Sub- total 3,437 49,654 69 St. Thomas 3,711 37,905 98 Total 7,148 87,559 82 The above chart is specific only to the Code 3 and Code 4 calls within the geographical borders of each municipality. The above chart is a depiction of the calls in each municipality which is normalized (per population density). Bayham (lowest) has 44 calls per 1,000 population while Aylmer (highest) has 96 calls per 1,000 population. The average within the County was 69 calls per 1,000, while in the City there were 98 calls per 1,000 population. 60 Appendix C Response from Ministry of Health OUESTION: The County of Elgin is in the process of reviewing the response times within the county as a whole and also within each individual municipality. The County of Elgin as a whole meets or exceeds the Provincially mandated response time of 14 minutes and 15 seconds (as of 2011) however, one geographic region of Elgin County cannot achieve this standard without additional service. Approximately 10% of Elgin County in its south - eastern end has an average annual response of 24 minutes and 25 seconds (as of 2011) due to the proximity of ambulance bases. In order to have consistent response times that meet the Provincial standard across Elgin County and in all of its communities, additional service hours are required to station an ambulance within this area. An increase of approximately 84 hours per week in addition to the present complement is required to achieve this goal. What is the Ministry of Health s policy in regards to funding additional service hours to achieve the standard response time in all geographic areas across a service provider's area? ANSWER: Allow me to begin by clarifying what appears to be a misunderstanding of the new response time performance plan regulation. Your e -mail speaks of a provincially mandated response time of 14 minutes and 15 seconds (as of 2011) for the County of Elgin. The new response time regulation, Part VIII of Ontario Regulation 257/00, replaces the previous 90th percentile response time performance standard for priority four emergency calls which was not to exceed the area's 1996 response time performance. Under Part VIII of Ontario Regulation 257/00, the upper -tier municipality (UTM) or delivery agent (DA) shall ensure that the plan established sets response time targets for responses to notices respecting patients categorized as Canadian Triage Acuity Scale ( "CTAS ") 1,2,3,4 and 5, and that such targets are set for each land ambulance service operator selected by the UTM /DA in accordance with the Act. And no later than March 31 of the following year, the UTM /DA shall report to the EHSB Director on the following matters: 1. The percentage of times that a person equipped to provide any type of defibrillation has arrived on- scene to provide defibrillation to sudden cardiac arrest patients within six minutes of the time notice is received. 2. The percentage of times that an ambulance crew has arrived on -scene to provide ambulance services to sudden cardiac arrest patients or other patients categorized as CTAS 1 within eight minutes of the time notice is received respecting such services. 3. The percentage of times that an ambulance crew has arrived on -scene to provide ambulance services to patients categorized as CTAS 2, 3, 4 and 5 within the response time targets set by the upper -tier municipality or delivery agent under its plan. You asked of the Ministry's policy regarding additional funding to achieve the response time standard as established by the County. The response time standard was recommended to the Ministry and accepted as a revenue - neutral initiative anticipating that the municipalities would use resources within their respective budgets to satisfy their locally determined response time requirements. The Regulation requires that one plan be submitted from each upper -tier municipality to the ministry for purposes of meeting response time requirements. However, for local planning purposes, UTMS /DAs can choose to define as many sub - boundaries within their overall municipal boundaries as they desire for purposes of response time performance and accountability. UTMs /DAs will determine the performance targets they wish to use based on local needs, resources and capabilities. Over time, through improved understanding of performance requirements, local system optimization, and experience with the new standard, it is anticipated that UTMs /DAs will further refine their performance targets to correspond to local needs and requirements. 61 IN REPORT TO COUNCIL FROM: Rhonda L. Duffy Director of Homes & Seniors Services DATE: November 27, 2012 SUBJECT: 2012 -2013 Late Career Nurse Initiative INTRODUCTION: The Ministry of Health and Long -Term Care (MOHLTC) has awarded funding for the Late Career Nurse Initiative (LCNI) to each County home. This Initiative provides additional funding for the specific purpose of enabling late career RNs and RPNs to perform alternative duties in the homes which will focus on continuous quality improvement initiatives. DISCUSSION: The MOHLTC has again awarded additional funding support to homes with the intent to focus on the retention of late career nurses ages 55 and older, through the LCNI. The MOHLTC has awarded the Elgin County Homes the following one time funding for 2012 -2013: Bobier Villa - $27,882 Elgin Manor - $31,872 Terrace Lodge - $30,096 There have been new conditions placed on funding recipients this year. Conditions attached to funding whereby final payment may be suspended or reduced include; failure to use all or part of the initial payment in accordance with the terms of the agreement and failure to meet 75% or more of the milestones for the approved funded projects /programs by March 31, 2013. CONCLUSION: The LCNI continues to be a positive retention strategy within the County homes. The LCNI will provide additional assistance through the implementation and monitoring of Quality Improvement Initiatives which are tied to the funding requirements within the Long Term Care Service Accountability Agreements with the Southwest Local Health Integration Network. RECOMMENDATION: THAT Council approve and authorize staff to sign the Late Career Nurse Initiative funding agreements for the county homes; and, THAT the report titled "2012 -2013 Late Career Nursing Initiative" dated November 27, 2012 , be received and filed. All of which is Respectfully Submitted Rhonda L. Duffy Director of Homes & Seniors Services Approved for Submission Mark G. McDonald Chief Administrative Officer 62 IN REPORT TO COUNCIL FROM: Rhonda L. Duffy Director of Homes & Seniors Services DATE: November 28, 2012 SUBJECT: Victorian Order of Nurses Hospice Volunteer Program INTRODUCTION: The Victorian Order of Nurses For Canada — Ontario Branch - Middlesex -Elgin Site has approached the county homes to provide Hospice Volunteer services to homes residents. Through a coordinated approach to end of life care, residents would receive an enhanced service. DISCUSSION /CONCLUSION: The County of Elgin Homes & Seniors Services provides compassionate palliative care to its residents in a dignified and respectful manner. It is the goal of the county homes staff to continually find opportunities for improving the end of life experience for residents and their families. Having additional volunteer resources to assist residents and families with this journey is being offered by the Victorian Order or Nurses (VON) which will augment existing services in our homes. The Victorian Order of Nurses (VON) has offered to provide a three (3) year commitment to with the county homes for volunteer hospice services. VON volunteers are professionally trained in palliative care and undergo the same screening and orientation requirements as do county home staff. There are no fees to the homes associated with the agreement and service provision. Resident access to the volunteer service is strictly voluntary. The provision of hospice care /palliative care is best enhanced through a one to one relationship between the resident and care provider. While staff provides exceptional care, having access to additional support for the resident through volunteers will add to the quality of end of life care for residents and their loved ones. RECOMMENDATION: THAT the report titled "Victorian Order of Nurses Hospice Volunteer Program" dated November 28, 2012, be received and filed. All of which is Respectfully Submitted Approved for Submission Rhonda L. Duffy Mark G. McDonald Director of Homes & Seniors Services Chief Administrative Officer 63 REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Rhonda Duffy, Director of Homes and Seniors Services Dawn Burridge, Adult Day Program Co- ordinator DATE: December 5, 2012 SUBJECT: Terrace Lodge and Bobier Villa Adult Day Program Community Accountability Planning Submission 2013/14 (1 Year Refresh ) INTRODUCTION: The Bobier Villa and Terrace Lodge Adult Day Programs Community Accountability Planning Submission (CAPS) needs to be reviewed yearly. This report refreshes our Multi Service Accountability Agreement (M -SAA) with the South West Local Health Integration Network (SWLHIN ). DISCUSSION: This is the final year of current M -SAA. The County of Elgin is required to complete this attached report and have approved by County Council. There will be a 0% increase to all Community services for the 2013/14 fiscal year. CONCLUSION: There will be no significant changes to the Bobier Villa and Terrace Lodge Adult Day Programs for the 2013/2014 fiscal year. RECOMMENDATION: THAT Council approve the Community Accountability Planning Submission 2013/2014 for Bobier Villa and Terrace Lodge; and, THAT the report titled, "Community Accountability Planning Submission 2013/14" dated December 5, 2012 be received and filed. All of which is Respectfully Submitted Rhonda Duffy Director of Homes and Seniors Services Dawn Burridge Adult Day Program Co- ordinator 64 Approved for Submission Mark G. McDonald Chief Administrative Officer ENREPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Rob Bryce — Director of Human Resources Jim Bundschuh - Director of Financial Services Rhonda Duffy — Director of Homes November 30, 2012 Vacation Carry -Over INTRODUCTION: Policy 7.10 requires states "Employees must take their vacation during the year to which it refers and no carry-over of credits to the following year will be allowed unless approved by the Management Team . . . At least once annually an information report to Council shall be presented indicating the number of vacation carry -over requests submitted and granted by the Management Team." DISCUSSION /CONCLUSION: The following has been requested and granted by management: • Financial Services: one employee — three days • Human Resources: one employee — three days • Elgin Manor: one RN — two weeks one RN — eight days RECOMMENDATION: THAT the report titled "Vacation Carry - Forward" dated November 30, 2012 be received and filed. Respectfully Submitted Rob Bryce Director of Human Resources Respectfully Submitted Jim Bundschuh Director of Financial Services Respectfully Submitted Rhonda Duffy Director of Homes 65 Approved for Submission Mark G. McDonald Chief Administrative Officer CORRESPONDENCE — December 13, 2012 Item for Consideration — (Attached) 1. Brock Carlton, Chief Executive Officer, Federation of Canadian Municipalities with update on Great Canadian Infrastructure Challenge. 66 From: FCM Communique <communique@fcm.ca> Date: 4 December, 2012 2:01:51 PM EST To: <mmcdonald@a,elgin- county.on.ca> Subject: Update: Great Canadian Infrastructure Challenge Reply -To: <communique@fcm.ca> 67 Dear Member: The next challenge in the Great Canadian Infrastructure Challenge is now online We're calling on Canadians to tell Member of Parliament that our country needs long -term infrastructure investment for higher quality of life and a prosperous future. We need your help too. We want you to e -mail this challenge to your fellow councillors, staff, and constituents. Also. please tweet this with the hashtag #FCMchallenge and add a link to Facebook. We want to make sure that our Members of Parliament get our message loud and clear -- the more correspondence Canada's MPs receive from people like you and the people in your city, the more influence the campaign can have. Take the challenge and then share it! Thank you, Brock Carlton Chief Executive Officer CORRESPONDENCE — December 13, 2012 Items for Information (Consent Agenda} — (Attached) 1. Allan Doheny, Assistant Deputy Minister, Provincial Local Finance Division, Ministry of Finance providing details regarding 2013 allocation of Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund. 2. Susan O'Brien, President, St. Thomas Elgin General Hospital Foundation thanking Council for $500,000 instalment to the hospital's redevelopment campaign. 3. St. Thomas Elgin General Hospital (STEGH) Redevelopment Project and Capital Campaign: a) Heather Jackson, Mayor, City of St. Thomas and Bill Walters, Warden, County of Elgin requesting a meeting with STEGH Foundation to discuss questions re: STEGH Redevelopment Project and Capital Campaign. b) Paul Collins, President and CEO, STEGH, Response to joint letter from City of St. Thomas and County of Elgin. 4. Source Protection Committee inviting review and comment on the Proposed Source Protection Plan for the Thames - Sydenham and Region. (DVD available upon request) 5. Dianne Wilson, Deputy Clerk, Municipality of Central Elgin, with resolution regarding the County of Elgin Official Plan. 6. Rebecca McLean, Supervisor of Planning, London District Catholic School Board, with notification of a community partnership opportunity at Assumption Catholic Elementary School, Aylmer. 7. Karen Leibovici, President, Federation of Canadian Municipalities with President's Corner Update. 8. Dan Matheson, Chair, Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) Board of Directors with MPAC updates. 68 Ministry of Finance Provincial -Local Finance Division 10th Floor 777 Bay Street Toronto ON M5G 2C8 Tel (416) 327 -0264 Fax (416) 325 -7644 November 15, 2012 Ministere des Finances Division des relations provinciales- municipales en matiere de finances 10e etage 777 rue Bay Toronto ON M5G 2C8 Tele. (416) 327 -0264 Telec. (416) 325 -7644 Dear Treasurer /Clerk- Treasurer: �rye r Ontario NOV 2 2 2012 COUNT -LGIN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES In their November 15th letter to Heads of Councils, the Ministers of Finance and Municipal Affairs and Housing have announced that 2013 will be a transition year for the Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund (OMPF). I am writing to provide you with more details regarding your 2013 allocation. As part of the transition year, the Province will provide a total of $575 million in stable funding to 388 municipalities across the province. This Transition -Year Stable Funding, combined with the municipal benefit resulting from the provincial uploads will total over $1.9 billion in 2013. This is more than three times the level of funding provided under the previous program in 2004. During the 2013 transition year, the Province will ensure that municipalities receive a guaranteed level of support based on their 2012 OMPF allocation. This means that in 2013 your municipality will receive, at a minimum, 90 per cent of its 2012 OMPF allocation. The details specific to your municipality's 2013 allocation are outlined in the Transition -Year Stable Funding Allocation Notice and Insert section below. Details of the 2013 OMPF Transition -Year Stable Funding As noted in the joint Ministers' letter to Heads of Council, the Transition -Year Stable Funding will be enhanced for eligible municipalities based on their relative fiscal circumstances. This will be determined using a northern and rural Municipal Fiscal Circumstances Index (MFCI). The northern and rural MFCI measures a municipality's fiscal circumstances relative to other northern and rural municipalities in the province. The index is determined by six indicators including a municipality's assessment base and median household income. TCT -2 69 Treasurers /Clerk - Treasurers Page 2 The northern and rural MFCI is measured on a scale from 0 to 10, where a lower MFCI corresponds to relatively positive fiscal circumstances, whereas a higher MFCI corresponds to more challenging fiscal circumstances. Additional details regarding the index are provided in the enclosed 2013 OMPF Transition -Year Stable Funding Technical Guide. 2013 Transition -Year Stable Funding Allocation Notice and Insert Details specific to your municipality's allocation are included in the enclosed 2013 Transition -Year Stable Funding Allocation Notice. As noted on line A.1, your municipality will receive an enhancement to the minimum 2013 level of support based on its MFCI. Your municipality's actual 2013 allocation is reflected on Line A of this Notice. The additional benefit from the provincial uploads is presented in box B. Supporting details with respect to the calculation of your municipality's MFCI are also provided in the accompanying 2013 Municipal Fiscal Circumstances Index Insert. 2013 OMPF Transition -Year Workbook To assist municipalities in understanding their 2013 OMPF Transition -Year Stable Funding allocation, the Ministry of Finance has developed a customized workbook that will be provided to individual municipalities electronically. Your municipality's workbook provides detailed calculations and outlines the underlying data components used to calculate your municipality's 2013 OMPF Transition -Year Stable Funding allocation. 2013 Payment Schedule Also enclosed is a Cash Flow Notice that identifies your municipality's 2013 quarterly payment schedule. The quarterly payments will be processed at the end of January, April, July, and October 2013. TCT -2 70 Treasurers /Clerk - Treasurers Page 3 2013 Reporting Obligations I would also like to remind you that, as in previous years, municipalities continue to be required to submit the following to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH): - their 2012 Financial Information Return (FIR) by May 31, 2013; and - their 2013 tax rate by -laws by September 30, 2013. Payments for municipalities that do not meet these reporting obligations will be subject to holdback until these documents have been filed. The 2013 Transition -Year Funding Allocation Notices will be posted on the Ministry of Finance website: • http:// www .fin.gov.on.ca /en /budget/ompf /2013/ http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/fr/budget/ompf/2013/ 2010 OMPF Reconciliation In the joint Ministers' letter to Heads of Council, the government has confirmed the reconciliation of the 2010 OMPF. The Ministry will be providing additional details in respect of the final reconciliation payments under the OMPF in the coming weeks. As noted in the letter, there will be no further reconciliations beyond the 2010 program year. 2014 OMPF During the 2013 transition year, the Province will continue to consult with its municipal partners with respect to the redesign of the program for 2014. Based on the input received to date, the government has heard that there continues to be a need for ongoing assistance for municipalities, particularly those with more challenging fiscal circumstances. As a result, the redesign of the program for 2014 is expected to improve the targeting of support to rural and northern municipalities, which will be accomplished through the application of the northern and rural MFCI. TCT -2 71 Treasurers /Clerk - Treasurers Page 4 As indicated in the joint Ministers' letter to Heads of Council, during the 2013 transition year, the Province will continue to welcome municipal input on the redesign of the program that will be implemented in 2014. To that end, I am looking forward to continuing the dialogue on the program redesign with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and other municipal representatives. If you require additional information, you may e -mail your inquiries and contact information to: info.ompf @ontario.ca. Sincerely, Allan Doheny Assistant Deputy Minister (A) Provincial Local Finance Division Enclosure c. Janet Mason Assistant Deputy Minister Local Government and Planning Policy Division Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Elizabeth Harding Assistant Deputy Minister Municipal Services Division Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing TCT -2 72 73 Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund (OMPF) 2013 Transition -Year Stable Funding Allocation Notice County of Elgin . 2013 Highlights for the County of Elgin /fl:- Ontario 44000 • The County of Elgin's 2013 combined benefit totals $4,996,000 and includes: - $1,770,900 in OMPF Transition -Year Stable Funding, and - $3,225,100 benefit from the provincial uploads. • This exceeds your municipality's 2012 combined benefit by $185,700. A. 2013 Transition -Year Stable Funding Allocation (Line Al x Line A2) $1,770,900 1. 2013 OMPF Transition -Year Stable Funding Level (Line E) 2. 2012 OMPF (Line .0 from 2012 Allocation Notice) 93.8% $1,887,900 B. 2013 Combined Benefit of OMPF Transition -Year Stable Funding and Provincial Uploads (Line Bi + Line B2) $4,996,000 1. OMPF Transition -Year Stable Funding (Equal to Line A) 2. Provincial Uploads (Sum of Lines 2a through 2e) a. Ontario Drug Benefits (Uploaded in 2008) b. Ontario Disability Support Program - Administration Component (Uploaded in 2009) c. Ontario Disability Support Program - Benefits Component (Phased Upload Completed in 2011) d. Ontario Works - Benefits Component (Phased Upload Continues in 2013) e. Ontario Works - Administration Component (Additional Support Beginning in 2011) $546,500 $216,500 $1,698,200 $260,100 $503,800 $1,770,900 $3,225,100 C. Other 2013 Ongoing Provincial Support / Uploads $2,822,500 1. Public Health 2. Land Ambulance $1,423,800 $1,398,700 D. Key OMPF Data Inputs 1. Municipal Own- Source Revenue 2. 2012 OMPF Compared to Municipal Own- Source Revenue (Line A2 / Line D1) 3. Rural Designation Based on Rural and Small Community Measure 4. Northern and Rural Municipal Fiscal Circumstances Index (please see enclosed insert) $33,201,284 5.7% Rural 3.9 E. 2013 OMPF Transition -Year Stable Funding Level (Line El + Line E2) 93.8% 1. 2013 Minimum Funding Level 2. Enhancement Based on Northern and Rural Municipal Fiscal Circumstances Index 90.0 3.8 Issued: November 2012 73 Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund (OMPF) /raj 2013 Transition -Year Stable Funding Allocation Notice iX Ontario County of Elgin 44000 2013 Transition -Year Stable Funding Allocation Notice - Line Item Descriptions A The 2013 Transition -Year Stable Funding Allocation ensures that in 2013 municipalities will receive a guaranteed level of support based on their 2012 OMPF allocation. Al The 2013 Transition -Year Stable Funding Level applicable to the municipality. In 2013, municipalities in the south will receive at least 90 per cent of their 2012 OMPF allocation. A2 2012 OMPF Allocation. B1 Equal to line A. B2a to B2d Estimated 2013 benefit of the Province's upload of social assistance benefit program costs. For further details see the 2013 Upload Benefit Report. Reflects additional incremental funding provided to municipalities to support Ontario Works administration costs. Calculated as B2e the difference between 2007 final Ontario Works administration cost and the estimated 2013 allocation. For further details see the 2013 Upload Benefit Report. The estimated municipal benefit of the Province's 75 per cent share of public health funding relative to its 50 per cent share in Cl 2004. Actual municipal savings may not correspond with the Allocation Notice due to budget approvals made by the local Boards of Health. Municipalities may provide additional funding beyond their obligated cost share. Any additional municipal funding is not included in the calculation of the public health figure. The estimated municipal benefit of the Province's 50 per cent share of land ambulance funding is relative to its share in 2005. C2 This incremental increase in land ambulance funding delivers on the Province's commitment to strengthen land ambulance services and maintain the 50:50 sharing of land ambulance costs. D1 Municipal Own - Source Revenue is composed of own - purpose taxation, payments in lieu of taxation, user fees and service charges, licenses, permits and rents, as reported by municipalities through the Financial Information Returns (FIRs). D2 Compares a municipality's 2012 OMPF allocation to its municipal own- source revenue. D3 For the 2013 transition year, a municipality with a Rural and Small Community Measure (RSCM) greater than 25 per cent will be . considered a rural municipality. The northern and rural Municipal Fiscal Circumstances Index (MFCI) measures a municipality's fiscal circumstances relative to D4 other municipalities in the province, and ranges from 0 to 10. A lower MFCI corresponds to relatively positive fiscal circumstances, whereas a higher MFCI corresponds to more challenging fiscal circumstances. (Please see enclosed insert) El The 2013 minimum level of support. Municipalities in the south will receive at least 90 per cent of their 2012 OMPF allocation. E2 Enhancement based on the municipality's northern and rural Municipal Fiscal Circumstances Index. Note: Provincial funding and other ongoing provincial support initiatives rounded to multiples of $100. Ontario Ministry of Finance Provincial -Local Finance Division Issued: November 2012 74 75 r• Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund (OMPF) ' 2013 Northern and Rural Municipal Fiscal Circumstances Index Insert L/ Ontario County of Elgin 44000 For 2013, the OMPF Transition -Year Stable Funding level will be enhanced for eligible municipalities with more challenging fiscal circumstances, as measured by a northern and rural Municipal Fiscal Circumstances Index (MFCI). Your municipality's MFCI is indicated in box A. A. MFCI 3.9 The northern and rural Municipal Fiscal Circumstances Index (MFCI) measures a municipality's fiscal circumstances relative to other northern and rural municipalities in the province. The northern and rural MFCI is measured on a scale from 0 to 10. A lower MFCI corresponds to relatively positive fiscal circumstances, whereas a higher MFCI corresponds to more challenging fiscal circumstances. An MFCI of 5.0 corresponds to fiscal circumstances similar to the median for northern and rural municipalities. B. MFCI - Indicators - The northern and rural MFCI is determined by six indicators, shown in the table below, or secondary to reflect their relative importance in determining a municipality's fiscal A municipality's MFCI reflects the relationship between its indicator values and the municipalities. The table below allows municipalities to see how their indicator values a value that is higher than the median corresponds to relatively positive fiscal circumstances, median corresponds to more challenging fiscal circumstances. which are classified as either primary circumstances. median for northern and rural compare to the median. For example, while a value below the Indicator Values Municipal Fiscal Circumstances Indicators Elgin Co Median Primary Indicators 1. Weighted Assessment per Household $224,326 $216,000 2. Median Household Income $60,723 $54,000 Secondary Indicators 3. Average Annual Change in Assessment (New Construction) 0.6% 1.2 4. Employment Rate 65.9% 60.0% 5. Ratio of Working Age to Dependent Population 186.8% 194.0% 6. Per cent of Population Above Low Income Threshold 85.8% 85.0% Additional details regarding the calculation of the northern and rural Municipal Fiscal Circumstances Index are provided in the 2013 OMPF Transition -Year Stable Funding Technical Guide, as well as in the 2013 OMPF Transition -Year Workbook for your municipality. ' Issued: November 2012 75 Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund (OMPF) raj 2013 Northern and Rural Municipal Fiscal Circumstances Index Insert L» Ontario County of Elgin 44000 2013 Northern and Rural Municipal Fiscal Circumstances Index Insert - Line Item Descriptions B1 Refers to the total assessment for a municipality weighted by the tax ratio for each class of property (including payments in lieu of property taxes retained by the municipality) divided by the total number of households. B2 Statistics Canada measure of median income for all private, households. B3 Measures the five -year (2007 - 2012) average annual change in a municipality's assessment, for example as a result of new construction, excluding the impact of reassessment. B4 Statistics Canada measure of number of employed persons, divided by persons aged 15 and over. B5 Statistics Canada measure of working age population, divided by youth (aged 14 and under) and senior population (aged 65 and over). B6 Reflects the Statistics Canada measure of the population in private households above the low income threshold for Ontario, compared to the total population in private households. Ontario Ministry of Finance Provincial -Local Finance Division Issued: November 2012 76 Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund (OMPF) ., } • 2013 Upload Notice i Ontario County of Elgin 44000 A. Estimated 2013 Provincial Uploads $3,225,100 1. Ontario Drug Benefits (Uploaded in 2008) $546,500 2. Ontario Disability Support Program - Administration Component (Uploaded in 2009) $216,500 3. Ontario Disability Support Program - Benefits Component (Phased Upload Completed in 2011) $1,698,200 4. Ontario Works - Benefits Component (Phased Upload Continues in 2013) $260,100 5. Ontario Works - Administration Component (Additional Support Beginning in 2011) $503,800 B. 2012 Provincial Uploads $2,922,400 C. Increase in Provincial Uploads Compared to 2012 (Line A - Line B) $302,700 Estimated 2013 municipal benefit of the Provincial- Municipal Fiscal and Service Delivery Review (PMFSDR) upload of Ontario Drug Benefit Program; Ontario Disability Support Program; and the phased upload of Ontario Works benefits, as well as additional support in respect of municipal Ontario Works administration costs. ' Issued: November 2012 77 Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund (OMPF) }r►�— �1} i 2013 Upload Notice l - Ontario County of Elgin 44000 • 2013 Upload Notice - Line Item Descriptions Estimated 2013 municipal benefit of the Provincial - Municipal Fiscal and Service Delivery Review (PMFSDR) upload of Ontario A Drug Benefit Program; Ontario Disability Support Program; and the phased upload of Ontario Works benefits, as well as additional support in respect of municipal Ontario Works administration costs. B Estimated 2012 municipal benefit of provincial uploads. C Line A minus Line B. Note: Provincial funding and other ongoing provincial support initiatives rounded to multiples of$100. Ontario Ministry of Finance Provincial -Local Finance Division Issued: November 2012 78 Ontario Municipal Parnership Fund (OMPF) 2013 Transition -Year Stable Funding Cash Flow Notice County of Elgin P> X Ontario 44000 2013 ©MPFTransition -Year StableFunding (2013. Allocation Notice 770,900 B. Scheduled OMPF Transition -Year Stable Funding Quarterly Payments (Sum of Box B) $1,770,900 1. 2013 First Quarter Payment 2. 2013 Second Quarter Payment 3. 2013 Third Quarter Payment 4. 2013 Fourth Quarter Payment Scheduled for January 2013 $442,725 Scheduled for April 2013 $442,725 Scheduled for July 2013 $442,725 Scheduled for October 2013 $442,725 Ontario Ministry of Finance Provincial -Local Finance Division 79. Issued: November 2012 Ontario Municipal Parnership Fund (OMPF) 2013 Transition -Year Stable Funding Cash Flow Notice County of Elgin 2013 Cash Flow Notice - Line Item Descriptions Ontario 44000 A See 2013 Transition -Year Stable Funding Allocation Notice, Line A. B1 - B4 Scheduled quarterly payments in respect of the 2013 OMPF Transition -Year Stable Funding allocation. The fourth quarter payment will be subject to holdback pending submission of all 2013 OMPF reporting obligations. 80 November 16, 2012 Elgin County Councillors c/o Mark MacDonald - Chief Administrative Officer County of Elgin Municipal Building 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, ON N5R 5V1 Dear Councillors: L. Thank you for your first instalment of $500,000 to the hospital's redevelopment campaign. This contribution speaks volumes about your commitment to ensuring the residents of Elgin County continue to receive outstanding healthcare in a safe and compassionate environment. Your support of this project is crucial and we appreciate your positive indication to the Foundation's request for $4.5 million towards the construction of the new medical services building. As you meet with the Joint Committee to discuss your further contribution please know that we are available to answer any questions. Once again, thank you. Your commitment in this way truly reinforces the importance you place on this major project for our community. Regards, Susan O'Brien President Steve Knipe Vice - President 189 Elm Street, St. Thomas, ON N5R 5C4 T 519.631.2030 ext. 2246 F 519.631.8372 www.steghfoundation.ca Charitable Registration # 89081 6846 RR0001 81 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF ST. THOMAS November 22, 2012 Mr. Paul Bode, Chairman St. Thomas Elgin General Hospital 189 Elm Street, St. Thomas, Ont. N5R 5C4 Mrs. Susan O'Brien, President and Chair STEGH Foundation 189 Elm Street, St. Thomas, Ont. N5R 5C4 Progressive by Nature SUBJECT: ST. THOMAS ELGIN GENERAL HOSPITAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND CAPITAL CAMPAIGN Subsequent to the presentations made to both County Council and City Council, the Municipal Joint Committee has met to discuss the request that has come for municipal support for the campaign in the amount of $4.5 million from both the County and the City. Let us begin by saying that we feel that the hospital is a valued resource within our collective communities. Having said that, we are confident that you are aware of our own municipal budgetary challenges and the fact that we must be fully accountable for taxation expenditures to those we serve. Consideration of a contribution towards the capital campaign is no different. 82 -2- In our deliberations about this matter, several very important questions /clarifications have arisen that require further explanation. We feel that it would be important to have input from the Hospital, the Foundation and from the Ministry of Health and Long -Term Care. A copy of this letter and an invitation to attend a meeting is being extended to Ms. Linda Hunter, Manager, Ministry of Health and Long Term Care. Questions from the Committee are as follows; a) Please provide specific project costs that are anticipated for the redevelopment project. b) Is there a written, binding, commitment from the Province to finance the re- scoped project? c) We understand that the Province is requiring that 100% of the equipment for the mental health component, representing $2.5 million, be funded locally. Why has the onus for this component of the project shifted from the Province to the local jurisdiction and where in policy or regulation is this new requirement contained? d) We understand the project has now been re- scoped and that its ultimate value is in the range of $70 million, representing a significant financial reduction by approximately of 25 percent compared to previous estimates. With that in mind, we are concerned that the total level of municipal support requested remains at $9 million. Please provide specific rationale why the municipal contribution is not adjusted relative to the reduction of the overall costs. e) We would ask that you provide us with a timetable for the implementation of the project including information indicating when the major components of the capital campaign fund raising efforts are required to be drawn down and accessed from the municipalities. f) Is there a defined date wherein you require a commitment from the County and the City and if so, why has this date been established? g) This is obviously a significant capital program being implemented at the hospital which will have a lifespan of far greater than 5 years. Why have we been asked to contribute within a 5 year period? Would the project be jeopardized if municipal contributions for the project extended beyond a 5 year period? h) Over and above the initial request for capital funds, the City anticipates that there may be costs associated with the redevelopment of infrastructure including roads, sewers and watermains. Have any allowances for these costs been developed for the project and what are the specific infrastructure requirements expected? As you may be aware we are in the process of developing our municipal budgets for 2013. The responses to these questions are very important to us as we consider our budgets and the hospital campaign. 83 -3- Because time is of the essence we would ask you to respond back to us in writing as soon as possible, preferably before our next meeting. Further, we would like the opportunity to meet with you to discuss these questions and would ask that you confirm that you would be able to attend a meeting with us. A proposed date has been suggested for December 5, 2012 at 3:30 p.m. at City Hall, 545 Talbot Street, St. Thomas. It is vital that responses to these matters are provided in a timely manner to enable both the Councils to consider them in preparation for the 2013 budget decisions. We look forward to your response and would ask that you contact Mayor Jackson's office at (519) 631 -1680 x4196 to confirm that you are available to meet on December 5th. Thank -you. Heather Jackson Mayor City of St. Thomas rk Bill Walters Warden County of Elgin cc. Hon. D. Matthews, Minister of Health MPP Jeff Yurek Linda Hunter, Manager, Ministry of Health and Long Term Care 84 StThomas Elgin General Hospital November 29, 2012 Mayor Heather Jackson City of St. Thomas P.O. Box 520, City Hall 545 Talbot Street St. Thomas, ON N5P 3V7 Warden Bill Walters County of Elgin County of Elgin Administration Building 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, ON N5R 5V1 189 Elm Street, St. Thomas, ON Canada N5R 5C4 www,stegh.on.ca P 519.631 .2030 F 519.631.1825 TTY 519.631.7789 Dear Mayor Jackson and Warden Walters, I am writing on behalf of STEGH Board Chair Paul Bode and STEGH Foundation President Susan O'Brien in response to your letter to them of November 22, 2012 received November 28, 2012. Thank you for the invitation to join you on December 5, 2012 at 3:30 PM at City Hall. It was unfortunate that we did not have the opportunity to respond directly to the questions listed in your letter at the time they were raised at your meeting of November 20. We would have been pleased to attend but understood that it was the preference of council representatives to have the conversation without the hospital's presence. The following responses to your questions are as follows: a) The estimated cost for the project is addressed in the attached letters from the Assistant Deputy Minister and the Director of the Health Capital Investment Branch. Both were received at STEGH on August 7, 2012. As communicated previously to both City and County councils, we were asked directly by the Ministry not to share the cost figure to protect our interests at the time of project tendering as knowledge of this could inflate the cost. We trust that confidentiality regarding the estimated cost stated in the letter from the Director will be respected. Delivering An Excellent Patient Care Eerience St.Thomas Elgin General Hospital 189 Elm Street, St. Thomas, ON Canada N5R 5C4 www.stegh.on.ca P 519.631.2030 F 519.631.1825 TTY 519.631.7789 b) Please see attached letters referenced above. As acknowledged in the letters and addressed in the Ministry's Capital Planning Manual (see attached) , Ministry approval is required before moving to the next stage. c) The community cost share figure from the originally approved project (August 2011) was recalculated by our project cost consultants for the approved re- scoped project (August 2012). The figure remained essentially unchanged even though the total re- scoped project cost was less. As previously explained in a public slide presentation made by STEGH Foundation volunteers to both County Council on October 23, 2012 and to City Council on November 5, 2012 , (both presentations attached) this was due to the addition of costs not included in the original community share calculation, as follows: o a factor for cost escalation over the time of the project, and, o the estimated cost for furnishings and equipment for Mental Health. The original community share documentation was completed under the assumption by the Hospital and our consultants, that the Ministry provided 100% funding for Mental Health. In January 2012 the Ministry's Health Capital Investment Branch released a new "Capital Cost Share Guide" (see attached) which STEGH received at that time. We were informed that STEGH was responsible for furnishings and equipment for Mental Health and we challenged back that this was the first time we had learned of this. The guide in fact references Ministry policy from 2006 on this point, but STEGH and our consultants had always operated under the assumption in our project and others, that 100% of the mental health project was the responsibility of the Ministry. We learned that the policy had not previously been uniformly applied to other projects owing to issues of long term versus acute mental health care programs, and new builds versus program transfers, all of which complicated the application of the policy. By the time of the re -scope presentation in April 2012, it was confirmed by the Ministry that this policy would apply to STEGH. With respect to escalation costs, the original community share was calculated at the time of our first submission in July 2009 and an escalation figure to 2011 was included in that calculation. An industry standard escalation factor was used. Delivering An Excellent Patient Care Eerience St.Thomas Elgin General Hospital 189 Elm Street, St. Thomas, ON Canada N5R 5C4 www.stegh.on.ca P 519.631.2030 F 519.631.1825 TTY 519,631.7789 The cost escalation figure provided in the slide presentation to County and City councils referenced in response "c" above of $1.7m was calculated after the re -scope estimation was completed and was on the new estimated construction cost. It was again calculated using the industry standard escalation factor and covers the period 11/12, 12/13 and 13/14 assuming construction begins in early 2015. d) The project cost is addressed in the letters referenced in response "a" above. This rationale is explained above in response "c ", and previously explained in public presentations to both County and City councils by Foundation volunteers as per response "c ". STEGH cost consultants, using standard Ministry formulas and methodology, recalculated the community share including a factor for cost escalation to address the costs over time, and the requirement to fund furnishings and equipment for the Mental Health component of the project. Please identify specifically what additional information you may require. e) Our project has been assigned to Infrastructure Ontario (10) for implementation (see attached 10 slide "Major Projects Division - Hospitals'). The timetable as we have heard from 10 has two major milestones: tender in October 2014 and construction complete between January and June 2017. We have attached the only timetable we have at this point (preliminary only) from 10. Representatives from 10 met with our Board Infrastructure Committee in October 2012, and are scheduled to meet with the full STEGH Board in February 2013. We were informed in July 2011, prior to approval of our originally submitted project, that STEGH was required to fund the costs of planning and design through to tender or Request for Proposal. The costs to be incurred by STEGH during this period were estimated at $10.6 million. Donations through fundraising as well as the hospitals own funds (including a $900, 000 planning grant provided by the Ministry in 2008) must be accessed to support these costs. f) We are required through the Ministry's Capital Planning process to submit a detailed report regarding our community share plan with our Stage 2 submission expected at the Ministry by August 2013. As stated in response "b" above, Ministry approval is required at each stage of the process before moving to the next stage. Delivering An Excellent Patient Care Eerience St.Thomas Elgin General Hospital 189 Elm Street, St. Thomas, ON Canada N5R 5C4 www.stegh.on.ca P 519.631.2030 F 519.631.1825 TTY 519.631.7789 It is customary in hospital fundraising projects, and critically important, to obtain municipal commitment before launch of the public campaign phase to demonstrate substantial support for the project. This action sends positive signals about the project to other potential donors. g) The recommended five -year pledge period is customary in fundraising for hospital projects. In all previous fundraising campaigns for STEGH capital projects since the inception of the STEGH Foundation, the City and County pledge participation has not exceeded five years. Individuals, foundations and other donor entities are asked to donate over the same period. As is the practice for hospital projects across the province, indeed across the country, the County and City are being asked for a substantial donation on behalf of local constituents served by the hospital, not only to support the future of excellent hospital care in the community but also to support the attractiveness of the community to future business investment and future residents. As explained in response "e" above, the hospital is expected to fund the front -end costs of the project. The decision regarding the pledge period is one that each Council must make independently. h) We are informed by 10 that in their view, and at this early stage of the project, the capacity of Elm street services will be adequate for this project. We are happy to respond to any other questions you may have and to provide additional information to the extent that we are able. We appreciate that we have been included in your next meeting of December 5 and look forward to an open conversation. Sincerely Inns .__Ere ideht and CEO St. Thomas Elgin General Hospital 189 Elm St. St. Thomas, ON N5R 5C4 Enclosures cc letters only: Hon. D. Mathews, Minister of Health and Long Term Care MPP J. Yurek L. Hunter, Manager, Health Capital Investment Branch, Ministry of Health and Long Term Care S. O'Brien, President, STEGH Foundation P. Bode, Chair, STEGH Board of Governors Delivering An Excellent Patient Care E • Hence DRINKING WATER. ACT FOR CLEAN WATER Public Notice Proposed Source Protection Plan under The Clean Water Act, 2006 .s' Thames - Sydenham and Region Source Protection Region The St. Clair Region, Lower Thames Valley and Upper Thames River Source Protection Authorities invite the public to review and comment on the Proposed Source Protection Plan for the Thames - Sydenham and Region. The Proposed Source Protection Plan contains policies which address activities regarded as significant threats to municipal sources of drinking water, or that could become significant threats in the future. These policies will help ensure the activities cease to be, or never become, significant threats to municipal drinking water sources. There are a number of ways to access the Proposed Source Protection Plan: • Online at www.sourcewaterprotection.on.ca • Hard copies are available at the following locations: • St. Clair Region Conservation Authority office, 205 Mill Pond Cr., Strathroy (8:00 am to 5:00 pm, Mon. - Fri.) • Wallaceburg Municipal Office, 786 Dufferin Ave., Wallaceburg (8:30 am to 5:00 pm Mon. - Fri.) • Sarnia City Hall, 255 North Christina Street, Sarnia (8:30 am to 5:00 pm, Mon. - Fri.) • Upper Thames River Conservation Authority, 1424 Clarke Road, London (8:30 am to 4:30 pm, Mon.- Fri.) • Customer Service Desk, Oxford County Administration Building, 21 Reeve Street, Woodstock (8:00 am - 5:00 pm, Mon.- Fri.) • Perth County Clerk/Deputy Clerk's Office, Main Floor, County Court House, 1 Huron St., Stratford (8:30 am - 4:30 pm Mon.- Fri.) • Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority Office, 100 Thames Street, Chatham (8:30 am to 4:30 pm, Mon. - Fri.) • Ridgetown Municipal Centre, 45 Main Street East, Ridgetown (8:30 am to 4:30 pm, Mon. - Fri.) To obtain a DVD that contains the Proposed Source Protection Plan and supporting documents, please contact Deb Kirk at 519- 451 -2800 ext. 256. To comment in writing send your comments by December 20, 2012 to the: Upper Thames River Source Protection Authority c/o ChrisTasker, Source Protection Project Manager, Upper Thames River Conservation Authority, 1424 Clarke Road London, ON, N5V 5B9, taskerc @thamesriver.on.ca Fax: 519-451-1188 ..._�_ a : � = f_lair UPPER THAMES RIVER onservation DRINKING WATER SOURCE PROTECTIO ACT FOR CLEAN WATER November 19, 2012 County of Elgin 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, ON N5R 1V1 Attention: Mark. G. McDonald, CAO Dear Mark. G. McDonald: Ste Clair conservation UPPER THAMFS RIVER Thames - Sydenham and Region c/o Upper Thames River Conservation Authority 1424 Road, London, ON, N5V 5B9 Re: Notice under O. Reg. 287/07 - Proposed Source Protection Plan Preparation for Thames - Sydenham and Region Further to previous notification and consultation on the Draft Proposed Source Protection Plan, the Thames - Sydenham and Region Source Protection Committee (SPC), has prepared the Proposed Source Protection Plan. The Proposed Source Protection Plan has now been posted for public consultation until December 20, 2012. While developing this proposed plan, the SPC considered comments received during consultation on the draft proposed plan. This is the final consultation on the Source Protection Plan before it is submitted to the Minister of Environment for approval. Any comments or municipal resolutions received on this consultation will be submitted with the proposed plan to the Minister. Included with this letter is a copy of the notice which is posted on the web site and in papers across the region. This notice provides details of the posting including how comments on the proposed plan can be submitted. Also included with this letter is a copy of the Proposed Source Protection Plan on DVD. In addition to the Proposed Source Protection Plan, the DVD includes the Assessment Reports for the region as well as supporting documents such as the Explanatory Document. The Source Protection Committee worked hard to create a balance between the important goal of protecting our municipal supplies of drinking water and the burden this would create on those affected by the policies. In general, for existing activities that are significant threats, the approach was to manage the risk through the use of Risk Management Plans and Prescribed Instruments. This allows the activities to continue while managing the risk such that the activity is no longer a significant threat to the drinking water source. For future activities that would create a new significant threat, generally the approach was to prohibit this activity in those vulnerable areas where it would be a significant threat and under the circumstances which result in the activity being a significant threat. Whenever possible, where other agencies have Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority 100 Thames Street, Chatham, Ontario, N7L 2Y8 phone 519- 354 -7310, fax 519- 352 -3435 St. Clair Region Conservation Authority 205 Mill Pond Cres., Strathroy, Ontario, N7G 3P9 phone 519 - 245 -3710, fax. 519 - 245 -3348 http:// www .sourcewaterprotection.on.cal 90 Upper Thames River Conservation Authority 1424 Clarke Road, London, ON N5V 5B9 phone 519 - 451 -2800, fax 519 - 451 -1188 1 ,DRINKING WATER lJ CE PROTECTION ACT FOR CLEAN WATER mechanisms in place that adequately address the significant threats, these mechanisms were used to reduce duplication. If additional policies were needed, these were developed to complement existing mechanisms. atik St. Clair onservation UPPER THAMES RIVER CONSERVATION AUTHORITY3 If previous comments made on the draft proposed Source Protection Plan have not been addressed to your satisfaction, we invite further comments on the Proposed Source Protection Plan. Comments received on this Proposed Source Protection Plan will be included with the plan in our submission to the Minister of Environment for approval. Comments are due on or before December 20, 2012 addressed to: Chris Tasker, Source Protection Project Manager c/o Upper Thames River Conservation Authority 1424 Clarke Road London, ON, N5V 5B9 taskerc @ thamesriver.on.ca fax :519- 451 -1188 We look forward to receiving your input on this important initiative to protect Drinking Water Sources in the Thames - Sydenham and Region. Yours Sincerely, 21-11 kyle 7 1 Jane Boyce, Chair, Upper Thames River Source Protection Authority Enclosed: notice, DVD Andy Bruziewicz, Chair St Clair Region Source Protection Authority Brian King, Chair Lower Thames Valley Source Protection Authority Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority 100 Thames Street, Chatham, Ontario, N7L 2Y8 phone 519 - 354 -7310, fax 519 - 352 -3435 St. Clair Region Conservation Authority 205 Mill Pond Cres., Strathroy, Ontario, N7G 3P9 phone 519- 245 -3710, fax. 519 - 245 -3348 http:// www .sourcewaterprotection.on.ca/ 91 Upper Thames River Conservation Authority 1424 Clarke Road, London, ON N5V 5B9 phone 519 - 451 -2800, fax 519 - 451 -1188 The Corporation of the Municipality of Central Elgin Tammie Ryall Planner Ministry of Municipal Affairs & Housing Western Municipal Services Office 659 Exeter Road London, ON N6E 1L3 Dear Ms. RyaII: 450 Sunset Drive,1 st Floor, St.Thomas, Ontario N5R 5V1 P:519.631.4860 F:519.631.4031 Re: County of Elgin Official Plan November 27th, 2012 Please be advised that Council discussed a planning report with respect to the above noted matter at their meeting dated Monday, November 26th, 2012 and the following resolution was passed: THAT: Report CEP 62 -12 be received; AND THAT: Council pass a resolution supporting the Official Plan of the County of Elgin as adopted by County Council on July 24, 2012; AND THAT: Council request that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing consider a modification to the Plan that would show the Central Elgin Employment Areas, as shown on Schedules K and L of the Municipality of Central Elgin Official Plan, as a designation or special policy area on a schedule or figure to the County Plan so as to avoid any future conflict between the upper and lower tier plans; AND FURTHER THAT: Council request that the Ministry meet with staff from the County and the Municipality to discuss the details on how such a modification can be implemented. CARRIED. Please feel free to contact me at the municipal office should you have any questions regarding this information. Yours truly, jrad-M-J Dianne Wilson Deputy Clerk c.c. S. Evans, Director of Planning, County of Elgin J. McCoomb, Planner, CEPO November 27, 2012 Mark McDonald Chief Administrative Officer County of Elgin 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, ON N5R 5V1 Dear Mr. McDonald: L O N D O N D I S T R I C T Catholic School BOARD Re: Notice - Facility Partnership Opportunity 2012 I NO, ELGIN As per Policy Code: K 4.4 - Facility Partnerships, the London District Catholic School Board is required to provide written notice of available space for community partnerships to a prioritized list of specified public agencies. You are one of those agencies. At its regular meeting on October 22, 2012, the Board of Trustees determined that Assumption Catholic Elementary School, 42 South Street East, Aylmer, Ontario, may be suitable for community partnership subject to further evaluation of site - specific criteria. A copy of the Board's Facility Partnerships Policy, and further facility information is available from the Board's website at www.ldcsb.on.ca. Administration has scheduled a meeting to discuss this partnership opportunity with all interested agencies on Thursday, December 20, 2012 at 4:00 p.m. in the Oxford Room, at the Catholic Education Centre, 5200 Wellington Road South, London, Ontario. If more than one agency expresses an interest in a partnership at this location, the Board is required to negotiate with the highest ranking agency first as per the priority ranking specified in the policy. If your agency is interested in pursuing partnership opportunities, I would ask that you please notify the undersigned as soon as possible. Interested agencies are also encouraged to attend the meeting on December 20th to obtain further information. Ms. Rebecca McLean Supervisor of Planning London District Catholic School Board 5200 Wellington Road South London, ON N6E 3X8 e -mail: rmclean @office.ldcsb.on.ca CATHOLIC EDUCATION CENTRE Mailing Address: P.O. Box 5474, N6A 4X5 5200 WELLINGTON RD. S., N6E 3X8 London, Cntrio Canada Fax (519) 663 -9250 Tel (519) 663 -2088 All community partnerships will be subject to the approval of the Board of Trustees, and where applicable, the Ministry of Education. Yours truly, /1/ 67/ Rebecca McLean Supervisor of Planning 94 From: Date: To: Subject: Reply -To: FCM President <communique(c�fcm.ca> 4 December, 2012 9:40:36 AM EST <mmcdonaldelgin- county.on.ca> President's Corner update <communique(a�fcm.ca> Dear FCM Members: Much has occurred since my last President's Corner message in October. We had a successful launch of our formal submission to the federal government on the new long- term infrastructure plan. We also received endorsements from our Municipal Infrastructure Forum stakeholders, launched our Great Canadian Infrastructure Challenge and held the Big City Mayors' Caucus meeting — all in support of our campaign to secure long -term infrastructure investment. This President's update comes to you just days after our hugely successful Advocacy Days in Ottawa — where our Board members from across the country met MPs from four parties. We used these face -to -face encounters to continue building our relationship with Parliamentarians and deliver our key messages on the long -term infrastructure plan. During the meetings, our directors provided each MP with a customized information package that summarized Gas Tax Fund investments made in the MP's riding. In addition, MPs heard details of FCM's submission to the government on the infrastructure plan that we anticipate will be announced when Budget 2013 is tabled. As President, I had the opportunity to meet with the Saskatchewan Conservative Caucus and Quebec NDP Caucus. I also met with: Jim Flaherty, Minister of Finance; Denis Lebel, Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities; Rona Ambrose, Minister of Public Works and Government Services; Steven Fletcher, Minister of State for Transport; and many others. From these meetings, I came away impressed with the respect that FCM and our member municipalities enjoy among all political parties. Perhaps the clearest sign of the respect we enjoy is that all of the parties represented in the House of Commons took the time to speak with us. NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair, Liberal Party Leader Bob Rae and Green Party Leader Elizabeth May delivered keynotes to our luncheons. Then, in a rare move, Minister Lebel attended our Board of Directors' meeting and spoke to us about the long -term infrastructure plan and the government's partnership with municipalities. Also in attendance was Minister Fletcher. Our Board members and I were busy as we had a record number of meetings with MP and Senators. In all, our Board members met with 153 Parliamentarians — 74 Conservatives, 51 NDP, 27 Liberals and 1 Green Party — and smashed last year's record of 113 Advocacy Days meetings. Our reception — hosted right inside Parliament Hill's Centre Block — attracted more than 300 Parliamentarians from all parties. 95 The 35- per -cent increase in meetings over last year is a testament to the success we're having in building our profile in federal circles. MPs want to meet us and hear our position on key issues, and share theirs at the same time. Some made a point of telling us that FCM is a trusted organization because we listen, and make constructive recommendations. These are the kind of comments we love to hear! This can only help us as we enter the final crucial weeks of advocacy around the long -term infrastructure plan. As President, I'm proud of the work we are doing and the advancements we are making. It will be interesting and exciting to see how these efforts play out for us when Budget 2013 is tabled in a few short months. As always, I would welcome your thoughts about issues your community is facing and how FCM might be able to help. Also, if you would like a customized information package to share with your MP, let me know and it can be provided. I can be reached at president(a�fcm.ca or 780 - 496 -8120. Stay tuned for another update from me just before the holidays. Please visit fcmchallenge.ca and support our campaign by taking the Infrastructure Challenge and passing it along to others. Warmest regards, Karen Leibovici President Councillor, City of Edmonton 96 MUNICIPAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT CORPORATION December 4, 2012 To: Heads of Council All Ontario Municipalities From: Dan Mathieson Chair, MPAC Board of Directors Subject: Update from MPAC I am writing to provide you with an update on the work we are doing at the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC). In September, we began our delivery of the 2012 province -wide Assessment Update with the first mailing of Notices. Our primary focus in 2012 has been the delivery of updated assessed values for Ontario's nearly five (5) million properties to both municipalities and property owners. In support of this work, we have undertaken a number of new initiatives including the relaunch of AboutMyPropertyTM as well as the first MPAC MarketSnapshot reports. We also continued our work to deliver assessment growth to municipal rolls, process Requests for Reconsiderations and manage the disposition of Assessment Review Board Appeals. We are also continuing planning for 2013, and beyond, with a new four -year strategic plan focused on finding cost savings and creating operational efficiencies; a new approach to municipal payment for assessment services; and, laying the groundwork for improvements to our next enumeration event. 2012 Province -wide Assessment Update Overall, average residential values have increased 18 per cent in Ontario since the 2008 Assessment Update. Office of the Chair c/o Municipal Property Assessment Corporation 1340 Pickering Parkway, Suite 101, Pickering, Ontario L1V 0C4 T: 519.271.0250 ext 236 F: 905.831.0040 www.mpac.ca 97 Update from MPAC December 4, 2012 Page 2of10 Some of the most significant assessment change was seen in the value of farmland, which rose by an average of 34 per cent. When residential values applied to farm homes are taken out, the value of Ontario farmland rose by an average of 46 per cent. Increases in farmland values were seen across Ontario, driven primarily by the continued demand for land for dairy producers and intensive livestock operations, and the loss of farmland to development. In 2012, MPAC released several editions of its new MarketSnapshot report. These reports, with commentary from MPAC's Chief Assessor, Larry Hummel, provided context for property owners about the change in Ontario's property market as reflected in the Assessment Update. MarketSnapshot and our launch of AboutMyPropertyTM played key roles in our efforts to increase public understanding of assessment and MPAC's role. From the start of our mailing of Property Assessment Notices this fall, our Customer Contact Centre has handled approximately 103,000 enquiries received by phone, email, fax and in writing. Drivers for enquiries include assessed value, information available through www.aboutmyproperty.ca and data - related matters. The number of enquiries received during this year's update represents a 29 per cent decrease when compared to the same point in the Notice mail schedule in 2008. In terms of Requests for Reconsideration (RfR) submitted for the 2013 property tax year, approximately 8,300 RfRs have been filed to date. Since the previous Assessment Update in 2008, MPAC has held more than 6,300 meetings with Municipal Councils, property taxpayer groups and other stakeholder groups. In support of the 2012 Update, we also continued to meet with Municipal Councils and staff to provide details of assessment changes and the impact in their communities. In addition, we have been providing every municipality with information through the Notice -based Market Change Profile (MCP). The MCP provides a set of reports to which Municipal staff can refer, as they prepare to understand the impacts of the Assessment Update in their community. A final Roll -based MCP will be made available to coincide with the Assessment Roll Return, on or before December 11, 2012. Overall, we are seeing an increased public and media understanding of current value assessment, the four -year phase -in program, and the role both assessment and MPAC play in Ontario's property tax system. In keeping with our responsibilities to ensure all property in Ontario is accurately assessed and classified, we regularly review our processes and consult with stakeholders. As we prepare to Office of the Chair c/o Municipal Property Assessment Corporation 1340 Pickering Parkway, Suite 101, Pickering, Ontario L1V 0C4 T: 519.271.0250 ext 236 F: 905.831.0040 www.mpac.ca 98 Update from MPAC December 4, 2012 Page 3 of 10 deliver the 2012 Assessment Roll to municipalities, I would like to take this opportunity to provide an update on some key assessment matters. • Landfills — During 2012, MPAC undertook a review of its valuation methodology for landfill sites across Ontario. Over the coming months, we will be undertaking a further in -depth consultation process with all stakeholders, including landfill operators, municipalities and the Ministry of Finance on valuation changes as well as the implications before proceeding with changes. We look forward to this review process and its findings and will continue to keep affected municipalities updated on our progress. • Common Lots — On November 5, 2012, an amendment to Ontario Regulation 282/98 was filed providing direction on the assessment of a certain type of common land parcel within residential communities. For 2013, and subsequent tax years, this new provision provides direction that there will be no separate assessed value of the common land parcel, but the value is to be included in the value of the residential property that the owners of the common land parcel also own in the community. We were not able to reflect this change for the 2012 Property Assessment Notices /Assessment Rolls due to the timing of the amendment. As a result, and where applicable, MPAC will implement this change through a post -roll Amended Notice in early 2013. • Billboards — MPAC and the Ministry of Finance continue to review the assessment of billboards in Ontario. We will continue to share updates as details on the results of this review are available. • Provincial Parks — The Ministries of Natural Resources (MNR) and Infrastructure Ontario filed Requests for Reconsideration /appeals, respectively, for 19 Provincial Parks (2009- 2012 tax years). As a result of our review, MPAC determined a more equitable approach was required to value Ontario's 337 parks for the 2012 Assessment Update. Using up -to- date data provided by MNR, MPAC established 2012 assessments for the parks using six Office of the Chair c/o Municipal Property Assessment Corporation 1340 Pickering Parkway, Suite 101, Pickering, Ontario L1V 0C4 T: 519.271.0250 ext 236 F: 905.831.0040 www.mpac.ca 99 Update from MPAC December 4, 2012 Page 4 of 10 (6) key criteria: geographic location; regulated park acreage; waterfront access; development zones; campsites; and building costs. Over the last month, MPAC hosted meetings with affected municipalities to provide an update of the changes. Province -wide, the 2012 assessments for Provincial Parks has increased by approximately $110 million since the last update in 2008. Although the total value has increased province -wide, 78 municipalities will see an increase in the assessments; however, 57 municipalities will experience a decrease in their park assessments. As an update, MNR has withdrawn their Requests for Reconsideration based on the result of our review and MPAC continues to work with the Ministry of Infrastructure to settle outstanding appeals. ® Wind Turbines — To date, MPAC's analysis of sales has not indicated that the presence of wind turbines that are either abutting or in proximity to a property has either a positive or negative impact on its value. MPAC is currently undertaking a study using its January 1, 2012 current value assessments for 2013 taxation to determine if the distance from a wind turbine affects the assessed value. To complete this review, MPAC will compare the 2012 assessed values to recent sale prices to determine if the ratio between the assessments and sales prices differs between homes near wind turbines and those further away. This is referred to as a level of assessment study. This study will be completed in early 2013. AboutMyPropertyTM (www.aboutmyproperty.ca) AboutMyPropertyTM was relaunched in support of the 2012 Assessment Update earlier this year with a completely new look and navigation. Openness, transparency and convenience were all key in developing this secure, self -serve web application. Starting this fall, owners of all property types — residential, farm and business properties — have had access to detailed information through AboutMyPropertyTM. AboutMyPropertyTM allows property taxpayers to quickly and easily find out more about how their property was assessed and to confirm its accuracy. It demonstrates how we are leveraging technology to improve openness, transparency and service to property taxpayers while keeping costs as low as possible. Office of the Chair c/o Municipal Property Assessment Corporation 1340 Pickering Parkway, Suite 101, Pickering, Ontario L1V 0C4 T: 519.271.0250 ext 236 F: 905.831.0040 www.mpac.ca 100 Update from MPAC December 4, 2012 Page 5of10 By using the Roll number and Access key found on their 2012 Property Assessment Notice, property taxpayers can register and log on to www.aboutmyproperty.ca and compare their property to other properties in their neighbourhood. Using an interactive map of their community, they can create a Properties of Interest list with access to as many as 100 property snapshots — selected by them — and up to 24 detailed property reports — all free of charge. This web application features detailed reports and interactive map imagery for almost every property in the province, under secured accessibility. Property owners also have the option of submitting updates to the information MPAC has on file directly through the application. When designing AboutMyPropertyTM, MPAC took a Privacy by Design (PbD) approach. The PbD framework, created by Ontario's Infoimation and Privacy Commissioner (IPC), seeks to embed privacy into the design specifications of information technologies, organizational practices and networked system architectures, to achieve the strongest protection possible, as the default condition. MPAC also applied the IPC's Privacy in the Cloud principles in its development of AboutMyPropertyTM As of November 23, nearly 140,000 property owners have registered on AboutMyPropertyTM to access information. MPAC's MarketSnapshot This summer, MPAC launched the first edition of MarketSnapshot, an online report to underscore the link between a property's sale price and assessed value. The report was released and provided a snapshot of residential sale price trends in Ontario — an important factor in the determination of assessed values. Commentary from local real estate boards across the province was included in this report to help explain trends in local sale prices over the past four (4) years. A second Assessment Update edition of MarketSnapshot was released in September to coincide with the mailing of Property Assessment Notices. In mid - November, a Faun Property Values edition was released and a Business Property Edition is now underway. MarketSnapshot has been well received, particularly by real estate professionals, and we plan to publish additional reports in 2013. Review of Requests for Reconsideration (RfR) and Assessment Review Board (ARB) Appeals MPAC received over 17,000 RfRs for the 2012 tax year, representing approximately 0.3 per cent of Ontario's nearly five (5) million properties. All 2012 RfRs received by March 31 were completed by the legislated deadline of November 30. Office of the Chair c/o Municipal Property Assessment Corporation 1340 Pickering Parkway, Suite 101, Pickering, Ontario L1V 0C4 T: 519.271.0250 ext 236 F: 905.831.0040 www.mpac.ca 101 Update from MPAC December 4, 2012 Page 6 of 10 We also continue to work collaboratively with property taxpayers to resolve their RfR and ARB appeal matters, and to answer their questions or provide the information they need to better understand their property's assessment. As a point of interest, over 13,500 appeals for all property types were disposed of from July 1 to September 30, 2012. The ARB's objective is to dispose of all outstanding appeals (i.e., the 2009 -2012 assessment cycle and prior) by March 31, 2013. MPAC is supportive of the ARB's undertaking and continues to work collaboratively with the Board to identify opportunities to streamline the Board's processes while balancing our other operational pressures such as the 2012 Assessment Update. Supplementary and Omitted Assessments for 2012 MPAC continued its focus on fieldwork in communities across the province completing inspections and property data reviews. I am pleased to advise you that we surpassed our assessment growth forecast of $23.5 billion and delivered $24.4 billion in assessment growth to our municipal stakeholders. As a result of our partnership with Ontario municipalities, we now receive information electronically in a standardized format for approximately 85 per cent of the 165,000 building permits we receive and a majority of the occupancy permits issued annually across Ontario. Previously, we only received 15 per cent of permits in the standard electronic format. Increasing the electronic transfer of this information was one of the recommendations in the 2011 Auditor General's Report and we are very pleased with the results of our partnerships with municipalities and municipal building permit suppliers. We also continue to work with third parties, such as building permit system vendors and the Electrical Safety Authority (ESA) to assist us in capturing and delivering assessment growth in a more efficient manner. Agreement reached with Ontario Digital Cadastre Corporation Earlier this fall, MPAC reached an agreement with the Ontario Digital Cadastre Corporation (ODCC) to acquire Property Dimension Reports for plans of subdivisions, also known as M- Plans, directly from land surveyors. The ODCC is a wholly owned, for profit subsidiary of the Association of Ontario Land Surveyors (AOLS). Receiving this information directly from the source is integral to MPAC's ability to provide timely and consistent assessment of new construction in Ontario. Office of the Chair c/o Municipal Property Assessment Corporation 1340 Pickering Parkway, Suite 101, Pickering, Ontario L1V 0C4 T: 519.271.0250 ext 236 F: 905.831.0040 www.mpac.ca 102 Update from MPAC December 4, 2012 Page 7 of 10 By receiving this data directly from surveyors, MPAC will be able to improve the accuracy and consistency of the information used to assess properties. Receiving this critical information in a format that requires no transcribing or calculation by our staff means we can add growth to municipal assessment rolls in a more timely manner. The agreement with the ODCC is significant for the organization as almost half of all residential assessment growth in Ontario can be attributed to subdivisions. In addition to the efficiencies that this agreement helps bring to our internal work processes, it is also an important first step for MPAC as part of one of the Victory Statements included in our new four -year strategic plan. Specifically, it reflects our commitment to capturing 100 per cent of available assessment growth within 12 months of commencement of use by 2016. Stakeholder Outreach Activities MPAC has continued its successful community outreach initiatives to help raise awareness of assessment - related matters. In 2012, MPAC has held approximately 1,085 outreach activities across the province with various property taxpayer and stakeholder groups and attended over 20 municipal association conferences and trade shows. Some of the most recent events or activities include: • MPAC staff attended the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) Annual Conference from August 19 -22, 2012 in Ottawa. MPAC hosted a joint session with the Ministry of Finance on August 21, 2012. The Board of Directors, senior management and Municipal Relations staff were in attendance to meet with AMO delegates. • Ontario Municipal Taxation and Revenue Association (OMTRA) Annual Fall Conference was held from September 9 -12, 2012 at Cleveland's House in Muskoka. MPAC hosted a plenary session as part of the agenda and the MPAC booth was on display with MPAC staff in attendance to answer questions. • Municipal Finance Officers' Association of Ontario (MFOA) was held from September 19 -21, 2012 at the London Convention Centre. MPAC hosted a presentation and interactive panel session and the MPAC booth was on display with staff in attendance. • MPAC staff attended the 2012 Toronto Fall Home Show from September 20 -23, 2012 at the Better Living Centre, Exhibition Place. Over 300 property taxpayers visited the MPAC booth with assessment - related enquiries. • The 46th Annual Canadian Property Tax Association (CPTA) National Workshop was held from September 30 to October 3, 2012 in Banff, Alberta. MPAC staff attended the Office of the Chair c/o Municipal Property Assessment Corporation 1340 Pickering Parkway, Suite 101, Pickering, Ontario L1V 0C4 T: 519.271.0250 ext 236 F: 905.831.0040 www.mpac.ca 103 Update from MPAC December 4, 2012 Page 8 of 10 conference with President and Chief Administrative Officer Antoni Wisniowski delivering a presentation on `innovation' that included MPAC's web application AboutMyPropertyTM A Look Ahead to 2013 New Four -Year Strategic Plan As you are aware, public sector agencies are being challenged to provide greater value to all stakeholders. In September, we launched our new four -year strategy focused on creating cost savings and operational efficiencies. The strategy has the potential to save as much as $20 million over the next four (4) years. These savings are expected to be passed on to municipalities, which fund the cost of MPAC. This strategy will have an impact on how every MPAC employee does his or her job. Some examples of the improvements planned as part of the strategy include the reduction of office space, reduction of the operating and capital expenses of our fleet, as well as making more services available online to property taxpayers. In support of this new strategy and as part of MPAC's commitment to support Ontario's communities, MPAC has partnered with Habitat for Humanity Canada and will corporately support the organization through payroll donations, local fundraising and team builds. The new strategy will formally roll out in January 2013 and we will share updates on our progress as we implement initiatives. 2013 Payment for Services The Board of Directors has approved MPAC's funding requirements for 2013 and, for the first time, also approved a targeted four -year expenditure plan for 2013 — 2016. I am pleased to inform you that the funding requirements approved for 2013 represent an increase of less than one per cent over the 2012 funding level. In addition to setting an increase of 0.95 per cent for 2013, MPAC is also forecasting a proposed increase of 0.95 per cent for each of 2014, 2015 and 2016. In determining our funding requirements, we consider a number of factors including the work activities that MPAC must complete, the continued growth of the number of properties that MPAC assesses and classifies and the various fiscal pressures on the organization including wages, benefits, pension costs and utilities. The organization's ability to continue to deliver its operations with incremental funding requirements set at less than one (1) per cent for each of the next four (4) years is only possible due to our commitment to expenditure constraint as well as our ability to Office of the Chair c/o Municipal Property Assessment Corporation 1340 Pickering Parkway, Suite 101, Pickering, Ontario L1V 0C4 T: 519.271.0250 ext 236 F: 905.831.0040 www.mpac.ca 104 Update from MPAC December 4, 2012 Page 9of10 achieve the $20 million of projected savings outlined in our new four -year strategic plan. This forecast is based on the status quo in terms of MPAC's mandate and services and may need to be revisited if there are unplanned changes to the organization's workload or responsibilities as the result of legislative or regulatory change. Municipalities will experience varying increases in their individual 2013 payment for services due to the changes in their assessments and property counts on the 2012 Assessment Roll. We will confirm the actual impact to your municipality in January 2013, following the return of Assessment Rolls. As in 2012, municipalities will be billed in equal quarterly installments on the first day of each quarter. MPAC to host 2012 Voters' List Forum On December 5, 2012, MPAC will co -host a Voters' List Forum. The purpose of the Forum is to engage in a broader discussion on the fundamental questions raised in the Discussion Paper by the Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario (AMCTO), in late 2011. This initiative is being held in cooperation with AMCTO and our election partners. Representatives from a wide range of organizations are expected to attend the Forum including municipalities, school boards, Elections Canada, Elections Ontario, Ontario Ministries of Education, Finance and Municipal Affairs and Housing, and private sector firms that provide election and data management services. It is anticipated that formal results will be issued on behalf of the Forum participants that would provide a road map for moving forward and will address the valid and important questions, and issues raised in the AMCTO's Discussion Paper. As an elected municipal colleague and as the Chair of the MPAC Board of Directors, you have my assurance that we will continue to deliver on our commitment to property assessment excellence and outstanding service to our municipal partners, government stakeholders and the property taxpayers of Ontario. Office of the Chair c/o Municipal Property Assessment Corporation 1340 Pickering Parkway, Suite 101, Pickering, Ontario L1V 0C4 T: 519.271.0250 ext 236 F: 905.831.0040 www.mpac.ca 105 Update from MPAC December 4, 2012 Page 10 of 10 If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact your local Municipal Relations Representative or Arthur Anderson, Director of Municipal Relations at 905 837 -6993 or 1 877 635 -6722, extension 6993. If you would like to speak with me directly, I can be reached at 519 271 -0250, extension 234. Yours truly, Dan Mathieson Chair, MPAC Board of Directors Copy Municipal Chief Administrative Officers, Clerks and Treasurers Municipal Liaison Group — Assessment MPAC Board of Directors Antoni Wisniowski, President and Chief Administrative Officer, MPAC MPAC Executive Management Group Arthur Anderson, Director, Municipal Relations, MPAC Account Managers and Municipal Relations Representatives, Municipal Relations, MPAC Office of the Chair c/o Municipal Property Assessment Corporation 1340 Pickering Parkway, Suite 101, Pickering, Ontario L1V 0C4 T: 519.271.0250 ext 236 F: 905.831.0040 www.mpac.ca 106