January 23, 2001 Agenda
ORDERS OF THE DA Y
FOR TUESDAY. JANUARY23. 2001 AT 9:00 A.M.
PAGE # ORDER
1 st Meeting Called to Order
2nd Adoption of Minutes - meeting held on December 12 & 14, 2000
3rd Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof
4th Presenting Petitions, Presentations and Delegations
DELEGATION
9:00 A.M. - Mayor Peter Ostojic, Roy Main, City Administrator and
Roy Lyons, City Fire Chief
9:15 A.M. ~ Ms. Cathy Obright - Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario
(ATTACHED)
10:00 A.M. - Mr. Harry Mezenberg - West Elgin Health Care Facility
(see separate enclosure)
Motion to Move Into "Committee Of The Whole Council"
Reports of Council, Outside Boards and Staff
Council Correspondence - see attached
i) Items for Consideration
ii) Items for Information (Consent Agenda)
OTHER BUSINESS
1) Statements/Inquiries by Members
2) Notice of Motion
3) Matters of Urgency
9th In-Camera Items - see separate agenda
10th Recess
11 th Motion to Rise and Report
12th Motion to Adopt Recommendations from the Committee Of The Whole
13th Consideration of By-Laws
14th ADJOURNMENT
5th
1-49 6th
7th
50-77
78-144
8th
LUNCH WILL BE PROVIDED I
February 25,26,27 & 28 - Rural Ontario Municipal Association/Ontario Good Roads
Association Combined Conference, Royal York Hotel, Toronto
Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario
NOV 2 2000
October 30, 2000
Mr. Mark McDonald
Chief Administrative Officer
County of Elgin
450 Sunset Street
St. Thomas ON N5R 5V1
Dear Mr. McDonald
Starting on January 15, 2001 and continuing until Valentine's Day, the
employees at the County of Elgin offices will be participating in the Heart &
Stroke Foundation's "Paint the Town Red" fund raising program. During
this time, each person (Council Members included!) will have the
opportunity to dedicate a heart to someone special and to win some great
prizes! Most importantly, though, every dollar raised helps to fund vital
heart disease and stroke research that brings the Heart & Stroke
Foundation one step closer to defeating Canada's #1 killer.
Representatives from the St. ThomaslElgin Chapter of the Heart & Stroke
Foundation would like to have the opportunity to address Council at their
meeting on January 9, 2001 in order to gain the Council's support for this
program and to "start it off with a bang!" If this is possible, please let me
know what time we are to be there and the location of the meeting.
Thank you very much for your help in this matter.
Sincerely,
~~
~
Cathy Obright
Area Coordinator-Corporate Programs
London Area
617 Wellington Street
London ON N6A 3R6
(519) 679-0641
Affilîatedwith tile Heartand
Stroke Foundation of Canada
Bus,nessNumber 107472839 RR()( ()1
HEART
AND STROKE
FOUNDATION
OF ONTARio
Heart & Stroke Healthline - disease and lifestyle information service: 1-888-HSF-INFO
Presentation to
ELGIN COUNTY
COUNCIL
Tuesday, January 23,2001
10:00 a.m.
St. Thomas, Ontario
West Elgin Community Health Centre
FUNCTIONAL & SPATIAL STUDY
CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSAL
MISSION STATEMENT
-..... ......,.. ":.....,.,-~.".--------.-_...._--
.' .'.. ·-···","N.~.'··--·_··_
~~
If'
The West Elgin Community Health
Centre is committed to working in
partnership with individuals, families
and community groups to optimize the
health and well-being of our residents
and communities.
INTRODUCTION
West Elgin Community Health Centre is a transfer payment
agency of the Ministry of Health as one of approximately 64
community health centres in Ontario. WECHC has had
tremendous success for program enhancements over the last three
years. The programs first hired staff in early 1995 when a total at
eight employees were in place. The centre currently employees
now twenty-nine (29) full and part-time positions.
Community governed health centres have existed for more than 30
years in Ontario. The first funding proposed for the West Elgin
Community Health Centre was put together in 1991.
Our history is rich with stories of quality primary health care,
efficient health care integration, and client satisfaction.
OVERVIEW
. ·""'L;:·..······O··.oc:··-·o··
· Are 100% funded by Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care;
· Provide a range of primary health and non-institutional services
with an emphasis on illness prevention, health promotion,
health education, and community development;
· Offer access to coordinated services;
· Have multidisciplinary teams of salaried professionals;
· Serves hard to reach target groups who have difficulty in
accessing the health care system and those with high health care
needs;
· Develop programs on the needs of the community;
· Work in partnership with organizations in other sectors, such as
public health units, hospitals, community care access centres
and others to ensure an integrated and coordinated continuum
of care;
· Work in partnership with organizations in other sectors, such as
education, justice, recreation, and economic development to
develop a healthy community;
· Are not-for-profit;
· Are governed by a volunteer board of directors whose members
are local residents and citizens;
· And meet the need for public scrutiny and quality assurance.
SUMMARY
The West Elgin Community Health Centre is now showing severe
signs of strain due to lack of space. We are unable to manage
group programs; shortage of space for our nurses and physicians
and other health/ social care providers.
Among those who have voiced concern over the state of our
current facility and have committed to the need for additional
space, to include rental space available are:
- Elgin Community Care Access Centre
- Family and Child Counselling Centre of Elgin
- St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital
- Elgin Employment Counselling
- Canadian Mental Health Association
- Elgin-St. Thomas Health Unit
Recently, during the month of December, the centre went through
a comprehensive accreditation process by an organization called
Community Organizational Health Inc. In their preliminary
findings, they indicate a strong recommendation for additional and
appropriate physical space at this centre. It is mentioned a number
of times in their report which will be finalized sometime during
March 2001.
SUMMARY
(cont'd)
The Centre has been working with the Ministry of health staff in
Toronto completing our Capital Development proposal to be
considered for capital funding by the Ministry of Health sometime
in either February or early March 2001.
The Ministry of Health will support the primary costs of this new
building. The Ministry of Health is looking for partnership
commitment by the municipalities with both land acquisition and
servicing the lot and building should the project be approved by
the Minister of Health. We are requesting a total of 2.65 million
dollars for this project.
Weare requesting from Elgin Council for funding consideration of
a grant of $50,000 this fiscal year to assist WECHC in the purchase
of land to complete this project. In addition, we are requesting an
additional $50,000 funding grant to assist in servicing the lot for
water and storm lines in the fiscal year 2001/2002.
Gordon Hardcastle
tHARTE~ED ACCOU~TANT
. APPENDIX I (a)
Gordon A. Hardc<¢Je, CA "
Robert Hahn, BA,CGA
Karen A. Rhodes, B:.sc;,CGA .."
P.O. Box 1"76 -.·4174 Cåthe;i;';~Street
Dorchester, Ontario NOl 1 GO
Telephone (519) 26B'7774
".1·80Ó'-387'2131
"Faésitnile (519) 2ó8'85Ó2"
"" j'800'5;;3,S6z1
eMail solutj.on~@ghca·.on.ca
. AUDITOR'S REPORT
To the Members of
We&tElgin Còmniu!IÍty Heålth Centre
I have alldited the balance sheet of West Elgin Commuhity Health Centre as at March 31 , 2000 and the
statement or revenue and expenses arid net assets tot the year then ended. These finanCial Statements are the :
nsponslbiliiy of the Centre's management. My responsibiIiiy is tò .express an opinion on these finanCial
statementS baSed on my audit. " """ .".
" . .
" " "
I conducted my audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standardS: Those standards require that
I plàn.ànd pert'orm an audit to obtain reasonable assurance whether the financial statements are free of "
material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and
disclosUres in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting prinCiples used and
significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall finanCial statement presentation.
. '. . ." ¡
As outlined in Note 2 to the finanCial statements, the Cen.treis primarily ftmded by the Ontaii.b Ministry of
Health and" Long-Term Care. These financial statements. have been prepared by the Centre uSing accounting
.principles. that are ìn accordance with the requirements of the Ministry óf Health and Long-Term Care.
Generally aCcepted accounting principles requite that. purchased capital assets be recòrded at cost ánd that
amortizátion be provided over the estimated useful lives of the c,!pital;¡ssets. The Ministry of Health and
Long·Term Care requires that capital assets be charged to current expenditures: The effects of this non-
compliance witl:1 generally accepted accounting principles on these f'maricial statements has notbèen
detennined. " " ." .
In my opinion, except for the iloll-compliance to record purchased capital assets àt cost and to provide
ainortizátion of capital assets over their eStimated useful lives, these financial statements present fairly, in all
material'respects, the fiD.imcial position of the Centre as at.March~31, 2000 aiJ.d the"resÌilts of its operations
for"the year then /4ccordance with genèrally accepted accounting principles.
Dórchemr, Ontario"
May ì 7, 2ûûû
~¥~;o..:.;,;~~"",_",,/.,';;';.'.. "'.. .,.-
APPENDIX I (b)
~i'
It'
West Elgin Community Health Centre
Revenue and Expenses
Year ended March 31, 2000
with comparative figures for 1999
2000 1999
$ $
Revenue
Government funding 1,478,586 1,193,531
Interest 6,423 12,942
Other 12,702 6,343
1,497,711 1,212,816
Expenses
Salaries 831,170 702,368
Benefits and relief 178,586 145,508
Operating expenses 410,616 330,463
Non-recurring and other 77,339 34,477
1,497,711 1,212,816
This information has been extracted ftom the financial statements of West Elgin
Community Health Centre for the year ended March 31, 2000, upon which the auditors
of West Elgin Community Health Centre, Gordon Hardcastle Chartered Accountant
have reported under date of May 17, 2000, copies of which are available ftom the
Centre upon request.
APPENDIX II
SP A TIAL STUDY
SUMMARY
-
West Elgin Community Health Centre
Space
Allocation
Space
Allocation
Community Health Branch
3,483
15,000
Long-Term Care
194
688
Collaborative partnerships
275
1,188
TOTALS
3,952
16,876
*NOTE: Future space alloætion includes circulation space of 25%.
N. ROY MAIN
City Administrator
Department of Administrative Services
P.O. Box 520, City Hall
St. Thomas. Ontario N5P 3V7
Telephone (51 9) 631-1680
Fax (51 9) 633-901 9
Corporation of the City of St. Thomas
November 20, 2000
NOV 22 2000
Mr. M. McDonald
County Administrator
County of Elgin
450 Sunset Drive
St. Thomas, ON
N5R5VI
Dear Mr. McDonald:
This letter is to respectfully request that Mayor P. Ostojic be included in the County Agenda of
January 23, 2001. Mayor Ostojic would appreciate the opportunity of making a brief address to
the county regarding co-operative efforts between the County and the City.
I would appreciate your confinning this appointment with Tracy Smith at 631-1680 ext 133.
N. Ro ain
City Administrator
cc: Mayor-Elect P. Ostojic
REPORTS OF COUNCIL AND STAFF
January 23rd . 2001
Staff Reports
Paae #
3
H. Geurts, Elgin County Tree Commissioner - Year 2000 Summary Elgin
County Tree By-Law 87-6 (ATTACHED)
5
H. Geurts, Elgin County Tree Commissioner - Application for Minor
Exception. Lot 14, Conc. 5. West Elgin (ATTACHED)
L. Veger, Director of Financial Services, OPP Policing Invoices (Report to be
faxed out to Council)
9 C. Watters, Manager of Engineering Services - Highway #3 Planning Study
(ATTACHED)
12 C. Watters, Manager of Engineering Services - Plank Road (County Road
#19) and Calton Line (County Road #45) Intersection Safety Improvements
(ATTACHED)
15 C. Watters, Manager of Engineering Services - Road 4 Engineering Services
Request for Proposals (ATTACHED)
18 C. Watters, Manager of Engineering Services - Plank Road Reconstruction
in Straffordville and Eden (ATTACHED)
21 C. Watters, Manager of Engineering Services - Wellington Road Intersection
Reconstructions at Ford Road and McBain Line (ATTACHED)
24 C. Watters, Manager of Engineering Services - Sanitary Services for the
Administration Building (ATTACHED)
27 C. Watters, Manager of Engineering Services - Ontario Superbuild Sports,
Culture and Tourism Partnership (ATTACHED)
31 C. Watters, Manager of Engineering Services - King George Lift Bridge in
Port Stanley (ATTACHED)
33 C. Watters, Manager of Engineering Services - Update to Maintenance
Agreements (ATTACHED)
35 C. Watters, Manager of Engineering Services - Skewed Intersection.
(ATTACHED)
I
39 M. McDonald, Chief Administrative Officer - Waste Management Master
Plan (ATTACHED)
40 M. McDonald, Chief Administrative Officer - Schedule for 2001 Council
Meetings (ATTACHED)
42 M. McDonald, Chief Administrative Officer - Optimization of Green Lane
Landfill (ATTACHED)
43 M. McDonald, Chief Administrative Officer - Appointment to the Performance
Excellence Committee (ATTACHED)
44 C. Bishop, Manager of Library Services - Aylmer Library Renovations
(ATTACHED)
47 K. Dunn, Emergency Measures Co-Ordinator - Telecommunications
Equipment for the Emergency Operations Centre (ATTACHED)
49 K. Dunn, Emergency Measures Co-Ordinator - POA Agreements - Local
Side Agreement & Memorandum of Understanding (Report Attached -
copies of the agreements are circulated under separate cover)
1. L. Veger, Director of Financial Services, OPP Policing Invoices (ATTACHED)
2. S. Heffren, Deputy Clerk, Comprehensive Insurance Program --2001 (ATTACHED)
3. M. McDonald, Chief Administrative Officer, Police Services Board (ATTACHED)
~
REPORT TO ELGIN COUNTY COUNCIL
From: Hugh Geurts - Elgin County Tree Commissioner
Date: December 08, 2000
Subject: Year 2000 Summary Elgin County Tree Bv-Law 87-6
Introduction: Below is a year-end summary of activity regarding the Elgin County Tree
By-Law 87-6 for the year 2000.
Discussion:
Logging Activity/Notice of Intents: This year marked a record for the total number of
woodlots logged within the County with approx. 188 Notices of Intent being submitted for
the year 2000. This record breaks the previous record in 1998 when approx. 180 woodlots
were logged. Hardwood woodlot logging is being reported up in all Counties across the
Province. The increases are attributed to two factors A) crop yield and prices were below
expectations for this year which forced fanners to examine other sources of income to
compensate for any shortfall B) Soft and Hard Maple prices continue to remain above to
well above average. A summary breakdown is attached for your information.
Applications for Minor Exception: There were 3 applications to clear woodlots within the
County. Two applications were approved with approximately 4 acres being cleared.
Approved clearings did conform to the County's No Net Loss policy with equivalent
acreage replanted. The remaining application has been put on hold due to opposition from
neighbours.
Promotion/Annual Open House: The annual Open House was held Feb 22nd at the New
Sarum Public School with approximately 70 woodlot owners attending. Topics promoted
included review of the County Tree By-Law, good forest management strategy, maximizing
profit and dealing with loggers. PampWets are available at all municipal offices and two
newspaper ads about the By-Law go out in all Elgin newspapers. Continued active
participation in the Elgin Woodlot Owners Association.
Recommendation: For Information Only
. .
··..~.·ø;·~jJÅJ~
Hugh Geurts
Elgin County Tree Commissioner
~¿)
Approved For Submission
M.G. McDonald
Chief Administrative Officer
3
WOODLOT HARVEST STATISTICS - COUNTY OF ELGIN - YEAR 2000
West Elgin
No. ofIntents 38
Acres Harvested 565
No. of trees harvested 5,000
Dunwich
No. ofIntents 17
Acres Harvested 378
No. oftrees harvested 2,200
Southwold
No. ofIntents 12
Acres Harvested 325
No. of trees harvested 1,600
Central Elgin
NO.ofIntents 21
Acres Harvested 326
No.ofueesharve~ed 2,800
Malahide
No. ofIntents 34
Acres Harvested 687
No.ofueesharve~ed 4,500
Bavham
No. of Intents 55
Acres Harvested 1,375
No. of trees harvested 7,200
County ofElgjn Total
No. of Intents 177
Acres Harvested 3,656
No. of trees harvested 22,700
4
REPORT TO ELGIN COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM: HUGH GEURTS - ELGIN COUNTY TREE COMMISSIONER
DATE: JANUARY 11,2001
SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR MINOR EXCEPTION. LOT 14, CONe.
5. WEST ELGIN
INTRODUCTION: The office of the Tree Commissioner has received an Application
for Minor Exception rrom Mr. John Johnson to clear approximately 2 acres of bush rrom
Lot 14, Conc. 5. West Elgin.
DISCUSSION: The Proposed clearing is 2 acres in size and is being done to straighten
woodlot edge for row crop farming. The area consists predominately of poplar, silver
maple, and white ash. A field inventory on January 09, did not determine the presence of
any rare or significant tree species. The site also has no significant features such as
streams, steep slopes, or wetlands that may be adversely affected. The landowner has
agreed to make a contribution to the LTVCA to ensure an equivalent acreage of forest is
planted as per the County No Net Loss Policy.
All but one neighbour has been contacted regarding this clearing and have no objections
to the proposal. It is my intent to contact the remaining landowner by the time this matter
is brought forward at the January 23rd Council Meeting. LTVCA has responded with no
objections.
CONCLUSION: It is my opinion that this application falls within the goals of Elgin
Count in regard to Forest Management
RECOMMENDATION: That the Application for Minor Exception be approved as
presented.
~,; ~~Gwm
Elgin County Tree Commissioner
¿f Qprovoo fo; Submi,.oo
M.G. McDonald. Chief Administrative Officer
5
~~f~qf¿O~~ ~~;~~
~;JJ.;)-tO'-'-./.u~..;.¡
uunr"i L' ......'-""'............"
7~~' X.ttle Cr..k Ç.A.
51' '~1 ~oa'
,
~ -()r'-
.
_t!:-ç;:-~--i1." "",
~·l¡: r: :;~-l,-. !'~~-~I
'0. Ic""'\ '. ;,
,~" _t ....~I ".,
. .
(..I">"¡i¡'\",l.,lj
01/03/01 10 I U
tII....,iS-"'~tIAI.'"
1Iõ_<~_""""*",,,,1'II
lIb) "'NIM......r~9~
~_ft_...
...-......
ST. 't~ ONT.\RIO
......
......""'-
WI'IItRSoJM1
THE ïREES ACT
APPUC.6. TION FOR MINOR EXCEPTION
11 We wt,1'1 to apply for ¡¡¡ minor exception from the provi$lons ollhe County of Elgin By~law No.
which ro:llricb e~d re¡¡ulatas thaI destruction of 1t."G. ~ order 10 be al1òWèd to remove trees as
outlined in this application.
1.
NAME(S¡ OF OWNER(S):
rðl¡"
o '3a!t"5'-'
-~
MAILING ,4.DDRESS:
R R /
R " 01" ~ 7
Postal Cedet1{£.L;U tr
Phone No. ;",,,? ¡r (/]17
2,
LOCATION OF LAND:
Municipality (Town, Vülage, Township)
/.VI 1. t
Blc../.-"'\
(I
-S'
---
Lot No I fJ.
Concession No.
/(ini;ror t.iA, ~
,
LoINo.
-'
Registered Plan No.
3 Re¡¡¡sen lor wi$hing to Remove trees.
íJ -2.1 ,,,,;>,< "I'
A ~ J Pv~- ß- r,__A..
- ~ , ...
.~ riJ" Is . ('It) Ç¡J"" tl Lile.
v -,
ti.~ ßv.<;Á J"t' r;.~¡-
tli.~ ,t.u",~oI''.l<!' 5
of rp I '" .J"_,_~.
4. Oe$cribe speoies of UIIIIS end ~Î~e of tfees to be reroovciJ.
S'(";-"IJ t/'<!'<!' 5 S'v~Á. 4l-r ""/D.¡'-·
r ,
1,.,,11. w"tt'. v,n''''/,,,, r f'1'2-~ (.
5. Area to be c{e;1red (in metrtc)
Length
Meter$
Widt~
Meter~
Area (ir'l $quare meters or hectares)
1- 1- r t1U<''i
6
U~[U~/~UU~ ~v.v~ .~.J ,u~
r:<om. Þ~~l. ~""k e,,,.
1M \ 1
..........,,,,...... .............,,,'..........,,
519. U1 SOU
I'IU { J
1'-.g" 1 ,,' )
Q1103/01 10.U
" yes, please indicate the purpose to which they werll femoved aøpro;dmale size of area
cleered and cau,.
/; ¡? tI',- 0-:-,(
I I
1i..<'I it. (
I-¡,,'f' 1J(r~S el"r dÞT'
r fa hi J' f r~ ht ,,<."
,
7. Names, mailing addresses and phone numbefs of all owners of propelilt which abutts the
land of the owner of the trees in respect to which this application Is made as per section
9.2 of me act, (If insufficient space below please attach ¡¡nothør sheet of papef)
R
8. Other information deemed þertinent fo this application..
".--.....
9. Each appllc,.tion must be accompanied by e sketch, no smaller than 20 centtrT1$tres by
35 centimetres, showtng:
(8) The p2tcel of land thaI Is the $¡JÞìecl of this ItppliCatlOn, clearly IMlcatlng Ine
area proposed 10 be cleared and the area Of trees which will remain.
(b) buildings on the owner's property ¡¡nd also on ¡hll abutting property,
(c) uõe of abutting lands (6.9, re~¡d"ntia! agrícukural, COUage. commercial, elc,)
10. As an on site inspection will be made, Use perImeter 01 trlles 'M1lch will remain If this
¡¡pp!!catlon Is granted, must be marked by spraying or some other mellns, to clearly
Indicate during this visit wt1lltls pfoposed 10 be removed.
~ i..;'Of7 I.
?I tale
Nole: If this ~ppliç¡ltion Is signeó by other than the owner, written authorization of the oWner(s)
must él<XQmpany the application. If the applicant is a corporation, the application musl be sigr.e>:!
by an officer (and mat pQsftion must be Indicated) and Ihe corporate se;JI "h..1I be affi)(oSd.
7
U~/D~/LUU~ ~~.~U
~""".J....J (U~ .LUL.~
UWIII'!. J..' U,-"' II'..........'
from' X.ttlo Crook C.A, 51' 631 lØ~f
KETTLE CIU£K CONSE&~riI\S~ AU OiOi.1íYl.jl H,U
FACS1MILE TRANSMITTAL SHUT
TO; Jo~... 5o~(I<,òr\
.OOMPJ\NY; Fa,........",-·
I/v,/,,""""-'
PAXNUMßlU\.; Q\
19() 'fg~ -I~n
mONENUMaERt
'i/9 '1t'í-(l)('7
PROM: 'I
I'"'~j¡" G,~)..
DA'1'E\ .
!... "3...... / ú I
Tarl\L~.. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVD: '3
RE;
tJURGENT
tJOlUGINAL TO POU-OW
a POR. MVIEW
C PLEASE COMMENT
IJ KlU'L Y ASAP
cnUT AS ORIGJNAL
'<
"
~
("or'" .../1"'''$ .
(' I,-J:JI-I' S.
rdrw-
p,,,.-
N01'E$/COMMBNTS,
4
'"'\
<>
....
)
....
~
..
..
..
""
,
..
~.
" ':I:
~ ~
"" 1'0........,~
\,. " ... ~
'- "" ~
.:: ~ ..
t.... '"I.(
('&I' "
~
1>
.....
.......
~
jolt ¡. if (;1,10 H....
F IlT P'" .
~
" .
'"
'"
..
~
(' 171' A
,...¡It/iltS-
Fl'" ¡If
ft.d{ .
(or!\.
~
~
)
I( I ()¡/ /7. 0 f7,.,. to... r T,A. ,.,,~ c , ............
RRI8 H015 :fEKGUSON LINE ST. THOMAS ONTARIO N'5J' 3T) .
PHONEI 519-6)1-1270 PAX; 519·631-5026 EMAIL, lŒTTL£CAIIUX£CULINK.CO},{
8
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM:
Linda B. Veger, Director of Financial Services
DATE:
January 18, 2001
SUBJECT:
OPP Policing Invoices
Introduction/Discussion:
The'municipalities within the County of Elgin, excluding Aylmer, entered into a contract with the
Ontario Provincial Police effective July 1, 2000. Steps have been taken to form the Police
Services Board; however, this process has not yet been finalized. One of the responsibilities of
that Board will be to approve the monthly policing services invoices received from the Ministry of
the Solicitor General.
To date, invoices for the periods July 1, 2000 to January 31, 2001 remain unpaid. A letter from
DR. Ostrom, Superintendent Commander, Contract Policing Bureau indicated that the Board
would not be charged any penalties for these invoices provided outstanding monies are
received by March 15, 2001.
The participating municipalities agreed that the Police Services Board would be funded through
a formula based on the number of incidents. Actual numbers for 1999 are as follows:
Municipality 1999 Actual %
Bavham 356,547 17.2%
Central Elain 730,684 35.3%
Dutton/Dunwich 162,650 7.9%
Malahide 315,988 15.3%
West Elç¡in 306,469 14.8%
Southwold 197,001 9.5%
Total 2,069,339 100%
The OPP offices have been contacted, however, 2000 figures are not available at this time.
Based on the above percentages, the allocation of invoices to December 31, 2000 would be:
Municipality 2000 Estimated %
Bavham 287,962 17.2%
Central Elç¡in 590,992 35.3%
Dutton/Dunwich 132,263 7.9%
Malahide 256,152 15.3%
West Elç¡in 247,781 14.8%
Southwold 159,049 9.5%
Total 1,674,199 100%
Conclusion:
The lower-tier municipalities will soon be in the process of closing their 2000 revenues and
expenditures. Their year 2000 own use tax rates reflected a policing component. In order for the
municipalities to move ahead with finalizing 2000, it may be aþpropriate to prorate the
$1,674,199 based on the above percentages. Once the 2000 figures have been reconciled by
the OPP, an adjustment can be calculated. As a note, the first 2001 invoice has been received
reflecting an increase of 3.5%.
01/19/01
oppinvoices
Recommendation:
THAT the OPP Policing Invoices be prorated based on the 1999 actual incidents breakdown as
provided by the Ontario Provincial Police; and,
THAT a reconciliation be prepared once the 2000 actual incident breakdown has been provided
by the OPP; and,
THAT this method continues until the Police Services Board has been established.
Respectfully submitted.
Approved for submission.
~ald -
Chief Administrative Officer
~j)~
Linda B. Veger
Director of Financial Services
01/19/01
oppinvoices
Ontario
erovincial
Police
Police
provinciale
de I'Ontario
~
W
Contract Policing Bureau
777 Memorial Avenue
0rillia,ONL3V7V3
Phone #705-329-6200
Fax#705-329-6217
File: 511 - W - 6915
January 10, 2001
The Elgin Group
c/o County of Elgin
450 Sunset Drive
St. Thomas ON N5R 5Vl
Attention: Ms. LindaB. Veger, CMA
Director of Financial Services
Dear Ms. Veger:
Re: OPP Polidn!!: Invoices - EI!!:in GronD Contract
Further to your recent discussion with Financial Officer Janet Lewis of this bureau,
please be advised that we are in receipt of a copy of your correspondence addressed to
Management Board Secretariat, dated January 5, 2001, respecting your outstanding
balance for Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) services to the Elgin Group.
Given that the Elgin Group Police Services Board has not yet been established we are
prepared to waive any interest penalties at this time. However, it is important to note that
subject to the terms of the agreement the municipalities (Elgin Group) and not the police
services board is in fact responsible for making monthly installment payments on the last
day of each month. The agreement commenced on July 1, 2000 and to date no payment
for OPP services has been received. Accordingly, please ensure that the outstanding
account is paid in full no later than March 15, 2001.
I trust that this satisfactorily addresses your request. Please contact Chief Financial
Officer Lorna Salter, at (705) 329-6209, if you require additional information respecting
your account.
D.R. Ostr ndent
Commander
Contract Policing Bureau
c. Brigitte Zimmermann, MBS-Shared Services Bureau
January 5, 2001
Management Board Secretariat
Shared Services Bureau
Finance & Procurement Branch - Accounting Operations
200 First Avenue West, 3'd Floor, P.O. Box 4100
North Bay, Ontario
P1 B 9M3
Re: The Elgin Group
Policinq Services
The Police Services Board for the Elgin Group is in the process of being formed. Two
members have been selected and"a number of interested parties will be interviewed on
January 12, 2001 to sit on the Board.
The invoices for policing services, starting in July 2000, are the responsibility of the
Police Services Board. The Mayors from the six municipalities that make up the Elgin
Group have discussed whether or not to process the payments prior to the Board being
formed. They agree that the responsibility lies with the new Board and have instructed
me to request that the due dates be deferred without penalty until such time as the
Board has its first meeting and is able to approve payment. The first meeting should be
held in the later half of February.
The member municipalities look forward to a favourable response to this request.
Yours truly,
Linda B. Veger, CMA
Director of Financial Services
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM: PETER DUTCHAK, TECHNICAL SERVICES OFFICER
ENGINEERING SERVICES
DATE: DECEMBER 13, 2000
SUBJECT: HIGHWAY #3 PLANNING STUDY
Introduction
On December 16, 1999, Mr. Michael Plant of the Ministry of Transportation attended County
Council to discuss the proposed Highway #3 improvements. Council indicated to Mr. Plant that
new industry could be attracted to locate in Central Elgin if the state of the road system was
improved and the status of proposed highway network was known. It was suggested that
County staff organize a meeting with the M.T.O. and the local municipalities to discuss traffic
growth patterns with a view to determine mutually agreeable highway improvements to facilitate
new and anticipated growth.
Since that date, representatives from the Ministry of Transportation, City of St. Thomas,
Municipality of Central Elgin, Township of Malahide, Town of Aylmer and County Staff have
held two meetings in regards to the proposed Highway #3 Bypass.
Discussion
At these meetings (held on July 19th and November 29th, 2000) many different items were
discussed and all parties became aware of the present concerns and conflicts. Recent traffic
volumes and counts obtained by the M.T.O. were given to the County. Generally, they indicate
that the highest Annual Average Daily Traffic Volume for the section of Highway #3 from
Tillsonburg to Aylmer is 8800 with a 13.5% commercial count and the highest AADT between
Aylmer and St. Thomas is 9700 with an 8% commercial count.
It was also disclosed that although the proposed Highway #3 Bypass project resides on an
MTO. priority list that in fact it would not likely be initiated for 15 years or more. Other 2-lane
Provincial Highways have as much as 2.5 times the volume of this section of Highway #3 from
St. Thomas to Tillsonburg. This would indicate that other more immediate needs are present
and therefore improvements to this section of Highway #3 would be less of a priority as
compared to other roads in the Province.
A very preliminary cost estimate to construct a new highway between St. Thomas and Aylmer
would be between $800,000 and $1,000,000 per kilometre or approximately $11 to $14 Million
Dollars.
The current state and uncertainty of the proposed project creates many problems for the
eastern half of Elgin County. Restrictions posed against any lands that have been designated
by the Province under the Route Planning Study of 1975 have resulted in negative economic
impacts on all communities involved.
9
Page 1 of 3
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM: PETER DUTCHAK, TECHNICAL SERVICES OFFICER
ENGINEERING SERVICES
Page 2 of 3
DATE: DECEMBER 13, 2000
SUBJECT: HIGHWAY #3 PLANNING STUDY
Discussion (continued)
If lands have been designated by the MTO to be used for a future project, that designation
restricts the land owner from re-classifying, re-zoning or severing any part of those lands.
These restrictions are imposed against the entire property rather than the specific portion
required by the project because a complete and thorough detailed design is not completed and
these exact areas are not known.
To elevate the majority of concerns and current conflicts a new bypass would not necessarily
have to be constructed at this time. What in fact does need to be completed is an updated
planning study and design of the proposed project. A current planning study and functional
design would enable adjacent lands to develop and plan for the future.
To initiate the creation of an up to date planning study and functional design the local
municipalities and County could enter into a cost-sharing agreement with the Ministry of
Transportation. This sort of arrangement has been accomplished in the past in other areas of
Ontario to initiate works that would have otherwise not been completed at that time by the
Province. Without action from the local municipalities involved, a new route planning study may
not be completed for many years. The rough cost estimate for a planning study and functional
design ofthis scope could be approximately $500,000.00 and require 2 years to complete. This
2 year time frame would begin as soon as a cost sharing agreement was completed and it does
include the M.T.O. consultant selection process.
Conclusion
The meetings held with the involved municipalities, County and Ministry of Transportation have
been useful in ascertaining a resolve for the conflicts currently being experienced due to the
ambiguities of the proposed Highway #3 Bypass. These meetings however have come to a
point where further progress cannot be achieved without specific direction from Council.
Realistically, construction of the proposed Highway #3 Bypass would not be initiated within the
near future due to other roads with greater priorities in the Province. An updated and current
route planning study and functional design would enable involved lands, communities and
municipal government to proceed with servicing, development and future planning.
To initiate the completion of such a study in the near future a cost sharing agreement could be
arranged with the Ministry of Transportation. The study would cost approximately $500,000.00
in total and take as much as two years to complete. The M.T.O. would be responsible to select
a consultant and facilitate the completion of the study to ensure that it would be recognized by
the Province.
1 0
Page 3 of 3
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM: PETER DUTCHAK, TECHNICAL SERVICES OFFICER
ENGINEERING SERVICES
DATE: DECEMBER 13, 2000
SUBJECT: HIGHWAY #3 PLANNING STUDY
Conclusion (continued)
It has been suggested that if approached, the Ministry of Transportation may be willing to fund
50% of the study costs. This would therefore leave 50% or approximately $250,000.00 that
would have to be funded by the municipalities involved.
There are many possible methods of apportioning the costs to the municipalities involved. It
may also be assumed that the costs would be reimbursed through development charges and
property taxes once lands have been developed if the municipalities have these collection
means.
For Council's information, the length of the proposed bypass route as identified in 1975 is 17.8
kilometres long from St. Thomas to where it would meet with the existing Highway #3 at
Hacienda Road in Malahide. The length of kilometres in each municipality expressed as
percentages are approximately as follows: 52% in Central Elgin, 36% in Malahide and 12% in
Aylmer. These percentages could be used to distribute costs. The option also exists to have
the County of Elgin upfront some or all of the costs and be reimbursed through development
charges.
However Council wishes to proceed it must be noted that the dollar figures and suggested
contribution amounts expressed in this report have not been agreed to formally by any party
and may fluctuate considerably.
Recommendation
For your consideration.
RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED
~
PETER DUTCHAK,
TECHNICAL SERVICES OFFICER
APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION
áÀlJA -tv!
CLAYTON D. WATTERS, MANAGER
ENGINEERING SERVICES
1 1
MAR
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM: PETER DUTCHAK, TECHNICAL SERVICES OFFICER
ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
DATE: JANUARY 2, 2001
SUBJECT: PLANK ROAD (COUNTY ROAD #19) AND CALTON LINE (COUNTY ROAD #45)
INTERSECTION SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
Introduction
On September 21, 2000 the Council of the Municipality of Bayham passed the following
resolution:
"WHEREAS there continues to be automobile accidents at the corner of Calton
Line (County Road #45) and Plank Road (County Road #19) causing considerable
danger to the health, safety and well-being of public road users, even though a
warning light has been installed;
AND WHEREAS THE Council of the Municipality of Bayham is desirous that such
danger to the public be minimized;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of the Municipality of Bayham
petitions the County of Elgin to consider viable options and undertake appropriate
measures to remedy this safety hazard."
Discussion
In a report to County Council dated April 12, 1999 an Intersection Control Beacon was
recommended to be installed subsequent to a petition by local residents and a letter from the
Municipality of Bayham. The beacon was installed and became functional on August 24th,
1999. On August 30th at 12 noon a fatal accident occurred at this location after a vehicle
stopped and then proceeded into the intersection into the path of an approaching vehicle. This
terrible incident unfortunately reaffirms that it is driver actions that cause most collisions and
roadway warning devices can only assist them in their decision making while driving.
At the intersection of Calton Line and Plank Road, seventy five percent (75%) of the police
reported accidents over the past 7 years were either eastbound/northbound or
westbound/southbound occurrences. This would most likely indicate that the angle of the
intersection contributed to these accidents since these collisions occurred at the acute angle of
the intersection.
Page 1 of 3
12
Page 2 of 3
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM: PETER DUTCHAK, TECHNICAL SERVICES OFFICER
ENGINEERING SERVICES
DATE: JANUARY 2,2001
SUBJECT: PLANK ROAD (COUNTY ROAD #19) AND CALTON LINE (COUNTY ROAD #45)
INTERSECTION SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
Discussion (continued)
The theory thought to cause these collisions occurs when motorists stopped at the approaches
to the intersection only look in either direction at 90 degrees from the direction their vehicle is
facing. At skewed intersections there will be one direction in which the motorist will not observe
approaching vehicles if they only look perpendicular from their stopped orientation. More effort
is required by the motorist to observe all approaching vehicles, however, it is possible to enter
this intersection safely as adequate sight distance is present in all directions.
In an attempt to reduce collisions at this intersection the approaches should be reconstructed to
a configuration that would encourage vehicles to stop at a perpendicular angle to Plank Road.
The Ministry of Transportation Geometric Design Standards Manual suggests that an angle of
skew in an intersection such as this one should be no greater than 10 degrees from
perpendicular. The existing intersection skew angle is 17 degrees from perpendicular and is
therefore not meeting current design standards.
The reconfiguration of the intersection would likely require the purchase of some adjacent
property. Substantial reconstruction is necessary to complete this reconfiguration, therefore, it
is recommended that the work be completed in conjunction with the proposed reconstruction of
Calton Line currently proposed in the 5 Year Capital Budget.
When the reconstruction of the intersection is completed it would be suggested that the existing
Intersection Control Beacon be removed. The reconfigured intersection will become a typical
County I County intersection and not warrant extraordinary warning devices.
Although adequate sight distance is technically present there are six (6) mature trees located on
the west side of Plank Road approximately 100 metres north of the intersection that restrict
further view. The removal of these trees would facilitate a greater sight distance for
approaching vehicles to be seen by vehicles stopped at the west approach on County Road
#45.
Conclusion
The Intersection Control Beacon now present at Plank Road and Calton Line is very effective to
notify approaching motorists of the existence of the intersection. It also suggests to motorists
that this intersection requires a greater amount of caution than a typical intersection.
13
Page 3 of3
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM: PETER DUTCHAK, TECHNICAL SERVICES OFFICER
ENGINEERING .SERVICES
DATE: JANUARY 2,2001
SUBJECT: PLANK ROAD (COUNTY ROAD #19) AND CALTON LINE (COUNTY ROAD #45)
INTERSECTION SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
Conclusion (continued)
It may be assumed that if the intersection was reconfigured to encourage vehicles to stop at a
perpendicular angle to Plank Road that the driver may be more likely to observe both directions
before entering into the intersection. This is the preferred and most costly solution. Once
completed it is suggested that the existing Intersection Control Beacon be removed.
Calton Line is currently proposed to be reconstructed from Plank Road to Richmond Road in
the 5 Year Capital Budget. This intersection reconstruction should be completed at that time.
Recommendation
THAT the intersection of County Road #19 (Plank Road) and County Road #45 (Calton Line) in
the Municipality of Bayham be reconstructed to create a perpendicular configuration to upgrade
the intersection to current design standards in an attempt to reduce potential collisions, and;
THAT the existing Intersection Control Beacon be removed upon completion of the project, and;
THAT the work be completed in conjunction with the reconstruction of County Road #45
currently proposed in the 5 year capital budget, and;
THAT the local municipality remove the trees on the west side of Plank Road north of the
intersection to facilitate greater sight distance.
RESPECT FULL Y SUBMITTED
~
PETER DUTCHAK,
TECHNICAL SERVICES OFFICER
APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION
(JðvJC4 -kr~
CLAYTON D. WATTERS, MANAGER
ENGINEERING SERVICES
MARK D
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
1 4
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM: PETER DUTCHAK, TECHNICAL SERVICES OFFICER
ENGINEERING SERVICES
DATE: JANUARY 3,2001
SUBJECT ROAD 4 ENGINEERING SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
Introduction
The County of Elgin has solicited engineering design and inspection services for the reconstruction of
Sunset Road (County Road #4) as directed by resolution from County Council in October 1999.
Sunset Road is an arterial semi-urban road with an MDT of 12,000. The road has a concrete base
overlain with successive layers of asphalt, which varies in depth from 150 mm to 220 mm. The original
concrete road was constructed around 1925 and rebuilt in 1955-56.
Discussion
The total cost to reconstruct County Road #4 from the City of St. Thomas limits to the Village of Port
Stanley limits is approximately $3 Million. The entire project is proposed to be completed during a four
(4) year time frame due to the enormous cost, to allow possible services to be installed and to allow any
road excavations to settle.
Year Section Operation Cost Estimate
2001 St. Thomas to Port Stanley Survey, Plan Creation and Design $ 60,000.00
2002 Fruit Ridge Line to Port Drainage, Lane Widening, $ 625,000.00
Stanley Ditching, Restoration, Inspection
2003 Fruit Ridge Line to St. Drainage, Lane Widening, $ 925,000.00
Thomas Ditching, Restoration, Inspection
2004 St. Thomas to Port Stanley Cold In Place Recycling, Hot Mix $ 1,425,000.00
Paving, Shouldering
During the first year the entire road will be surveyed and designed under this proposal. Once designed,
the project may be initiated at any time by Council. The work also does not have to follow the proposed
4 year time frame and can be completely finished in one year's time if Council wishes.
During the second year of the project, the south section of Sunset Road between Fruit Ridge Line and
the Port Stanley village limits is proposed to be reconstructed. During year three, the north section of
the road from Fruit Ridge Line north to the City of St. Thomas limits will be completed. The
reconstruction work proposed during the second and third years includes all word required to reconstruct
the road with the exception of the road surface rehabilitation. During the fourth year the entire 9.7
kilometres of roadway will be Cold In Place recycled and resurfaced with Hot Mix Asphalt to complete all
phases of the reconstruction.
1 5
Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM: PETER DUTCHAK, TECHNICAL SERVICES OFFICER
ENGINEERING SERVICES
DATE: JANUARY 3,2001
SUBJECT: ROAD 4 ENGINEERING SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
Discussion (continued)
Eight (8) engineering companies submitted proposals that varied greatly in scope and cost to complete
the detailed design, inspection and administration of the Sunset Road reconstruction.
The submissions were evaluated on 4 criteria and explained within the Request for Proposal document
given to each candidate. The evaluation criteria used to chose a firm were as follows: a) quality and
scope of the proposal, b) cost of engineering design and inspection, c) the experience, expertise and
organization of the consultant, and, d) the use of value engineering. The cost and experience items
were weighted at a value out of 20 and the quality and value engineering criteria were given a value out
of 10 to achieve a total score out of 60.
The Engineering Manager, Technical Services Officer and Construction Technician individually reviewed
the proposals and evaluated them on the criteria and scoring system described above. Earth Tech
(Canada) Inc. was unanimously chosen to have the best submission and fortunately also proposed the
lowest percentage fee structure.
Earth Tech (Canada) Inc. is a rapidly growing international leader in engineering, construction and
environmental services with annual revenues of $900 Million. They have most recently completed many
projects of similar scope and size in Southwestern Ontario. Some of these projects were: Highway #3
Road Rehabilitation - St. Thomas, Richmond Street Bridge Replacement - London, Fanshawe Park
Road Widening - London, Wonderland Road Widening - London and Highway 401 Improvements -
Windsor.
Earth Tech (Canada) submitted a percentage price of 3.7% for the engineering design and 3.3% for
inspection and administration of the total project cost if all design and construction work was completed
in 2001. With the proposed construction phasing into 2002 and 2003 the construction inspection and
contract administration services would be increased to 4% and 4.3% for 2002 and 2003 respectively to
reflect inflationary increases and additional activities that could no longer be completed in conjunction
with the design process.
The total project for which Earth Tech's services will be required is estimated at $1.5 Million and will
therefore translate into a design fee of $55,500.00 in the year 2001 and inspection fees of $25,000.00
and $39,975.00 in years 2002 and 2003 respectively. These fees are based on the percentages offered
by Earth Tech and use preliminary estimated total project costs and the yearly construction phasing
proposed.
Once Earth Tech completes the contract administration and inspection proposed in 2002 and 2003 the
Engineering Services department will complete the design, tendering, administration and inspection for
the asphalt surface restoration proposed in 2004. The surface rehabilitation of Road #4 would include:
Cold In Place Recycling, hot mix asphalt paving and gravel shouldering. Although expensive, these
operations will not require the same amount of time to administer and inspect as compared to the works
proposed in 2002 and 2003. For this reason County staff will co-ordinate these operations and inspect
the work and as a result save $114,000.00 in consulting fees when using the same percentage rates
offered by Earth Tech. 1 6
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM: PETER DUTCHAK, TECHNICAL SERVICES OFFICER
ENGINEERING SERVICES
Page 3 of 3
DATE: JANUARY 3,2001
SUBJECT: ROAD 4 ENGINEERING SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
Conclusion
The reconstruction of Sunset Road will cost approximately $3 Million Dollars and is proposed to be
completed over a four year period. Earth Tech (Canada) Inc. has submitted a proposal in which this
department has chosen to be the best to complete these works for the County.
Because of other capital priorities in 2001, it is recommended that only the detailed design for the
Sunset Road reconstruction be completed this year. The estimated cost for the design work is
$60,000.00. Once completely designed, the project could be initiated at any time and be completed in
as little as one year's time if funds were available and Council wished to do so.
It should be noted that Earth Tech's fees are based upon a percentage of the total project cost and
although our estimates are believed to be comprehensive they are based upon current contracted prices
and known conditions.
Recommendation
THAT Earth Tech (Canada) Inc. complete the detailed design for the Sunset Road Reconstruction
Project at an estimated cost of $ 60,000.00, and,
THAT Earth Tech (Canada) Inc. tender, inspect and administer the reconstruction of Sunset Road when
that work is scheduled by Council, and,
THAT the funds for the detailed design be allocated from the 2001 Engineering Services Capital Budget.
RESPECT FULL Y SUBMITTED
APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION
~
OìtJVL-\&
PETER DUTCHAK,
TECHNICAL SERVICES OFFICER
CLAYTON D. WATTERS, MANAGER
ENGINEERING SERVICES
.4dJ
MARK MCDONALD
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
17
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM: PETER DUTCHAK, TECHNICAL SERVICES OFFICER
ENGINEERING SERVICES
DATE: JANUARY 5,2001
SUBJECT: PLANK ROAD RECONSTRUCTION IN STRAFFORDVILLE AND EDEN
Introduction
The County of Elgin has proceeded to reconstruct Plank Road within the Village of Straffordville in
conjunction with the installation of sanitary sewer services completed by the Municipality of Bayham.
In 2001 roadwork initiated in Straffordville will be completed and sanitary services will be installed in
Eden and under Plank Road.
Discussion
Cyril J. Demeyere Limited Consulting Engineers are inspecting and administering the sewer and road
project for the Municipality of Bayham and the County of Elgin. In the summer of 2000 this firm provided
an estimated cost to the County to complete the County's share of the road reconstruction work. This
preliminary estimate was $643,000.00. In fact, the work completed in the year 2000 for the County of
Elgin totaled approximately $705,000.00. As directed by a previous Council report these funds were
made available from exhausting the Highway Transfer Reserve, any realized efficiencies in the 2000
Engineering Services Budget and the remainder to come from the Mill Rate Stabilization Fund.
Further road work is required in Straffordville to complete the road reconstruction project and will cost
the County an additional $475,000.00. This will bring the total cost to the County to complete the road
reconstruction works to approximately $1,180,000.00. This dollar figure also does not include a top lift of
asphalt to be installed until it is decided if future water services are to be installed in the Village. The
cost of the surface asphalt is approximately $115,000.00.
After a meeting with Mr. Cyril Demeyere the following items were cited to explain the substantial
increase in price to complete the County's share of the road reconstruction:
1. Additional work requested by the Municipality of Bayham after the initial estimate.
2. An additional 515 metres of road work, curb and gutter and storm sewer work to extend the
reconstructed area north of the hamlet to a location where the road was resurfaced.
3. Additional road culvert replacements not included in the original estimate due to their unknown
condition.
4. Additional work at intersections involving such items as sidewalks.
5. Substantial storm sewer work from the Straffordville Library north to the limits of the project.
6. Approximately $50,000.00 for additional earth filling at the north end of the project.
7. The addition of turning lanes at the intersection of Heritage Line and Plank Road.
8. Approximately $25,000.00 for utility relocates, material testing and sewer cleaning.
9. Land purchase and legal fees.
Page 1 of3
1 8
Page 2 of 3
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM: PETER DUTCHAK, TECHNICAL SERVICES OFFICER
ENGINEERING SERVICES
DATE: JANUARY 5,2001
SUBJECT: PLANK ROAD RECONSTRUCTION IN STRAFFORDVILLE AND EDEN
Discussion (continued)
Mr. Demeyere also indicated that the original estimate was based on existing tendered prices submitted
by the Contractor in the spring of 2000. When the Contractor was approached to complete these
additional works for the County, he did not honor those prices citing increased fuel costs and a change
in the complexity and scope of work. The unit prices the Contractor did offer were considered to be
satisfactory by Mr. Demeyere however they did increase.
As previously mentioned, sewer installation in Eden is proposed in 2001 by the Municipality of Bayham
and at that time the County has proposed to reconstruct the roadway and drainage infrastructure in
conjunction with that project. Over 40% of Plank Road within Eden will be disturbed during the sewer
installation and therefore it is logical to reconstruct the road in conjunction with that project as it was in
Straffordville. Completing the road reconstruction at the same time will yield a substantial financial
savings compared to completing the works at a later date. This single operation will also reduce the
inconveniences to the local rate payers and travelling public.
The proposed road work in Eden is very similar as completed in Straffordville. The work will involve
pulverizing the existing asphalt, installation of 300mm of Granular 'B', 150mm of Granular 'A', 60mm of
HL8 Hot Mix Asphalt, concrete curb and gutter and a storm sewer system.
Tenders were received to complete the combined sewer and road reconstruction project in Eden in
November 2000. The County's share of the road reconstruction work in Eden is $500,000.00 as
submitted by Classic Excavating Inc. Once again this price does not include the surface asphalt to
prepare for the possible installation of water services and to allow excavated areas to settle. The tender
price is based upon estimated quantities calculated and conditions investigated by Cyril J. Demeyere
Limited and may fluctuate.
Conclusion
The proposed road reconstruction in Straffordville and Eden will be completed in the year 2001. The total
cost of road work within the Village of Straffordville during the year 2000 was approximately $705,000.00
with an additional $475,000.00 to be spent in 2001 to complete the project.
The submitted tender price to reconstruct the County's share of Plank Road within the Hamlet of Eden is
approximately $500,000.00. It is necessary for Council to approve the proposed works in Eden before
the Engineering Services Capital Budget to facilitate tendering requirements and date restrictions
imposed between Classic Excavating and the Municipality of Bayham.
The surface asphalt in both areas will be installed in a later year once excavated areas have settled and
the potential to have water services installed is known.
1 9
Page 3 of3
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM: PETER DUTCHAK, TECHNICAL SERVICES OFFICER
ENGINEERING SERVICES
DATE: JANUARY 5,2001
SUBJECT: PLANK ROAD RECONSTRUCTION IN STRAFFORDVILLE AND EDEN
Recommendation
THAT the County of Elgin complete the road reconstruction project of Plank Road (County Road #19) in
Straffordville in 2001 for an estimated cost of $475,000.00, and,
THAT the County of Elgin complete the road reconstruction of Plank Road (County Road #19) in Eden
for the price of $500,000.00 as submitted by tender from Classic Excavating Inc. in conjunction with the
Municipality of Bayham's sanitary sewer project, and,
THAT these projects be funded by the Engineering Services 2001 Capital Budget.
RESPECT FULL Y SUBMITTED
APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION
(]M tit~
CLAYTON D. WATTERS, MANAGER
ENGINEERING SERVICES
PETER DUTCHAK,
TECHNICAL SERVICES OFFICER
MA'd:£f)
-
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
20
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM: PETER DUTCHAK, TECHNICAL SERVICES OFFICER
ENGINEERING SERVICES
DATE: JANUARY 9,2001
SUBJECT: WELLINGTON ROAD INTERSECTION RECONSTRUCTIONS AT FORD ROAD AND
MCBAIN LINE
Introduction
Over the past few years residential development has occurred at two new subdivisions on the west and
east sides of Wellington Road (County Road #25) in the Township of Southwold and the Municipality of
Central Elgin respectively.
Concerns have been raised by both municipalities in regards to traffic congestion and unsafe turning
movements due to the lack of turning and deceleration lanes at the intersections of Ford Road at
Wellington Road and McBain Line at Wellington Road. Traffic volumes have grown and are increasing
at these two intersections as the adjacent lands develop. The current intersection designs cannot
accommodate these changes.
Discussion
A meeting was hosted by the County on January 9, 2001 to discuss the proposed improvements with all
parties involved. The Municipality of Central Elgin, Township of Southwold, City of St. Thomas, and the
developer's engineering firm, Higgins Engineering, all attended the meeting.
Proposed design improvements were discussed and originated from information obtained from the 1996
Traffic Impact Study report completed by IMC Consulting Group Inc. That report had been required as
part of the subdivision process and forcasts traffic volumes and patterns. To accommodate the
additional traffic generated as a result of the developments the following improvements are proposed:
1. That Ford Road be realigned to enter onto Wellington Road approximately 160 meters north of
where it currently exists. Services have already been installed at this location.
2. That right and left turning lanes be installed on Wellington Road at Ford Road and Wellington Road
at McBain Line.
3. That the left turning lane at St. George Street would be improved due to the Ford Road relocation.
4. That the section of Wellington Road from the City of St. Thomas Limits Oust south of the Railway
Tracks) north to the Highway #3 south approach be posted at 50 km/h.
The Traffic Impact Study also projects that traffic signals will be warranted at the intersection of
Wellington Road and McBain Line once all proposed development areas have been completed. The
County of Elgin will not propose the installation of these traffic signals until the warrants have in fact
been met, however, the intersection will be designed to accommodate these signals in the future. In
2000 the Engineering Services Department conducted a thorough intersection traffic analysis and
determined that traffic signals were not warranted at this time.
Page 1 of 3
21
Page 2 of 3
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM: PETER DUTCHAK, TECHNICAL SERVICES OFFICER
ENGINEERING SERVICES
DATE: JANUARY 9,2001
SUBJECT: WELLINGTON ROAD INTERSECTION RECONSTRUCTIONS AT FORD ROAD AND
MCBAIN LINE
Discussion (continued)
The 50 km/h speed posting is necessary on Wellington Road to reflect the design speed used to
calculate the length of deceleration and storage lanes. This design speed ultimately decided the location
of the Ford Road relocation that has been already approved. If the speed was posted higher than 50
km/h the lane designs for St. George Street and Ford Road would be technically undersized. Increasing
the posted speed limit and not designing the road accordingly would expose the County to potential
liability.
All parties at the January èth meeting agreed that these works were required and should be completed
as soon as possible due to frequent complaints, safety issues and potential liabilities. It was also agreed
that because the Wellington Road property requires the greatest amount of work that the County should
co-ordinate the completion of the work. It is also logical to complete the realignment of Ford Road for
the Township of Southwold and the developer in conjunction with the Wellington Road work.
It has been understood and stated in the subdivision agreement, that a $100,000.00 letter of credit from
the developer resides with the Township of Southwold as a guarantee to complete the Ford Road
realignment. The County of Elgin will initiate the Ford Road work once a detailed construction estimate
is obtained from a consultant and enough funds reside within a letter of credit from the developer to
complete the proposed works. The existing $100,000.00 letter of credit may be a sufficient amount,
however it was based upon a construction estimate almost 3 years old.
To clarify the cost sharing of the proposed work it should be understood that the County of Elgin will only
fund work that is completed on the Wellington Road right of way. Without a development charges by-
law the County is responsible for 100% of the costs incurred for accommodating traffic on Wellington
Road as a result of the new development. A preliminary cost estimate to construct the additional lanes
on Wellington Road at the Ford Road and McBain Line intersections is $200,000.00. When the
proposed phases of development are completed an additional $100,000.00 may be required to install
traffic signals at the McBain Line intersection.
22
Page 3 of3
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM: PETER DUTCHAK, TECHNICAL SERVICES OFFICER
ENGINEERING SERVICES
DATE: JANUARY 9,2001
SUBJECT: WELLINGTON ROAD INTERSECTION RECONSTRUCTIONS AT FORD ROAD AND
MCBAIN LINE
Conclusion
Once we receive a formal request to initiate the works from the developer, the Engineering Services
Department will be proposing to reconstruct the intersections of Wellington Road at Ford Road and at
McBain Line as a capital project in 2001. The Ford Road realignment will also be included in that work
and be paid for by the developer as stated in the subdivision agreement with the Township of Southwold.
This work will require the area to be surveyed and designed to prepare construction drawings and
documents. The project will also need to be tendered, administered and inspected once a contractor
has been selected. Most importantly, the successful completion of the project is contingent upon good
communication and understanding of the existing agreements between the County, the municipalities
and the developer to ensure all needs are satisfied.
The total work is estimated at $300,000.00 and may cost approximately $30,000.00 for consulting
services. In order to follow the County's purchasing policy the consulting firm would be selected and
hired through a public advertisement. After Council's approval, a consultant could be hired by early
March 2001. That firm would then need to survey, design and prepare tender documents. Once
approved, a contractor could be selected by June 2001 and therefore construction could be completed
before the end of 2001.
Recommendation
THAT the Engineering Services Department be directed to advertise for Consulting Services for survey,
design, administration and inspection of the intersection reconstruction of Wellington Road at Ford Road
and at Wellington Road at McBain Line, and,
THAT these costs be funded under the year 2001 Engineering Services Capital Budget.
RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED
PETER~
TECHNICAL SERVICES OFFICER
APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION
ŒM0~
CLAYTON D. WATTERS, MANAGER
ENGINEERING SERVICES
¡¡;feILJ
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
23
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM: CLAYTON WATTERS, MANAGER
ENGINEERING SERVICES
DATE: NOVEMBER 30, 2000
SUBJECT: SANITARY SERVICES FOR THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
Introduction
The County of Elgin purchased the Administration building from the Ministry of Government
Services (MGS) in March of 1985. The original purchase agreement provided for MGS to
provide water, sewer and hydro services on a metered basis for a period not to exceed two
years from the date of closing. When the building was renovated in 1985 a metering system
was installed for hydro.
The arrangement for the two years from date of closing was later extended with the provision
that the province would provide two years notice to the County of Elgin prior to terminating
these services. The Ontario Reality Corporation in a letter dated January 5,1998 gave notice
that the services, sewer and water, will be terminated on January 5, 2000. The above notice
was given under the assumption the Ontario Psychiatric Hospital (OPH) would be closing within
two years. As we are aware the facilities were given an extension of five years which also
extended our notice.
This report deals with two issues. The first is to have a provider for our sanitary needs at the
end of the three-year agreement and secondly to sign an agreement with the Province of
Ontario for the provision of sanitary services for a three-year period.
Discussion
As of January 1, 2000 the County of Elgin has now been served notice that we have three
years to find another source for water and sanitary services because they will be terminated
through the OPH site. The County will need to find alternative sanitary services within two years
time. Council has recently discussed a solution to solve the contaminated water problem. The
future installation of sanitary services will involve the entire community in this area.
In order to find another supplier a Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) Process will
need to be followed. This process for Sanitary Sewage Projects is well defined and includes
purpose, description, justification, description of the possible alternatives, scope, geographic
area, affected environment, remedial measures, advantages and disadvantages to the
environment, studies, reports and background information. The sanitary servicing Class EA will
take one year or longer to complete. This process will encompass investigating all options
including a small package plant.
... 2
c:¿¡f
Page 2
FROM: CLAYTON WA TIERS, MANAGER
ENGINEERING SERVICES
DATE: NOVEMBER 30, 2000
SUBJECT: SANITARY SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR THE ADMINISTRATION BUilDING
Since the County of Elgin is the end user of the service, Central Elgin should be requested to
complete a sanitary servicing study I Class EA on behalf of the County of Elgin. The financial
commitment for this study is estimated at $100,000. The engineering firm who is selected to
complete the study should be requested to develop an appropriate cost sharing formula based
upon a benefit proportioned assessment. The study will benefit the County of Elgin, the
Municipality of Central Elgin and other parties.
The Administrator and Manager of Engineering Services have met with representatives from the
Government of Ontario to discuss formalizing a new agreement in regards to supplying water
and sanitary services through the OPH. This new agreement will extend the services as being
currently provided under the original purchasing agreement.
The following is a summary of the agreement:
· The OPH shall receive all sanitary sewage from existing use with the sewage collection
system for disposal into the City's sewage collection system
· The agreement is for duration of three years from January 1, 2000
· The agreement can be extended for a further two year period provided the Management
Board of Cabinet exercises the option
The funding for the supply of sanitary services is shown below as it has been proposed by the
OPH:
Year County's 15% Usage Rate per cubic Estimated costs with 1999 consumption
Share of Base meter volumes (2603 cubic meters)
Rate between
City and OPH
2000 $15,000 $0.3499 $15,000 + $910 = $15,910
2001 $11,250 $0.3967 $11,250 + $1,033 = $12,283
2002 $7,500 $0.4562 $7,500 + $1,188 = $8,688
2003 $0 $1.1901 (3x $0.4562) $3,098
2004 $0 $1.1901 (3x $0.4562) $3,098
The servicing agreements have been reviewed by the county solicitor and staff. In 2001 staff
will be bringing forward an agreement between the County of Elgin and the Management Board
of Cabinet for councils adoption based on the solicitors comments.
The existing infrastructure that is located on County Road 4, Sunset Drive, is presently owned
by the Government of Ontario, which is in the process of transferring ownership to the City of
St. Thomas.
...3
25
Page 3
FROM: CLAYTON WATTERS, MANAGER
ENGINEERING SERVICES
DATE: NOVEMBER 30, 2000
SUBJECT: SANITARY SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
Conclusion
Since the lower tier's provide services to the County of Elgin, Central Elgin should be requested
to undertake a Class EA for the provision of sanitary sewer servicing so that the County of Elgin
can abide by the terms of the agreement for treatment from the OPH. That agreement gives the
County of Elgin 3 years from January 1, 2000 to find another means for the treatment of the
sanitary sewage. The agreement as proposed may be extended for an additional 2 years if
agreed upon by all parties. Therefore, if the agreement was executed and extended, the
County could use the existing sanitary services from the OPH until January 1, 2005.
Recommendation
That the Municipality of Central Elgin be requested to undertake a Class Environmental
Assessment for the provision for sanitary sewer servicing for the Administration Building and
report back to the County of Elgin on the cost sharing formula and the time frame for the
discontinuance through the existing Ontario Psychiatric Hospital system, and further
That the Warden and Chief Administrative Officer be authorized to sign the agreement with the
Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet regarding the three year sewage agreement.
RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED
APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION
oxJ~~
CLAYTON D. WATTERS, MANAGER
ENGINEERING SERVICES
MARK D
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
26
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM: CLAYTON WA TIERS, MANAGER OF
ENGINEERING SERVICES
DATE: DECEMBER 31, 2000
SUBJECT: ONTARIO SUPERBUILD SPORTS, CULTURE AND TOURISM PARTNERSHIP
Introduction
The Ontario Government, through the Superbuild Fund is investing in a new initiative to renew,
improve and expand local sport, recreation, culture and tourism (SCTP) facilities across the
province. Th initiative will also invest in major cultural and tourist attractions owned by provincial
agencies and not for profit organizations.
The objectives for the infrastructure program are as follows:
· bringing a facility into compliance with building and fire codes
· bringing facility into compliance with safety and environmental standards
· increasing the safety of participants, spectators and audiences
· installation of ramps, railings or elevator
· vehicle access to enhance accessibility for persons with disabilities.
Discussion
SCTP is a five-year, $300 million program with several rounds of funding. Round 1 will include
two applications options. Option 1 for public health and safety and Option 2 for new, expansion
and renovation projects.
Municipalities applying to the SCTP initiative must provide assurance (in the form of a council
resolution) that they are in compliance or in the process of coming into compliance with the new
drinking Water protection Regulation
Applications for projects to improve the quality and condition of local or regional community
facilities can be proposed under the SCTP's municipal stream, which is open municipalities,
local services boards, First Nations and not-for-profit or private organizations, with municipal
endorsement. The appropriate local authority must pass a resolution indicating the project is
their communities highest sports, culture and tourism infrastructure priority. Each eligible
applicant can submit or endorse one application per investment round.
The County of Elgin has an opportunity to apply to the SuperBuild Sports, Culture and Tourism,
under the Round 1, for public health and safety improvements. The requirements are to ensure
compliance with the building code, fire code, environmental standards and to safeguard the
safety of participants, spectators, audiences and staff. These proposed upgrades will also
improve the handicap accessibility for the building and would satisfy building code
requirements.
27
...2
Spòrts, Culture and Tourism Partnerships Initiative
.
Sample Municipal Resolution for Round 1
(Options 1 and 2) Applicants*
.
WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the of
(the "Municipality") has received and considered the Government of Ontario SuperBuild Corporation
Sports, Culture and Tourism Partnerships ("SCTP") initiative Round 1 Application Guidebook (the
"Guidebook");
AND WHEREAS Council has assessed its capital priorities against the SCTP initiative Round 1 application
requirements as set out in the Guidebook and intends to submit a letter of intent for qualifying the
" " project (the "Project") for funding
under Round 1 of the" SCTP initiative;
AND WHEREAS Council confirms that the MuniCipality is compliant or in the process of gaining compliance
with the new Ministry of Environment Drinking Water Protection Regulation, Ontario Regulation 459/00
made August 9, 2000 ("DWPR");
AND WHEREAS Council considers the Project to be its highest sport, recreational, cultural or tourism
infrastructure priority for the Municipality;
[NOTE: add the following clause for Option 2 projects only:]
AND WHEREAS Council confirms that the Municipality does not have any outstanding public health and
safety issues or projects affecting its existing sport, recreational, cultural and tourism facilities;
AND WHEREAS Council" has made this resolution on the understanding that the recitals set out herein will
be relied upon by the Ontario SuperBuild Corporation in considering the Project application for funding
under Round 1 of the SCTP initiative;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the of hereby
resolves that the Clerk is directed to submit a letter of intent to the Ontario SuperBuild Corporation
respecting the qualification of the Project for funding under Round 1 of the SCTP initiative.
Enacted and passed this
day of
,2000.
Mayor/Reeve
Clerk/Clerk - Treasu rer
[Corporate Seal]*
NOTE: this form of resolution is to be utilized with all necessary changes by local authorities
(e.g. local services boards) submitting a letter of intent to qualify a project for SCTP initiative
Round 1 funding which are not municipal corporations.
30
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM: CLAYTON WATTERS, MANAGER
ENGINEERING SERVICES
PAGE 2.
DATE: DECEMBER 31,2000
SUBJECT: ONTARIO SUPERBUILD SPORTS, CULTURE AND TOURISM PARTNERSHIP
The Elgin County Pioneer Museum qualifies for the SuperBuild funding because of the
deficiencies listed below, The building consists of the original 1848 Duncombe Residence and a
1970 addition. The original residence is constructed of wood framing on rubble stone
foundations. A seven-foot deep utility basement is located in the northwest corner, the
remainder of the original house is over a shallow crawlspace with exposed earth floor.
There are several safety issues that should be addressed involving the structure, masonry, roof
systems, life-safety systems and hazardous materials. Improving the accessibility for handicap
tourists would also be investigated.
A site visit in the fall of 2000 by an architect and a structural engineer provided an initial review
of the building condition.
The following is a list of the major improvements
Health and Safety $125,000
Remedial structure work, provide fire separations, extend fire alarm
systems, exit signage, emergency lighting, hazardous material survey and
abatement.
Accessibility Enhancements $60,000
Modify exterior entry and sidewalk, provide barrier free washroom facilities
General Improvements $30,000
Exterior, mechanical and electrical repairs and upgrades, interiors and
landscaping
Contingency $33,000
Professional Fees $32,000
GST $20,000
Total . $300,000
Conclusion
The County has only one building that qualifies under the Health and Safety criteria for the
SuperBuild Sports, Culture and Tourism Partnerships.
The exact determination of costs to be shared by the SuperBuild Fund and the County will be
calculated after receipt of the application. Once the County's share is determined, Council may
decide whether or not to proceed with the project.
... 3
28
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM: CLAYTON WATTERS, MANAGER
ENGINEERING SERVICES
PAGE 3.
DATE: DECEMBER 31, 2000
SUBJECT: ONTARIO SUPERBUILD SPORTS, CULTURE AND TOURISM PARTNERSHIP
Council must pass a resolution and submit a letter of intent by February 2, 2001. Project
applications are required by March 31,2001.
Another application could be made under Option #2, New, Expansion and Renovation projects
for the archives area by the Manager of Library Services under Round 2 of the funding process.
Recommendation
That the Warden and Chief Administrative Officer be directed and authorized to sign the
attached sample resolution for Round 1 for the SuperBuild; and,
That, Council will determine its level of participation (financial), if any, once the contribution
formula has been announced.
RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED
~\h
CLAYTON D. WATTERS, MANAGER
ENGINEERING SERVICES
APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION
Mifi1D
~
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
29
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM: CLAYTON WA TIERS, MANAGER
ENGINEERING SERVICES
DATE: DECEMBER 4,2000
SUBJECT: KING GEORGE LIFT BRIDGE IN PORT STANLEY
Introduction
At the October 24, 2000 County Council meeting the following resolution was passed:
" to consider the possibility of the County of Elgin taking over responsibility and ownership of the
Port Stanley lift bridge, with Central Elgin continuing to maintain the bridge. The Manager of
Engineering Services was directed to investigate the structural integrity of the bridge and
operating costs, in consultation with Central Elgin staff, and report back to County Council at a
later date."
The Port Stanley Lift Bridge has a span of 45.7 meters and was built in 1938. The bridge has a
triple posting limit of 22 t, 20 t and 18 tonnes. The estimated cost to replace this structure
would be in the range of approximately $3,000,000.00 to $5,000,000.00.
Discussion
This type of lift or "bascule" structure is unique and somewhat uncommon with fewer than 1 00
remaining in Ontario. The inspection and appraisal of such a structure is also a unique service
in that it requires input from three different professional engineering disciplines. Structural,
mechanical and electrical engineers must all examine and evaluate their respective
components in order to complete a comprehensive and thorough report. Because of the
specialized service required, this department has requested a quotation from a firm known to
provide quality results with specific experience with this type of structure. Burgess Engineering
Inc. is the preferred supplier of this service as defined in the County's Purchasing Policy
Burgess Engineering Inc. has years of experience in the inspection and design of structures in
the province with the majority of that experience emanating from the Ministry of Transportation
Structural Head Office in Toronto. This firm's expertise is with structural components and they
will therefore sub-contract services from M.R. Bryne to complete the mechanical and electrical
components of the inspection. M.R. Bryne and Associates Limited are considered to be
specialists in movable bridges with involvement in 10 structures over the past 10 years.
The objective of the report is to obtain a professional opinion on the condition of the structural,
mechanical, and electrical systems. The firm will inspect all components that are visually
accessible and will observe the bridge operate through a number of cycles. The report will also
provide a list of the expected corrective actions required and provide estimated maintenance
and capital costs over a 10 to 15 year time frame.
...2
31
Page 2
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM: CLAYTON WATTERS, MANAGER
ENGINEERING SERVICES
DATE: DECEMBER 4,2000
SUBJECT: KING GEORGE LIFT BRIDGE IN PORT STANLEY
Discussion (cont'd)
Presently two London firms collaborate on the maintenance and inspections for the structural,
mechanical and electrical components. The Bridge Code dictates that a formal inspection be
completed every two years. A review of a report prepared, for the Municipality of Port Stanley,
in March of 1997 is now four years old. This information while useful, does not adhere to the
Bridge Code. Therefore the lack of a formal report less than two years old and conflicting
information on the condition of the bridge, justifies the need for the County to solicit an
independent engineering firm to provide a current status of the bridge.
Conclusion
This report will help with the maintenance of either Corporation who may have ownership in the
future and will obtain a different perspective on the current condition of the structure.
Recommendation
THAT Burgess Engineering Incorporated complete the structural, mechanical and electrical
inspection of the King George Lift Bridge, that will ensure compliance with the Bridge Code, at
the quoted price of $22,500 plus G.S.T.; and,
THAT the Municipality of Central Elgin be requested to fund 50% of the total cost of the King
George Lift Bridge inspection report commissioned by the County of Elgin; and,
THAT the remaining 50% of the total cost to create the report be funded by the 2001
Engineering Services Budget.
RES~; SUBMIITED
CLAYTON D. WATTERS, MANAGER
ENGINEERING SERVICES
APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION
MAR
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
32
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM: JUSTIN LAWRENCE, ENGINEERING SERVICES
DATE: JANUARY 5,2001
SUBJECT: UPDATE TO MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS
Introduction
As per County Council's request, Engineering Services discussed the Maintenance Agreements
in detail with the local Road Superintendents.
Discussion
At the working meeting with the local Road Superintendents, several concerns were mitigated
and three were incorporated into the final agreements. The first concern was an omission of
the flashing beacons at #25 and #52. This was corrected in the Southwold Maintenance
Agreement.
The second concern was concerning the updating of the payments to the Municipalities for
maintenance, by the Consumer Price Index. It was determined that the most appropriate way
to update the payments would be to use the October year over year Ontario CPI for the
increase in the following years payments. Each of the seven agreements was updated to
reflect this change.
The third concern was from Lloyd Perrin of Central Elgin. His comment was that the
Municipalities should be held harmless from capital projects initiated or run by the County. For
instance, Municipalities should not be liable for a traffic accident associated with a paving
operation run by the County. The exact wording of a clause to be added to each of the seven
agreements is being created in consultation with the County solicitor Steve Gibson. The clause
will state that the Municipalities will be held harmless from work initiated or contracted by the
County. At the time of writing this report, the exact phrasing is not available.
Before signing of the maintenance agreements can take place, both the County Council and the
lower-tier municipalities must adopt resolutions to formally accept the agreements in their
current form.
33
...continued on Page 2
Page 2
FROM: JUSTIN LAWRENCE, ENGINEERING SERVICES
DATE: JANUARY 5,2001
SUBJECT: UPDATE TO MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS
Conclusion
Three modifications to the Maintenance Agreements were included after consultation with the
local Road Superintendents and the County solicitor. To complete the final copies of the
maintenance agreements between the lower-tiers and the County, it is necessary to have both
parties adopt resolutions authorizing their intent to enter into the agreement
Recommendation
THAT the County adopts a resolution to formally accept the maintenance agreements
between the County and the Lower-Tiers as amended, and,
THAT Engineering Services forward the final draft maintenance agreements back to the
lower-tiers so they can adopt resolutions to formally accept them.
RESPECT FULL Y SUBMITTED
!ß ~~
JU TIN LAWRENCE, P.ENG
ENGINEERING SERVICES
APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION
()M/~
CLAYTON D. WATTERS, MANAGER
ENGINEERIN VICES
MARK LD
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
34
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM: JUSTIN LAWRENCE, ENGINEERING SERVICES
DATE: JANUARY 5,2001
SUBJECT: SKEWED INTERSECTIONS
Introduction
Elgin County Council requested Engineering Services to assess other solutions in regard to
improving safety at Ron McNeil Line and Imperial Road.
Discussion
The intersection in question is a skewed intersection. This type of intersection can either be a
left skewed or right skewed as shown in the sketch below. There is a noted concern with
accidents occurring at the acute angles of both types of this intersection. Drivers have
difficulty spotting approaching vehicles on the acute angled side when stopped, possibly due
to blind spots or the larger required rotation of the body and neck.
In the past, Engineering Services has painted lines that lead motorists to stop more squarely at
left skewed intersections in an attempt to reduce traffic accidents. Lines of this design have
been painted at the intersection of #36 and #45. Data to suggest whether this method has
been successful or not will take years to compile. It appears as though some vehicles follow
the new lines and some ignore them. The addition of a concrete ripple island, as shown in the
attached Elgin County Standard Drawings, could serve to further promote drivers to square their
vehicles to the intersection.
c:::::::J -7
,- &-
~J;
~c:::::::J
~,\
Left Skewed Intersection
Right Skewed Intersection
35
...continued on Page 2
Page 2 of2
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM: JUSTIN LAWRENCE, ENGINEERING SERVICES
DATE: JANUARY 5,2001
SUBJECT: SKEWED INTERSECTIONS
Discussion continued
The estimated cost of installing two ripple islands at an intersection is $3000 and would take
one day to complete. There would be cost savings if two or more were installed at once. The
process would include cutting and removing the asphalt, preparing the base, pouring the
concrete, finishing the ripples, and painting the centre line markings. The suggested standard
for Concrete Ripple Islands is attached.
Unfortunately the concrete ripple island solution can not be implemented on a right skewed
intersection. The concrete ripple island would need to be on the right side of stopping vehicles
which would locate it in the path of right turning vehicles. The only other solution is to realign
the intersection at considerable cost.
Conclusion
The ultimate solution to reduce traffic accidents at skewed intersections is a complete
realignment. Unfortunately, realigning intersections is cost prohibitive and could require
extensive property purchases. Installation of a concrete ripple island as per the proposed
County of Elgin policy would greatly aid in squaring up motorists at left skewed intersections. A
suitable intersection to install a test case would be Imperial Road and Ron McNeil Line.
Recommendation
THAT Concrete Ripple Islands as per the suggested County of Elgin policy be installed as a test
case at the intersection of Imperial Road and Ron McNeil Line and be evaluated and reported
back to Council at a later date.
TIN LAWRENCE, P.ENG
GINEERING SERVICES
APP¡¡¡SUBMISSION
CLAYTON D. WATTERS, MANAGER
ENGINE RIN RVICES
RESPECT FULL Y SUBMITTED
MAR D
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
36
LEFT SKEWED INTERSECTION
NOTES
I
1. Exact layout will vary depending on intersection alignment.
The objective is to ensure vehicles stop squcrely to the
intersecting road.
2. See Standard Drawing - 3.05 for details.
3. Point markings !lll..!itl: Ripple Island is installed. Use standord
materials and dimensions.
,
COUNTY
OF ELGIN
CONCRETE RIPPLE
ISLAND
STANDARD DRAWING - 3.04
PROJECI'FILENAME: RIPPLE_ISLANDDWG
37
DRAWN BY: J.Lawrence
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE
DATE: JANUARY 5, 2001
E.C.S.D. - 3.04
m
~'~~
A
.
Contraction Joint
I
.
4
4000l"lM
!'tQX.
".J .~
10mm Expansion Joint
(See Note 1)
I (¡ :."
j-j5 20MM
m
PLAN VIEW
SECTION B-B
l-i:50MM
I r-eo:M
.
"
. 2~--". -1
4 . .
4 301"11"1
"4
"
4' . 4'
.
Asphalt Pavement
(Varies in depth)
~,.
4
.
.
4
.
Concrete Ripple Island
(Some depth as Asphalt)
SECTION A - A
NOTES
COUNTY
OF ELGIN
1. Expansion ond Contraction joints to be spaced at 0
maximum of 4.0m.
2. Asphalt depth varies. Pour concrete to match specific
depth.
CONCRETE RIPPLE
ISLAND
STANDARD DRAWING - 3.05
PROJECTFlLENAME: RlPPLE_ISLAND.DWG
DRAWN BY: I.Lawrence
38
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE
DATE: JANUARY5,2001
E.C.S.D. - 3.05
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM: Mark McDonald, Chief Administrative Officer
DATE: January 9th, 2001
SUBJECT: WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN
Introduction:
The final, consolidated Waste Management Master Plan has been circulated to Council
under separate cover. The plan was prepared by S.H. Janes and Associates following
approval of the expansion of Green Lane and the negotiation of waste management
collection contracts by local municipalities.
Discussion:
The Report has recently been compiled into final form even though it is dated December
1998. With the conclusion of Green Lane's expansion application and with the execution
of waste management agreements throughout the County, the Report diminished in
priority. However, Council should formally approve the Master Plan to satisfy the Ministry
of the Environment's requirements and to finalize the public record.
Conclusion:
The adoption of the Waste Management Master Plan is a housekeeping item which
completes all ministerial requirements.
Recommendation:
That the Report to the County of Elgin and the City of St. Thomas on Waste Management
Planning which includes the Waste Management Master Plan and the Background to the
Waste Management Master Plan dated December 1998 be approved.
All of which is res ectfully submitted,
Mark G. McDonald,
Chief Administrative Officer.
39
r-
r
-
r-
I
I
¡
I
r
r
\
í;'
REPORT
to the
COUNTY OF ELGIN
and the
CITY OF ST. THOMAS
on
WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANNING
PART 1
WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN
PART 2
BACKGROUND TO THE WASTE
MANAGEMENT MASTERPLAN
S.H. Janes & Associates
December 1998
PART 1
WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN
r
r -
I
PART 1
r
I
Section 1
Section 2
Section 2.1
Section 2.2
Section 2.3
Section 2.4
Section 2.5
Section 2.6
Section 2.7
Section 2.8
Section 2.9
Section 2.10
Section 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN
Introduction
Principles of the Waste Management Master Plan
Responsibility for the Preparation of the Plan
Responsibility for the Implementation of the Plan
The Waste Management Plan for Elgin County
and the City of St. Thomas
Term of the Plan
Contracting out landfill and recyclable and
organic material processing sernces
Contracting out Waste Management Facilities and Sernces
Monitoring the Waste Management Plan and Sernces
Basis for Sernce Charges
Contingency Plan
Updating the Waste Management Plan
Waste Management Sernce Area Considerations
Section 4
Summary of the Organizational Arrangements for Waste
Management Sernces
Page 1
Page 1
Page 1
Page 1
Page 1
Page 3
Page 3
Page 3
Page 3
Page 3
Page 3
Page 4
Page 4
Page 4
I
r
PART 1
WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN
r-
,
r-
1. INTRODUCTION
The County of Elgin and the separated municipality of the City of St. Thomas have undertaken to prepare
a Waste Management Master Plan for the orderly and environmentally responsible management of solid
waste generated within the County of Elgin and the City of St. Thomas. This Plan outlines the approach
selected for the collection and disposal of solid wastes and for the collection and processing of recyclable
and organic materials. The following sections set out the principals of the Plan and related matters.
r--
i
I
I
2. PRINCIPLES OF THE WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTERPLAN
2.1 Responsibility for the Preparation of the Plan
The County of Elgin and the City of St. Thomas are responsible for the preparation of a Waste
Management Plan, which will be adopted separately by the County and City. The County, not having the
legislative authority to adopt a Plan will recommend this Plan to local County municipalities for their
consideration.
2.2 Responsibility for Implementation of the Plan
Those municipalities who wish to adopt the Plan will implement the Waste Management Plan. Each will
determine the range of services to be provided to their respective municipality including: _ the setting of
collection schedules and the canying out of these services, including the collection and disposal of mixed
wastes; and the collection and processing of recyclable materials including organic materials and the
manufacturing of compost.
2.3 The Waste Management Plan for Elgin County and the City of St. Thomas
Collection and disposal of mixed wastes and the processing of recyclable materials and organic materials
will be contracted out on an open public tender basis to the private sector.
Responsibility for the delivery of waste management services will be divided between the participating
County municipalities and the City of St. Thomas. The County and City have jointly assnmed
responsibility for the preparation of a Waste Management Master. The monitoring o~ waste management
quantities will continue to be the responsibility of the local County municipalities and the City of St.
Thomas.
The following municipalities will be responsible for the delivery of waste management services within
their respective jurisdictions:
CITY
· The City of St. Thomas
COUNTY MUNICIPALITIES
· The Municipality of Bayham/Port BurweWVienna
· The Town of Aylmer
· The Municipality ofMalahide/South Dorchester/Springfield
I
2
I
I
· The Municipality of Central Elgin
· The Township of Southwold
· The Municipality ofDutton-Dunwich
· The Municipality of West Elgin
r
County municipalities, that have assumed waste management service contracts of the pre-merger
municipalities, will enter into the necessary contractual arrangements to extend or otherwise moditÿ these
contracts. Providing for the delivery of collection and disposal services will be the respoUSlòility of the
local municipalities and may be contracted out by the local municipality to the private sector or cauied out
by the municipality. Contracts with the private sector will deal with the following:
· landfill waste disposal
· payment of royalties and other special fees to the host and supporting
municipalities;
· identification and provision of transfer stations for public convenience in
the east, west and central areas of the County and the posting of operating
timetables and the char&es, if any, for the materials received at the transfer
station;
· collection of mixed wastes, recyclable materials and organic materials from
identified generators; posting of service schedules, collection
arrangements for pick-up, and the provision of containers for organic
collection where required;
· arrangements for the handling of municipal hazardous wastes;
· processing and revenue from the sale of recyclable materials;
· processing of organic materials and the manufacture of compost and its
placemen1/sale;
Local municipalities will determine the ftequency of curbside collection of mixed wastes and recyclable
materials. All urban areas will provide cw:bside collection services while the service to rural areas will be
at the municipality's option. Municipal recyclable material collection services will, however, meet the
'Ministry of the Environment and Energy Regulation 101194, Schedules I, 2 and 3.
The County will provide to the local municipalities a "template" agreement for the municipalities to
consider in drafting their agreement with a waste management service supplier.
In the west end of Elgin County two existing landfills, the Dunwich Landfill and the AJdborough Landfill,
handle waste disposal for a service area that includes the new municipalities ofDutton-Dunwich and West
Elgin. Based on Ministry of the Environment and Energy evaluations these sites have an operating life to
at least 2002. These landfills will continue to be operated independently by each municipalities and upon
closure these two local municipalities will determine their future arrangements for waste management and
the disposal of wastes generated within each municipalities. In this regard it is recommended that
consideration be given to entering into waste management contracts with the same supplier(s) serving
other County local municipalities. It is recommended that the term of these future contracts mesh with
the terms of the existing municipal waste management contracts and with any closure schedules
determined for these IandfiJls.
The new municipalities ofDutton-Dunwich and West Elgin will be responsible for the closure and
perpetual care management of their respective landfills. In order to resolve the question of site life and
the requirements for closure and perpetual care, the municipalities should undertake to prepare Design
and Operations (0&0) reports for the landfills and should submit these for the approval by the Ministry
of Environment and Energy under Regulation 299 of the Environmental Protection Act. This would
provide the basis for amendments to the current Certificates of Approval for these two landfills and would
determine the approved capacity of these landfills and the rate of filling.
3
2.4 Term of the Plan
The Plan is to be effective until June 30th, 2018.
2.5 Contracting ont landíIII and recyclable and organic material processing services
The County and City will select, through an open public tender, a preferred supplier of landfill and waste
processing services and will negotiate a cost effective arrangement with this supplier for the City and local
municipalities for consideration by the City and by the local municipalities. The local municipalities will
determine whether or not to accept this arrangement and, if accepted, it will be implemented by separate
agreements between the local municipality and the service supplier. S~ect to an agreement in respect to
costs, the County and City will support the service supplier, in obtaining the necessary environmental and
operational approvals from the MOEE, as it relates to the County. As it relates to the County and City,
local municipalities will not be bound to the preferred service supplier but will be able to obtain
competitive proposals to satisfY their respective service requirements.
The County and City will seek assurances that any preferred supplier of services selected and supported by
the County and City Win provide a guarantee of disposal capacity at a fair and reasonable costs for all
waste generators in the County and City including all local municipalities and all commercial, industrial
and institutional waste generators. Such guarantee will be incorporated into the Certificates of Approval
granted to such service supplier.
2.6 Contracting out Waste Management Facilities and Services
Mixed waste disposal, recycling and material processing facilities will be contracted out to the private
sector. The County and City will not undertake to provide these services and all services will be
contracted out except as currently provided in West Elgin and in Dutton-Dunwich.
2.7 Monitoring the Waste Management Plan and Services
The City of St. Thomas will monitor the Waste Management Plan and the provision of services in the
City. Each local municipality in the County will be responsible for monitoring the provision and
operation of its waste management services.
2.8 Basis for Service Charges
The County and City, through an open public tender approach, will seek the most appropriate charge basis
for the range of services included in the contract proposal and the basis for adjustment to these charges
over the duration of the coiltract(s) to accommodate inflation and other costs beyond the supplier's
control. These charges may be combined into an all-inclusive per household fee that covers all the
services. Alternatively they may be based on separate functions such as collection and transportation to
the point of processing and/or disposal with a separate contract for disposal and/or processing.
2.9 Contingency Plan
The County and City will develop and adopt a Contingency Plan in the eveut that any waste management
components for disposal and processing are interrupted The Contingency Plan will provide for the
following:
. waste disposal and recycled material processing facilities approved by the
MOEE to serve the County local municipalities and the City of St. Thomas
and which are capable of continuing the interrupted service. The County
and City will support the expansion of service areas for municipal and
I
r
privately owned landfills and other waste management facilities that may
be licensed to handle El&ill County and St. Thomas wastes;
. subject to the collection contract arrangements entered into by the local
municipality, waste disposal and processing facilities for local
municipalities that inclnde collèction contracts and the provision of
transfer stations in accordance with this Plan;
2.10 Updating ofthe Waste Management Plan
The County and City will undertake a formal review of this Plan no later than June 30th, 2008 and June
30th, 2013 and will determine whether the County and City will continue:
I-
I
(i) to maintain the principals of the Plan,
(ii) to continue with the contractual arrangements with the preferred service supplier for
a following term,
(ill) to alter the conditions of the service contract or;
(iv) to terminate the contract and to initiate an alternative course of action.
3. WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICE AREA CONSIDERATIONS
Although the County and City anthority in Waste Management is limited to the geographic area of the
County of Elgin, it is recognized that the facilities owned by the private and municipal sector, which may
provide services to the County and City, may provide a larger service area in order to be viable from an
economic standpoint. Should these fucilities require support from the County and City in order to obtain
the regulatory approvals required to provide the desired service, the County and City may provide this
support.
4. SUMMARy OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR WASTE
MANAGEMENT SERVICES
The County of Elgin and the City of St. Thomas have undertaken to prepare a Waste Management Master
Plan that clearly delegates the responsibilities for the provision of waste management services to the local
municipalities and to the separated municipality of the City of St. Thomas. Local municipalities, that are
now strengthened throngh mergers effective in 1998, will continue to be responsible for all aspects of
waste management for their respective municipal areas. Responsibilities may be summarized as follows:
County of Elgin/City of Sf. Thomas responsibilities
to prepare a Waste Management Plan for local municipal consideration;
to select a preferred waste management service supplier for consideration by the
local municipalities including the City of St. Thomas;
to prepare a Contingency Plan for consideration by local municipalities should their
waste management services be disrupted;
to support the establishment of alternative disposal services that could potentially
accommodate the waste disposal needs of the County local municipalities and the
City of St. Thomas;
4
r
5
r-
County of Elgin
to recommend a preferred service supplier for consideration by the local County
municipalities;
to prepare and recommend a "template" waste management service agreement for
consideration by the local County municipalities;
I
Local County municipalities and the City of St. Thomas
to set local municipal standards for the supply of waste management services
including local collection of mixed wastes; the collection of recyclable materials and
organic materials; and the provision of transfer stations for general public and
commercial use;
to enter into contracts with the waste management industIy to provide local waste
management services;
to monitor the provision of local waste management services;
r
r-
I-
I
The above noted listing of waste management responsibilities will permit the County and the local
municipalities, including the separated City of 81. Thomas, to efficiently and effectively implement the
waste management master plan.
I
I
r
I
I
r-
I
I
PART 2
I·
I
BACKGROUND TO THE WASTE
MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN
r
r
r
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART 2
BACKGROUND TO THE WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTERPLAN
Section 1
Introductiou
Section 2
Development of the Plan
r
I
Section 2.1
Background
Section 3
County/City Waste Management Planning
Section 3.1 Organizing for the Preparation of the Plan
Section 3.2 Basis of the Plan
Section 3.2.1 Determining the Study Area
Section 3.2.2 Waste Disposal Alternatives
Section 3.2.3 Waste Management Planning Period
Section 3.2.4 Waste Tonnages Being Generated in Elgin
County and Landfill Capacity Reqnirements
Section 4 Overview of Waste Management and 3R Activities
in Elgin. County/City of St Thomas
Section 4.1 General
Section 4.2 County Municipalities' Waste Management
Arrangements
Section 4.2.1 Oveniew
Section 4.2.2 Collection of Wastes and Recyclable Materials
Section 4.2.3 Processing of Recyclable Materials
Section 4.2.4 Materials to be Collected
Section 4.2.5 City of St Thomas
Section 4.2.6 County of Elgin Municipalities
Section 4.2.6.1 West Elgin
Section 4.2.6.2 Aylmer
Page 1
Page 1
Page 6
Page 9
Page 9
Page 9
Page 10
Page 10
Page 14
Page 14
Page 14
Page 14
PagelS
PagelS
Page 16
Page 17
Page 19
Page 19
Page 19
I-
f Table of Contents (continued)
I Section 4.2.6.3 BayhamlPort BnrweWVienna Page 20
Section 4.2.6.4 Central Elgin Page 21
Section 4.2.6.5 Dutton-Dunwich Page 21
Section 4.2.6.6 MalahidelSouth Dorchester/Springfield Page 22
Section 4.2.6.7 Southwold Page 22
Section 5 New Trends in Waste Management Page 23
Section 6 Diversion Strategy Committee's Recommendations
.on Waste Reduction Planning Page 26
Section 6.1 Introduction Page 26
Section 6.2 Facility Operations Page 26
Section 6.3 Blue Box Collection and WetlDry Collection Systems Page 27
Section 6.4 Recyclable Materials Collected Page 28
Section 6.5 Composting Page 28
Section 6.6 Mixed Waste Collection Page 28
Section 6.7 Education to .the Public Page 29
Section 6.8 Household Hazardous Wastes Page 29
Section 6.9 Contr;lctual Approach to 3R Programs/Collection!
Waste Disposal Page 30
Section 6.10 Summary of DSC Recommendations Page 31
Section 7 Waste Management Alternatives to be Considered
by Elgin County and Sf. Thomas Page 33
Section 7.1 Common Elements Page 33
Section 7.2 Satisfying the County/City Requirement for a
Landf"ill for Residual Materials Page 33
Section 7.2.1 Background Page 33
Section 7.2.2 Landf"ill Operational Costs Page 34
Section 7.2.3 Review of Alternative Waste Disposal Solutions Page 36
Section 7.3 Scope of Senices Required by the County and City Page 41
r
I
r
Table of Contçnts (continned)
Section 8 Developing. the Solution
Section 8.1 Requests for Proposals
Section 8.2 Finalizing the Waste Management Plan
Section 8.3 Carrying out the WMMP
Section 8.4 Updating the WMMP
Section 8.5 Contingency Plan
Page 45
Page 45
Page 46
Page 46
Page 47
Page 47
r
I
r
I
I
I
I
[
PART 2 BACKGROUND TO THE WASTE MANAGEMENT MASTERPLAN
1
1.
INTRODUCTION
Over the past several years waste management has emerged as a major operational
consideration for municipal governments and, with the introduction of mandatory 3R
programs, the scope of waste management has broadened significantly. Today, however, with
the restructuring of local government across Ontario and the increased stress on service delivery
efficiencies, an emphasis is being made on the streamlining of local government and the delivery
of services. To cover the breadth of issues that now must be considered in the development of
this Plan, the presentation is divided into two parts; Part 1 Waste Management Master Plan.;
and Part 2 Background to the Waste Management Master Plan. The second part traces the
County and City activities in developing the Plan.
2. DEVEWPMENT OF THE PLAN
2.1 Background
Role of the Countv
In Ontario, the responsibilities for waste management are either handled at the upper tier level
- the Regional or County governments or at the lower local municipal leveL The latter has been
the case in Elgin County and, prior to the Fall of 1994, the County had not assumed any
responsibility for waste management services. The member municipalities in the County
earned the full burden to not only undertake whatever short and long term planning they
required but to also enter into the necessary contractual arrangements for the cOllection of
mixed wastes and recyclables and for the disposal of residual wastes.
Historv of Waste Mana2ement Service Provision
During the period from 1978 to 1991 domestic solid wastes and commercial solid non-hazardous
wastes from the City and a large portion of Elgin County were disposed of at the Green Lane
Landfill in Southwold Township. Collection of municipal wastes and their disposal were
handled under a series of contracts between some 17 municipalities, which included both Elgin
and Middlesex County municipalities, and St. Thomas Sanitary Collection Service Limited
(Green Lane). Better than half the total wastes emanated from the City of St. Thomas and
Yannouth and Southwold Townships. Most of the commercial and industrial wastes were
handled on a bin-pickup contract basis with disposal at the Green Lane Landfill. In St.
Thomas blue box collection of recyclable materials was also handled under contract with St.
Thomas Sanitary Collection Service.
At that time Elgin County had no involvement in waste management.
I
r
I
r
I
I
r-
I
I
I
2
On September 6th, 1991, the present Green Lane landfill site was closed by order of the
Regional Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Energy (MOEE) as the site had
reached its approved capacity. In order to handle waste contracts, Green Lane commenced an
export an-angement, moving wastes from a transfer station to BFI's Ridge Landfill, south of
Chatham, in Kent County. The disposal costs charged by BFI to Green Lane (and passed on to
the local municipalities) fluctuated and as a consequence an alternative site, Lapeer, Michigan
was also used for waste disposal in order to achieve a lower landfill disposal cost. Generally all
additional costs incurred for haulage and disposal were passed on to the municipal clients and
commercial customers. These increased costs were estimated at that time at about $10,000 per
day.
The need for long term landfill capacity was well recognized and Green Lane initiated two steps
in 1991 to resolve this problem. First, the develo,pment of a site identification and selection
program - k,nown as an Environmental Assessment Planning Program, was initiated under the
EA Act, to fmd a landfill site(s) that would meet the long term needs of Green Laue's operating
service area. The separate second step undertaken was to initiate the Provincial Regulatory
process for the approval of a solution that wpuld bril!ge the ,period up to the point when a new
landfill would be available.
The proposal developed by Green Lane involved expanding the approved capacity of the
existing Green Lane Landfill. To resolve this an application under the Environmental
Protection Act (EPA) was submitted by Green Lane in April 1992 for the reopening and
interim expansion of the closed landfill for the recept of solid wastes for a period of fIve years.
AIl of the above activities resulted in increased costs and a considerable level of municipal
uncertainty. In the Fall of 1992 both the City and the County realised that a much more
proactive approach had to be taken in waste management and that the municipalities had to
assume the responsibility for gniding the development oftheir own Waste Management Master
Plan (WMMP) to deal with the long term planning for this service. Five landfill disposal
alternatives were listed for review through the undertaking of the WMMP.
By the late Fall of 1992, a Joint County/City Steering Committee was formed with equal
representation from the County and the City to examine and determine how to proceed. At
that time one of the major concerns centred on the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA)
planning activities of Green Lane and the fact that this work was being funded by the general
public through increased waste tipping fees. It was recognized that considerable information
had been collected by the contractor, indirectly at municipal and public expense, and no one
wanted to replicate this work in carrying out a municipal WMMP.
To assess the usefulness of the work done to date the County/City retained the services of S.H.
Janes & Associates Limited to cany out an Audit of Green Lane's Environmental Assessment
Planning Program. The Audit was intended, among other things, to determine the applicability
r
I
I
I
I
r
I
r
3
and usefulness of the material, and whether or not a municipal plan could be merged with
Green Lane's program, keeping in mind the strict requirements of the EAA.
The Audit concluded that valuable time and cost saVÏJ!gs could be achieved I?Y utilizing much of
the work already carried out by Green Lane. It also recommended that the application for an
Interim Expansion to the then closed Green Lane LandfiD be supported by the County and the
City and that this position should be presented at the Hearings being held to consider the
application. To assist in these presentations the Ci!y and County retained the services of
W.K.A. McKay, Solicitor, to represent their interests at the Environmental Assessment Board's
Hearing into the expansion ofthe Green Lane Landfill.
A preliminary Hearing was convened on Jannary 19th, 1993 and the Interim Procedural
Directions arising from this Hearing set May 10th, 1993 as the preferred date for the main
Hearing and also defmed party status. A separate Hearing under the Intervenor Funding
Project Act was also convened on March 22nd, 1993 for those parties who had been identified
as intervenors.
The main Hearing proceeded on May 10th, 1993 and resulted in a favourable Decision by the
EA Board being issued on August 12th, 1993. The Decision included "Conditions for
Approval" which stipulated a wide range of reqnirements for the site's development, operation
and monitoring as well as a series of fmancial obligations that Green Lane was required to
meet.
This Decision was snbsequently appealed to the Provincial Cabinet by Southwold Against
Dnmping (SAD) and it was not until February 1994 that the site was opened following
Cabinet's decision to uphold the earlier EA Board Decision.
Throughout the entire Interim EA application process, Green Lane continued its
Environmental Assessment Planning Program to find a long term site. A Public AdviSory
Committee (pAC), which had been initiated in 1990, continued to provide public input and to
serve as a vehicle for the Green Lane planning process to address matters of public interest.
PAC originally consisted of 19 members who had volunteered from across the service area
handled by Green Lane. In 1993 Status Reports were released (4 Volumes in total) containing a
summary of all work undertaken up to that time. All of this material had been processed
through PAC and, in essence, represented a summation of the Committee's work up to that
date.
By August 1994 the Environmental Assessment Planning Program had reached the point where
fIVe candidate sites were identified for more detailed review in a Report entitled "Preliminary
List of Candidate Sites". The detailed review was subsequently undertaken during the Fall of
1994 and on December 17th, 1994 a special Workshop was convened by Green Lane to consider
the evaluation of the candidate sites. At that time a series of reports were released that
provided more detailed information on the individual sites.
r
r
r
I
I
I
4
Site ESW - 10, adjacent to the existing Green Lane Landfill, was selected by Green Lane's
consultant - CRA, as the prefelTed site and ESW - 12, south of the Ford Talbotville Plant, as the
fall-back alternative. Detailed reviews of all the site selection processes, including technical
infonnation generated after the public release of the initial screening exercise, were undertaken
and the results presented at a special meeting held in Port Stanley on March 25th, 1995. Green
Lane's consulting team presented a comprehensive comparison of the prefelTed and fall-back
alternatives and concluded with the selection of Site ESW - 10 as the prefelTed long tenn
landfill site.
An Environmental Protection Act (EPA) application was submitted to the MOEE by Sf.
Thomas Sanitary Collection Services Limited and Advance Container of Canada, a Division of
Green Lane Environmental Group Ltd. in April 1996 for the expansion of the Green Lane
Landfill to accommodate an additional 5,850,000 cubic metres of waste. This was followed by
the submission in November 1996 to the MOEE of an EA document seeking Environmental
Assessment Act (EAA) approval: (i) to expand the Green Lane Landfdill in Southwold
Township to accommodate an additional 5,850,000 cubic metres of waste with an additional
contingency capacity of 2,900,000 cubic metres of waste, and (ii) to remove restrictions on the
place of origin and quantity of material that could be processed at the material recovery facility
(MRF) and centralized composting facility (CCF) both of which are located on Wellington
Road in London.
The MOEE released its "Review Under the Environmental Assessment Act" for public review
in September 1997 with a deadline for submissions from the public set at October 31, 1998. The
EA Branch subsequently reported to the Minister in the late Fall. The Minister upon review of
the reports placed his decision before Cabinet and on August 13, 1998 an Order in Council was
approved and ordered which gave approval to the application with the public hearing being
waived. This approval was subject to a number of conditions:
· On the Material Recoverv Facilitv CMRF) - approval was not extended to remove the
cUlTent reStrictions on the amount of material which could be processed at the MRF nor
were the service area restrictions removed on residuals;
· On the Green Lane landfill - fmancial liabilities and other responsibilities associated with
the landfill are to be binding on Green Lane; limitations were imposed that set the air space
expansion and defmed wastes that could be received at the site; direction provided that the
landfill could accept wastes, as defmed, from any generator in Ontario subject to fIrst
priority being given to contracts/obligations relating to the geographical Counties of Elgin
and Middlesex, including the City of Sf. Thomas: _
" shall at all times receive .first priority and precedtmce to the
allocated "annual air space", for their waste, upon meeting this
requirement.first, then the balance of the available "annual air
space" can be used for waste disposal from all other waste streams. "
r
[
r
[
r
[
r
[
I
I
5
· On landfill caoacitv - "air space" was set at 350,000 cubic metres per year for a total of
5,850,000 cubic metres including daily cover material;
· On reoortinl!: - annual reports are reqnired each year up to and including fIVe years after
completion of the closing ontie site;
· On the Public Liaison Committee IPLC) - a Committee is to be struck and Terms of
Reference approved by the Director (MOEE) SW Ontario for this committee within six
months of the approval granted by the Order in Council. All administrative costs of this
Committee are to be paid for by Green Lane from the Green Lane Community Trust Fund;
· On the First Nation Liaison Committee - Green Lane is to participate on a Liaison
Committee established by the Oneida First Nation;
· On stormwater manal!:ement - specific directions were incorporated on the parties with
whom consUItation is to occur on all stormwater management issues;
· On haul routes and road costs - defmition is incorporated on the routes to be used to access
the landfill and on reimbursement of costs;
· On orooem value orotection - Green Lane is to implement a Property Value Protection
Plan as detailed by the Order in Council;
· On Site Insoector - Green Lane will pay the costs of a consultant retained by the the
MOEE to provide on-site inspection during all operating hOUTS;
r
[
6
3.
C01)NTY/CTIY WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANNING
3.1
Organizing for the Preparation of the Plan
I
I
[
I
[
r
Throughout 1994 the Joint Steering Committee for the County and the City, in addition to
closely monitoring the work of Green Lane, continued to develop a municipal position on Waste
Management.
o A Service contract with a 5 year term was fmalized between St. Thomas and Green
Lane that provided for an "integrated waste management service" for the entire City _
including mixed waste collection and disposal, and blue box and organic collection and
processing from all residential development within the City;
o A pro-forma agreement and "shopping list" of waste management services were
proposed by Green Lane for consideration by County municipalities and this led to a
series of separate service agreements between Green Lane and a number of
municipalities within the County;
o A Workplan and Timetable for the preparation of a Municipal Waste Management
Master Plan for the County and City were developed. This was submitted to the MOEE
for financial assistance and approval of the submission was received from the Ministry;
o A Waste Diversion Committee (DSC) was organized and appointed to assist the
County and City in carrying ont the MOEE's new approach to Waste Management
Planning. This Committee held six meetings over the period from the Fall of 1994 to the
the Fall of 1995 and in addition visited the Green Lane material recycling and
composting facilities south of London and the Three County (TCR) facility in Aylmer.
Representatives from the DSC also attended Joint Board Meetings as observers;
o A Discussion Paper on the County Role in Waste Management Planning was prepared
under the auspices of the Joint Steering Committee and submitted to County Council
for acceptance. This Paper examined the implications of amendments to the Municipal
Act on the management of wastes generated within the County of Elgin. Trends in
other municipalities were examined and several options and a recommended approach
were presented for the consideration of County Council. The Paper recommended
limiting the County's assumption of waste responsibilities to the preparation of a "waste
management plan" for the County and the delegation ofthis power to a "Joint Board
for Waste Management Planning" to be formed in conjunction with St. Thomas.
County Council subsequently adopted this Paper and by By-law No. 94-48 dated
November 22nd, 1994 assumed the responsibiIity:
1-
r
I
I
I
r
7
o to adopt a Waste Management Plan for all the local municipalities
forming part of the County of Elgin for municipal purposes;
and by a separate By-law No. 94-49-
o delegated the responsibility for the preparation of the Waste
Management Plan to a Joint Board fonned by the County of Elgin and
the City ofS1. Thomas.
o City Council for S1. Thomas, through the adoption of the
Recommendations of Report No. CA-02-95 dated January 18th, 1995,
also delegated its responsibilities to the same Joint Board for Waste
Management Planning.
I
r
I
I
I
I
o That the City adopt the Tenns of Reference for the Joint Board on
Waste Management as contained in Report No. CA-02-95, and
o That the Mayor and Oerk be authorized to execute a Memorandum of
Agreement with the County, regarding the Joint Board. .
Report No. CA-02-95 also contained details on the responsibilities ofthe Joint Board:-
A) Responsibilities - The Joint Board is to be responsible for the
preparation of a Waste Management Master Plan and for its submission
to the Councils of the County and the City for approval
B) Membel1hip - The Joint Board will consist of eight elected members
from the County Council and City Council in accordance with the
following breakdown:
a) The Warden and four members of County Council,
b) The Mayor and two members of City Council.
C) Chainnanship - The Mayor and the Warden will serve as co-Chairs,
alternating the role of Chair on a meeting basis.
D) Meetings - The Board will establish regularly scheduled meetings and
designate a reguIar meeting place. ( Nonnally in the evenings at the
County Building unless otherwise directed).
E) Secretarial Support - The County will provide secretarial support for
the Joint Board and be responsible for the keeping of all minutes, records
and for the distribution of materials for the Board's consideration.
[
[
1-
,
r
[
r-
r
I
8
F) Voting Procedure - Each member will have one vote on matters to be
decided by a majority vote ofa quornm of the membership.
o In August 1995 the Diversion Strategy Committee (Dsq prepared a special report
entitled "Report and Recommendations of the Diversion Strategy Committee on Waste
Management 3R programs" for presentation to the Joint Board. This Report was
presented by the DSC to the Joint Board and was subsequently reviewed by the Joint
Board's Technical Committee and DSC's recommendations are outlined later in this
Report.
In late 1995 and early 1996 the Joint Board considered alternative approaches that could be
followed by the County and City in providing waste management services. These activities
were undertaken in parallel with the advancement of Green Lane's EA process to develop a
long term landfill facility.
The County and City considered alternative approaches to provide waste management services
to the area and on March 27, 1996, the Joiut Board for Waste Management issued a Request
for Proposals (RFP) for the Supply of Waste Management Services. Proposals were to be
submitted by April 22, 1996 and althl)lIgh 17 waste manl!gement organizations picked up the
RFP Information Package. only three full submissions were received by the Board.
Green Lane Environmental Gro!!p Ltd.
Three County Recycling & composting Inc.
Laidlaw Waste Systems
The Joint Board interviewed the three fInDs submitting proposals and carried out a detailed
review and èost comparison of the submissions. After considerable review the Joint Board
selected the Green Lane submission and authorized the initiation of negotiations to determine a
fmal proposal for consideration by the City and County. This ultimately led to a contract being
finalized wit/I Green Lane. dated July 23, 1997, which was sigued by the City on October 6,
1997.
During 1997 and 1998 Elgin County and St. Thomas further considered governance issues.
Both municipalities examined options that would lead to a simplification of the management of
services required on and inter municipal. Local municipalities in the County also examined
amalgamation alternatives that ultimately led to a reduction from 15 to 7 municipalities: _
The Municipality of BayhamlPort BurwelYVienna
The Town of Aylmer
The Municipality ofMalahidt"iSouth Dorchester/ Springfield
The Municipality of Central Elgin
The Township of South wold
r
r-
I
I-
I
I
r-
I
I
I
I
I
I
L
I
l
9
The Municipality ofDutton-Dunwich
The Municipality of West Elgin
With the amalgamation the structure adopted for waste management also changed and became
less formal in its structure. Currently the Warden of the County and the Mayor of the City
plus two City Council appointees form an ad hoc committee on waste management matters
concerning the County and the City. The Joint Board has ceased to function.
3.2 Basis ofthe Plan
3.2.1 Determining the Study Area
The issue ofthe appropriate service area is a more complex subject in the Elgin County and St.
Thomas case than in most other waste management planning programs due to the overlap
created by the service area identified with the Green Lane landfill. Green Lane, in its successful
submission to the EA Board for a 5 year extension, established a service area for its landfill that
covered a large part of Middlesex County including the City of London. This service area was
based on the service limits secured by the landfill prior to its closing. However, for the purposes
of the County of Elgin and the City of St. Thomas waste planning process, it was considered
inappropriate to adopt a similar service area given the activities of the LondonlMiddlesex
Waste Manllgement Master Planning program iu developiug an independent solution for the
MiddlesexlLondon area. The Joint Board concluded that the Waste Management Plan would
consider only the geographic area of Elgin Couuty including the City ofSt. Thomas.
In setting the County as the geographic limits, the Joint Board also considered the implicatious
inherent in the assumption of waste mauagemeut planning by the County. Legislation that
amends the Municipal Act and provides the County with the authority to assume waste
management planning responsibilities for local municipalities effectively limits the County's
assumption to only the County area by requiring acceptauce by a majority of the local
municipal members of the County government.
3.2.2 Waste Disposal Alternatives
In developing the Elgin County/St. Thomas Waste Management Master Plan the Joint Board
concluded that five alternatives should be evaluated to determine the best solution for the long
term landfill requirement for Elgin County and St. Thomas. These alternatives were identified
for detailed review in the Terms of Reference for the 1995 Waste Management Plan, approved
by the MOEE, and included the following:-
- Identify and develop a County/City owned landfill within the County of Elgin;
I
I-
I
[
I-
I
I
I
I
[
[
I
I
1-
l
l
I-
I
I
10
- Merge with the LondonlMiddlesex Waste Management Planning program to
develop a long term waste disposal facility (for the Counties of Elgin and
Middlesex);
- IdentiJy and negotiate a long term agreement for waste disposal to a landfill
outside of Elgin County (in Ontario or US);
- Negotiate purchase ofthe Green Lane Landfill;
- Negotiate long term agreement for waste disposal at the Green Lane Landfill.
3.2.3 Waste Management Planning Period
Existing contracts that have been entered into I;!y the local municipalities with private sector
waste management fums generally terminating by March 1999 so that the contract termination
date generally coincides with the closure date set I;!y the EA Board for the 5 year extension to
the existing Green Lane Landfill. The Joint Board considered this date as a logical
commencement point for the County/Cig wasteJ!lannin~ period and ~hat the waste
management plan should extend for 20 years to the year 2019.
3.2.4 Waste Tonnages Being Generated in E!gin County
and Landfill Capacity Requirements
A key requirement of the waste management pIan is the development of a forecast of the total
waste requiring landfill disposal over the life of the Plan. Normally the best approach is to
cautiously examine cUlTent landfill experience and based on this to then develop a long term
forecast. In the Elgin/St. Thomas WMMP this approach faces the difficulty that disposal
services are contracted out to several different waste management organizations and record
keeping is not standardised. The WMMP analysis focuses on St. Thomas since yearly reporting
has been undertaken by Green Lane in accordance with the 5 year service contract.
During the period of full operation prior to its closure in 1991, the Green Lane Landfill served
almost all of Elgin County, the City of St. Thomas, most of Middlesex County, and about one-
half ofthe IC&I sector of the City ofLondou. A nominal amount of waste was also delivered to
the site from areas outside the two Counties while, at the same time, some wastes were exported
or deposited in other smaller landfills in the two Counties. In 1990 the waste deposited at the
Green Land Landfill was 110,127 tonnes, but by 1994, following the re-opening of the landfill,
waste tounages at the landfill were substantially below the 1990 figures. In 1994 the Green
Lane landfill received 42,342 tonnes over the 10 month operational period or an estimated
59,210 tonnes for the calendar year. For 1997 reported waste tonnages had increased slightly to
60,494, still well below the pre-closure figure.
r-
r-
r
rn
In
I
1_
11
Over this same period London's W12A landfill and other landfißs within the two Counties and
outside EIg4¡ County increased their share of the waste stream requiring landfill disposal. In
parallel with this increased reduction to the quantity of wastes requiring landfill was being
experienced as a result of residential and industrial3R activities.
The Status Reports released by Green Lane in the Spring of 1993 provide a forecast of long
tenn waste generation which fonned the basis for the 1996 EA Act submission to the MOEE.
Table 4.6 from this Report indicates that by 2010 a total of some 487,250 tonnes of waste are
expected to be generated by the combined Elgin/St. Thomas and MiddlesexlLondon areas.
According to the Status Report this tonnage would then be reduced by the impact of 3R
activities - at least 50% reduction by 2000 if the Provincial targets are met. The" integrated
waste management plan" negotiated between Green Lane and St. Thomas suggests that this
reduction could reach 60% to 65% by adding organic material collection and centralized
composting.
The waste quantities estimated in the Green Lane Status Reports represent a combination of
municipal solid waste (MSW) and industrial, commercial and institutional (IC&I) wastes with
the division between the two types nonnally assumed to be in the order of a 40/60 split. In the
case of St. Thomas, the total City estimate for year 2000 is 29,023 tounes, of which the MSW
share is estimated to be approximately 12,000 tonnes. For 1997, according to documentation
submitted to the City by Green Lane, total City waste stream including organics, recyclable
materials and residual wastes was 11,677 tonnes, plus 1500 tonnes of brush, nursery and
backyard compost for a total of 13,177 - slightly above the forecast. Landfilled materials,
according to Green Lane 1997 records, were mainly residential wastes with some limited
curbside commercial and amounted to aboµt 7,329 tonnes, or about 55% of the total waste
stream.
As organic collection expands with increased public participation and enhanced blue box
activities are more fully supported by the public, the proportion of the total MSW landfilled
could be expected to decline to less than 50%.
To estimate the City wastes requiring landfill an optimistic reduction factor of 55% was
assessed to the total waste generation figure resulting in 13,060 tonnes by year 2000 (29,023 X
45%). The MSW share for year 2000, assuming bluebox and organic collection continues and
unifonn reduction, would be in the order of 5,200 tonnes.
County estimates of total wastes for the year 2000 were 30,906 tonnes of which about 12,360
tonnes would represent the MSW portion. However, an accurate assessment of County wastes
being landfilled at the Green Lane site cannot be made for the simple reason that a number of
County municipalities use other waste management facilities. Estimates of the clUTent
reduction levels suggest that peñonnance varies widely across the County - varying from a low
r
r
[
[
r
I
I
L
[
I
I
I
[
L
l_
[
l
1-
12
of 4 to 5% to a high of 65%. On a weighted average basis the overall County-wide reduction
will likely be in the order of30 to 35%.
Using an optimistic reduction forecast of35% County wastes requiring landfill are estimated to
be 20,090 tonnes (30,906 X 65%). MSW share using 40% of total waste and the 35% reduction
factor, the County MSW tonnage for 2000 will be about 8,035 tonnes.
IC&I wastes requiring landfill capacity are however far more difficult to predict. With few
exceptions the disposal of IC&I wastes is handled by private waste management operators and
is therefore guided largely by the cost of landfill disposal. Waste flow control, although
considered by the MOEE, has never been implemented, mainly due to costs and potential
management difficulties. In the absence of flow control regulation, commercial waste haulers
and management fInDS enter into service contracts with industrial and commercial waste
generators and wastes are taken to the lowest cost and most accessible and service-approved
landfill. Today, more often than not, these landfills are privately owned. The result is that
municipalitiès are only able to control and 'predict (with reasonable accuracy) quantitiès based
on wastes collected mainly from residential development at curbside.
Summarizing the above commentary, by theyear 2000 total yearly wastes requiring landfill
disposal for the County is estimated to be approximately 20,090 tonnes and for the City 13,060
tonnes for a total of 33,150 tonnes. The combined MSW tonnages for the County and City
requiring landfill by 2000 will be approximately 13,235 tonnes per year. These figures are
substantially below the total waste stream estimates indicated earlier for site desigu purposes.
Accordingly, if the County of Elgin and the City of S1. Thomas were to handle ouly wastes
under their control, that is, curbside collected residential wastes, the present yearly waste
quantities would ouly be approximately 13,235 tonnes, or less than half of the waste generation
forecast developed in the Green Lane 1993 Status Report. Under this scenario all IC&I wastes
would be handled by commercial operations and, dependant of the tipping fees charged, could
be taken to landfills other than to a Coun!y/City facili!y.
Alternative landfills, to the Green landfill, exist in Southwestern Ontario that are licensed to
handle commercial and/or municipal solid wastes. Two waste management finns, CanWaste
and BFI, operate landfills within Southwestern Ontario which have operating licenses for
wastes from a service area that includes Elgin County. BFI's Ridge landfill in Chatham-Kent
has recently been successful in obtaining EA Act approval to expand the site's capacity and
yearly tonnage limit from 240,000 tonnes/year to 600,000 tonnes/year. According to the MOEE
the Certificate of Approval that is cUlTently being prepared will extend the service area for the
receipt ofMSW and IC&I wastes to include all of Ontario. Prior to this expansion the site was
already licensed to receive MSW from a five County service area that included Elgin County
and this service has been included in the recent approval. CanWaste's Unitec site in Lambton
County is licensed to handle IC&I wastes from Ontario sources. Yearly tonnage is set at
365,000 tonnes and a recent amendment to the CorA sets the daily figure at 2000 tonnes/day.
I
I
r
I-
I
[
I
I
r
I
13
The Windsor-Essex Waste Management Authority has recently applied for a Province-wide
service area and if granted would also be able to service the ElginlSt. Thomas area.
Based on the above commentary some observations can now be made:
(i) Total City MSW waste tonnages after adjustment for the forecast year do not appear to
be too far off the original forecast. From the standpoint of the landfill requirements, the
City would appear to be generating in the order of 5,200 tonnes (MSW) after removal of
recyclables and organic materials. County of Elgin MSW waste tonnages also appear to
be in line with the forecast. MSW tonnages are estimated to be about 12,362
tonnes/year by year 2000 and the tonnage requiring landfill disposal is about 8,035
tonnes after removal of recyclables.
(ii) Total waste tonnages being received at the Green Lane landfill are significantly lower
than the forecast of 80,000 tons per year (72,700 tonnes) for the 5 year extension. For
1997 the total waste tonnage reported by Green Lane as having been received at the site
has increased slightly to 60,493 tonnes, still significantly below the original target.
Based on these fignres it would appear that the Green Lane Landfill will not have
reached its 80,000 tonslyear estimate within the 5 year operational period. This
remaining capacity provides some flexibility in the unlikely event that the CøfA
fmalization is delayed past the scheduled closure in February 1999.
(iii) The Order in Council approving the EA Act application requires the allocation of
"annual air space' for Elgin County and St. Thomas and the incorporation of this
requirement and the provision on management tenns in the CofA will ensure long tenn
disposal capacity at Green Lane.
I
r
I
r
r
I
I
I
,
14
4. OVERVIEW OF WASTE MANAGEMENT AND 3R ACTIVITIES IN ELGIN
COUNTY/CITY of ST. THOMAS
4.1 General
Over the period during which the Waste Management Plan was being prepared reviews have
been undertaken of the waste management activities being provided by each local municipality
including the City of St. Thomas. These reviews have included field trips to visit the facilities of
Green Lane in London, including the material recycling facility, the compost facility and the
present Green Lane Landfill in Southwold Township. It also included a number of interviews
with municipal officials and with representatives of the MOEE. Reviews were also undertaken
of TCR Environmental Corp. (previously known as Three County Recycling) facilities in
Aylmer and Bluewater Recycling Association's facilities in Huron Park, near Exeter.
The following notes summarize the July 1998 status of municipal Waste Management
agreements/alTangements. Wherever contracts are in existence or contemplated the maximum
tenn is 5 years thus tying contract life into the 5-year extension granted to the Green Lane
landfill (GLL) site by the EA Board.
4.2 County MunicipaIities' Waste Management AlTangements
4.2.1 Overview
Three different waste management systems are in operation in the County.
o Separation at curbside into 2 or 3 waste collections - Blue box,
Compostainer (optional), and mixed wastes - weekly or biweekly
collection;
o Separation at curbside into 2 bags with 1 collection - Organic bag (wet
wastes) and dry waste bag (mainly papers and containers) - weekly
collection;
o No separation at curbside - depots for recyclable materials, mixed waste
only collected;
Figure 1 provides a summary of the distribution of these service systems, the basis for the rate
charge and the estimated cUlTent rate.
Collaboration IIITaIlgements exist within the County for a common approach to waste
management services. In the east end of the County, the MunicipaIity of BayhamlPort
BurwellNienna is serviced by Green Lane as an extension of the service originally provided to
FIGURE 1
CURRENTWASTE.MANAGEMENT SERVICES
r-
I Svstem Tvoe ChaNe basis
Muuicipality 3'Collèctions 2-Collections 1 Collection' 1 -Collection
Green'Lane -.G""""Lmre -2J>ags- no· separation Conmoet Basis Rate
Weel<ty Biwkly Weekly Biwkly (TRC) at curbside Term
F'O)t 567/
YearlY facility+ tonne
Aylmer Conmoct· On-Janl" . hshld
collect'·D - 5231
cost hshld
St. Thomas Contr~t - Contr't October 2007 Per-hshld 5104..50
mixed Bluebx + 2 options ratélyr+ hshshld
& for 5 year inß'n
org'cs extensions adjsts
Southwold Conti' Ditto Ditto 51111
hshld
Central . Contrt Yarmouth 51381
Elgin Mixed YearIYto hshld
+ Dec31st Ditto
. Bluebx Belmont- 51471
toMareh '99 hshld
PI. Stanley
ToMareh spec'}
'99'recycl'g
at depots Contract
Dutton Dnnwich Dutton Dutton DuttononIy Per hshld $1471
onIý-4 only-8 to March '99 Rateiyear hshld
- months months Dunwieh-no- +infi'n
contraet- adist's
BayhamlPort Contl'3ct· ConmoGt-to . Per- hshld $1171
BurweW Vienna for blue_ March'99 ratélyr+ hshld
box and RFP being infl'n
mixed issued adj~'s
'wastes
Malahidel -Contract Contr~ts·to -Price . Malh'd
South .end '99 TCR+ &SD
Dorchesterl Collect'n 576ft
Springfield Ationiss IS
Springf'd 546f
+ Malh'd hshld
SD-
Putnam
Garage
West Elgin Yearly Hshld . $86
West Lorne area Contrct Aubertin
Rodney area MSW LI chrg Special
Falkins on Tax
bIuebox LI ehrg bill
Rural Private Individ
r
[
I
I
[
r
I
[
I
I.
[
l
15
the pre-amalgamation municipalities. Central Elgin (Yarmouth, Port Stanley and Belmont)
including St. Thomas all retain Green Lane with variations in the level of service and coverage
provided to each municipality. In West Elgin, the AIdborough Landfill, handles wastes from
the Rodney and West Lome areas and in Dutton-Dunwich, the Dunwich landfill provides a
disposal facilily for all of the municipalily plus a small portion of the pre-amalgamation
municipalily of AIdborough.
4.2.2 Collection of Wastes and Recyclable Materials
All municipalities currently contract out collection systems and there are no municipally-owned
systems operating, other than the two municipal landfills in the west end of the Counly. Weekly
or biweekly curbside collection of materials is the nonnal practice across the Counly. All
municipalities with over 5000 population will now have to meet the MOEE Regulations by
providing either blue box collection or a wet/dry collection system. This requirement will have
to be reviewed and consideration given to the Regulation by West Elgin, MalahidelSouth
Dorchester/Springffield and BayhamIPort BUIWell/Vienna.
4.2.3 Processing of Recyclable Materials
In Elgin Counly and the Cily of St. Thomas, all processing of recyclable materials is undertaken
by waste management fmns and there is no municipal ownership. For the processing of MSW,
two separately-owned systems are currently providing most of the processing services for the
Counly and Cily - Green Lane Environmental Group's London Recycles in London, and TCR
Environmental Corporation in Aylmer. Both facilities have been licensed for Province-wide
processing of recyclable materials and the residual materials are deposited at the Green Lane
landfill. D~posal by TCR is negotiated with licensed landfills and, dependant on the tipping
fee, may be Øelivered to another landfill.
In the TCR system, dry recyclables are placed in one bag and wet organic rich wastes in a
separate bag and both are coUected at curbside by the same pick-up vehicle. Loads are then
taken to the processing facilily and dumped onto a. tipping floor. Both bags are pushed into a
bag stripper that breaks open the bags ani! separates the plastic bag from the wastes.
Materials are inspected as they are moved from the stripper onto a conveyor system and any
unacceptable materials removed. The remaining materials, including the dry recyclable
materials and wet organic wastes are then moved along a conveyor picking line. Recyclable
materials are manually picked off the conveyor belt, with some mechanical assistance, and are
placed into separate containers. Recyclable materials are then moved to a central bailing
facilily or densified into blocks for recycling. A limited amount of "rich" recyclable materials
from commercial establishments and/or waste coUectors may be processed directIy to the bailing
centre, by-passing the picking line. Dry materials, rejected by the pickers, move along the
16
conveyor to the end of the line where they are mixed with the organic wastes and shredded.
The shredded mix is then move into the composting room.
, The compost room is separated from the recycling area and the organic waste mix is processed
in a series of open concrete-walled bays. Based on "line" experience, the compost feed stock is
modified at entry point to achieve the highest level of compost production. Compost bays are
monitored and water added to ensure optimum conditions. Composting materials are then
moved mechanically along the trench bays and, once the process is completed, the fmal product
is moved to a separate storage area and screened to remove unacceptable residual materials.
The entire composting room operates under negative pressure and air extracted from the centre
is processed through an external bio-mter to limit potential for odour releases.
In the Green Lane Environmental Group's case the operations are separated into two different
facilities - material recycling facility (MRF) and a central compost facility (CCF). Organic or
wet waste materials, collected by separate containers (compostainers) and collection systems,
are processed through a compost production system similar to the TCR system. The Green Lne
system is automated with temperature sensors and other sensors from which data is fed into a
computer-aided analytical system. Moisture is added along the lines by a water spray system
remote control system. Recyclable materials are collected through a separate blue box system
or are delivered directly to the facility by commercial generators/collectors. In the curbside
collection materials are separated into containers and fibres and then delivered to the MRF.
Materials arc moved in the MRF through a processing system consisting of conveyor picking
line with mechanical aids to remove the recyclable materi/$ and to deposit them into separate
streams for bailing and/or containerization.
These two operations take a different approach in the pricing for their services. For municipal
clients Green Lane incorporates collection, processing and disposal in a single per household
service rate, "an integrated service price", whereas TCR assesses a fIXed tonnage figure "FOB"
their Aylmer MRF/CCF facility. Collection of curbside materials taken to the TCR system is
provided under a separate municipal contract with a waste collector.
Both operations retain all revenues generated from the sale of recycled materials or compost
and are fully responsible for meeting all MOEE operational requirements.
4.2.4 Materials to be Collected
The two recycling operations have extensively advertised lists of materials handled by the
respective system. Non-organic materials collected for recycling and delivery to the recycling
centres are virtually the same. Differences do exist with respect to organic materials and the
attached table outlines the materials collected for recycling and composting. A comparison is
provided with Ontario Regulation 101/94. '
l
I
[
[
l_
1-
l
l
1'7
Ontmio ReguIa1Ion TCREI1"ÚUUlIIC1d:;.tlInc. GreenLaneEnvironmenfaIGroop
101194
Recyclable MaterioIs l'IaœdinOear Bag.(or bJne) _ PlacedinBJneBox
Schedule 1: Blue Box Materials
AnScliedùlelBJneBoxMateriols
co Newsprint AD. Schedn1e 1 Blue Box Materials
o Food & beverage
- Glass
- AIuminmn
-stee\cans
- PET bottles
Schedule 1: Blne Box Materials Placed-Inclear Bag (or blue) I'Iaœdlu BJne box
SoppJementmy BIùe BoxMaterials
o AIuminmnfon
· Boxboard& paperboord An SoppIOII1eJ1im:Y BJne Box MaterioIs
· Cardboard (OCC) AD SuppIemenWy-BIue Box MaterioIs
· Expanded po~ food or beverage
containers 0 F1n~.papers
· Magazines
· Paper <nps & plates
o Plastic fibn:
-LDPE mtd LLDPE grocery bags, food &
beverage bags, """ wrapping
co RigId pJastfc ....UIltdÐ..I;:U..
- IIDPE bottles- I
- PS food or beyeragcs con6dners
· Telephone~ries
· Textiles (notincIudIugllbregIass or~)
· Polyroat paperboard rontaIners
Wet Wastes PlacedInNonnalGai'bagèBag , . Place in Green'''"Contpostainèi-" for curbside
..Dection
- no ReguIati<Hl yet available
Food-&raps- Food-Scraps-
-aIUOOd._ -aDfood_
OtherWetWastes Other Wet Wastes
-aDoftrerhooseh.Jd wetwaste - exdudIugaD -mixed rang<>ofsoDed paperand carton
- paiiJ >, soIVenIs, Jierbicides, _ries etc. waStes aRoC-'WIiiâì.are to lie tom ihto
hmtdsIzed pIeees-
-notacœpted.oretwo broad classifications
of__-_
(i) aD paInfs, soIvenls, herbicides, batteries
etc.
(ñ)nmnberofhomehoJd_acœpted.
by Three Connty -Idtty-.., diapen or
hygiene proclnds, pJastic bags, rawmeat, fish
or bones etc.
4.2.5 City of St. Thomas
The City contracts out its waste management senices on an "integrated senice" basis to the
Green Lane Environmental Group Ltd. and St. Thomas Sanitary Collection Senice Limited.
The Contract for the 1994 to 1999 period was amended by City/Contractor agreement in the
Spring of 1995 to modiJÿ the collection schedules and to limit the residential collection to two
[
1-
[
[
r
r
I
I
I
1-
I
I
I
l
l
18
bags per week. The curbside pick-up period schedule was shifted from bi-weekly to weekly
effective June 4th, 1995. Bi-weekly collection of organic (compostible) materials and blue box
remained unchanged.
On October 6, 1997 a contract dated July 23, 1997 was entered into between the City and
Green Lane to extend the waste management services. This contract provides integrated waste
management services for the City for a 10 year period terminating on February 28, 2009, with
two options to renew and extend the term of the contract for a period of fIve years for each
option.
The new Contract now provides for a comprehensive all inclusive waste management package
based on the number of recorded households and a fee per household. Included in the contract
are provisions for escalation based on changes to the Consumers Price Index and fuel costs. The
contract provides the following services for the duration of the agreement:
- Weekly curbside collection of mixed wastes from all residential and
specified commercial development
- Alternate ~eekly collection of recyclable materials (blue box collection)
and organic materials (compostainer collection)
A single rat!! of $104.50 per household is assessed to all residential development and specified
commercial development for these services with provisions for adjustment to take into account
inflation. Ip addition, specific ammgements are listed for· the disposal of other City-based .
commercial and industrial wastes.
The compo~tainer collection program was commissioned in May 1994 and has been steadily
expanded to include some multi-family residential development and currently approximately
90% of all Iouseholds receive or are involved in the full integrated collection service. This
program is steadily being expanded to handle multiple housing units and almost 90% of all
housing uni~ now utilize the organic collection system. This program is being extended as part
of the new c!>ntract.
St. Thomas reductions in 1994 for the Blue Box program and the compostainers adjusted to
reflect the start-up phase for the compost program indicate a yearly reduction of about 37 to
40%. More recent peñormance estimates by Green Lane place the City reductions for
residential wastes at close to 65%.
19
4.2.6 Couuty of Elgin Municipalities
4.2.6.1 West Elgiu
This muuicipality has a combiued population of about 5206 and operates a landfill that serves
the area. Approval for the landfill site was granted by the MOEE Provisional Certificate
A051l01 for a service area including the pre-amalgamation municipalities of AIdborough,
Rodney, and West Lome. Site life is projected to the year 2002.
In the West Lome area mixed wastes and recyclable materials are collected by Green Lane at
curbside on a weekly basis and taken to the Green Lane landfill. A per house~old charge of
$99/year is assessed and this is collected as special area charge.
In the Rodney area, mixed wastes are collected on a weekly basis by Aubertin Dispsoal
(Wardsville) and bluebox materials by J. Falkins (Rodney) on a bi-weekly basis. These costs are
levied on the tax bill for this service. In the pre-amalgamation, AIdborough Township area
private aITangements are provided for waste collection. AIl mixed waste materials are taken to
the municipal landfill for disposal. Tires are collected at the landfill and taken by municipal
truck or contract hauler to recyclers. A promotion program is also operated to encourage
participatio~ in the voluntary 3R program.
Reduction achievements cannot be estimated accurately due to the fact that landfill tonnages
are not recorded. However, based on sales of recyclable materials the reduction achievement
appears to be between 5 and 10 percent. Since the overall objective of both municipalities is to
maintain the local landfill for the foreseeable period, increased participation in 3R programs
would be desirable.
4.2.6.2
Aylmer
l
[
I
I
On February 13th, 1995 Contracts were awarded by the Town for weekly wet/dry collection
and processing. Weekly collection of a two-bag wet/dry stream was awarded to the Green
Lane Environmental Group at a cost of $23.40/household. Under the collection contract, wet
wastes are placed at curbside in green garbage bags and the mixed wastes containing
recyclables in blue or clear bags. Materials are then collected in a standard packer truck and
delivered as a mixed load to the TCR Environmental Inc. facility in Aylmer where a processing
service fee of $67/tonne is assessed. The processing charge includes the cost of landfill disposal
of any residuals.
Blue box collection has been replaced by the wet/dry collection and processing system and meets
Regulation 101194 requirements. This acceptance relieves Aylmer of the need to implement a
blue box collection system.
I-
I
[
r
20
Assignment of 3R reduction levels to the various municipalities participating in the TCR
program is not yet possible. The reason for this is that all tonnages (including commercial green
wastes and recyclable materials) received by the facility are assessed against total tonnages _
those removed and sold as recyclable materials as weII as the residual tonnages taken to landfill.
The result ~ an average figure for the entire operation.
Compost production is also estimated and as a result only generalized estimates of peñormance
can be made at this time and these are based on the following reduction objectives set by TCR:
o Recycled materials - 8%
o Organic materials - 67%
3R Subtotal 75%
o Residual materials - 25%
At the present time the compost production is being screened to remove unacceptable materials
such as plastic chips and shreds. This reduction is cUlTentIy averaging about 10% of the
compost product which results in an overall adjustment to the 3R peñormance figure of about
7% - resul~g in an estimated waste reduction figure of about 67%.
As suggested in the above comments, evaluation of Aylmer's 3R peñormance can only be
estimated. However, and assuming that the compost product remaining after the initial
screening is used for agricultural land application, it would appear from the TCR reports, that
Aylmer's waste management contract will likely achieve a net 3R reduction of slightly above
65% for the residential waste stream.
Firm estimates of commerciaIlindustrial reductions cannot be made at this time due to the
absence of any documentation.
4.2.6.3
Bayham/Port Burwell/Vienna
Green Lane provides curbside collection of mixed wastes and blue box materials for
amalgamated municipality on a biweekly basis. Charges for these services are set at a annual
figure of $117 per household. Mixed wastes are taken to the Grecn Lane landfill and blue box
materials are processed at the Recycle London centre. Organic collection is not included in the
services provided by Green Lane.
The landfill tipping fee charged to local commercial operations is $65/ton, as per the St. Thomas
contract.
Based on earlier information on recycled tonnages, the blue box collection service appears to be
reducing the total waste stream for all three municipalities by about 10% with significantly
higher peñormance in urban areas.
I
r
21
4.2.6.4
Central Elgin
[
[
[
Waste management services are provided by the Green Lane Environmental Group and these
include weekly curbside collection of mixed wastes and blue box materials for Yarmouth and
Belmont areas. There is an exception to this an-angement and in the Port Stanley area
recyclable materials are collected at a depot located in the Works Yard under a separate
contract with McKeough. Green Lane landfill is used for disposal of mixed wastes and the
Recycle London facility for blue box and organic materials.
I
[
f
I
Agreement entered into between Green Lane and the pre-amalgamation municipalities is based
on household counts and in the Belmont area is $147/household per year and $138 for the
Yarmouth area. Disposal cost for commercial wastes taken to the Green Lane landfill is
$65/ton. Although detailed peñormance data has not been available it is anticipated that waste
reduction closely parallels St Thomas - about 65%.
4.2.6.5
Dutton-Dunwich
The municipality owns and operates its own landfill under MOEE Provisional Certificate of
Approval No. A051401 which provides a service area including the pre-amalgamation Village of
Dutton and the Township of Dunwich plus some limited wastes from West Elgin (AIdborough
Township). Site is approximately 62 to 64 acres in size with some 8 acres in use. Projected year
of closure has been informally estimated by the MOEE at 2002.
Contract entered between the pre-amalgamation area of Dutton and Green Lane
Environmental Group provides for biweekly curbside collection of organic and blue box
materials. Mixed wastes are collected on a weekly basis for the summer months, reverting to
biweekly for the remainder of the year. Collection and disposal costs for mixed, organic and
blue box materials are included in the yearly $147/household fee. The overall reduction
achieved by the Dutton system is expected to be similar to St Thomas -in the 65% range.
f_
[
A depot for recyclable materials is provided at the landfill and is under municipal operational
control. Cans, tires, glass, newspapers, and plastics are collected and delivered by the
municipality to recycling fmns. Reduction achieved through the voluntary depot system is low
-likely in the order of 4 to 5%.
No tipping fees are charged to residents or commercial or farm operations within the
municipality. Special charge per load, however, is assessed to Duttonresidents and commercial
operations who are the only non-municipal users of the landfill: Carload $20; Pick-up truck
$40; Stake truck $60.
r
I
22
Dutton-Dunwich is currently reviewing waste management alternatives for the collection of
mixed wastes and recycled materials.
r
I
[
I
4.2.3.6
MaIahide/South Dorchester/Springfield
Antonissen Contracting has been under contract with the municipality to provide a weekly two
bag, wet/dry collection service for the pre-amalgamation Malahide Township area at
$46/household. TCR Environmental Inc. charges $76/tonne for processing. Putham Auto
Centre proVides a weekly 2 bag wet/dry collection service at an approximate rate of
$38.50/household for the old South Dorchester area. Materials arc also taken to the TCR
facility for processing at a $76/tonne.
Overall reduction levels achieved by the municipality parallel those noted for Aylmer.
4.2.3.7
Southwold
With the approval of the Green Lane landfill the Township has entered into a long tenn
Contract with Green Lane Environmental Group for biweekly collection of mixed wastes and
blue box m!lterials. Service charge for 1998 is approximately $llllhousehold. Commercial
wastes are disposed of at the Green Lane landfill at a charge of $65/ton. Weekly collection is
provided in the Lynhurst Park area.
Reduction rates infonnation pre-dates the 1998 experience and, although low, should now
improve under the new contract
r
I
I
I
I
,
e_
I
1-
r
[
r
[
r
I
I
[
l_
I
r
[
1__
r
I
I
r
i
l_
23
5. NEW TRENDS IN WASTE MANAGEMENT
Waste maqagement is a dynamic business and changes have been rapid and often
unpredictaqle.
First, the emergence of EXPORT as a major Ontario waste management policy issue
Prior to and up to the early 1900's, export to landfills outside of a municipality was generally
discouraged and when permitted was usually done under a Ministry emergency order.
Municipal waste management master plans were required to search for a local landfill and. the
disposal requirement normally included both MSW and IC&I wastes.
By 1990 Metro Toronto' efforts to enconrage rednction by the IC&I by significantly escalating
the tipping fees charged at the Keele Valley landf'ill and at Metro transfer stations precipitated
a dramatic change in waste disposal practices. American waste disposal facilities, that hithertoo
had been cQnsidered to be too costly, immediately became a lower cost alternative. During
1992 over 1 million tonnes of solid non-hazardous wastes were exported to US disposal facilities,
with a considerable portion of this using the 401/402 and Queen Elizabeth Freeways. To handle
this volume of wastes, privately owned transfer stations were constructed in Toronto and a
number of trucking firms expanded their business to include waste hauling.
Major shifts OCCUJTed in the disposal of IC&I wastes as the transfer station operators and the
waste haulers sought lower costs facilities. Disposal of these wastes shifted to be "market
driven" to the lowest cost disposal facility. Operators of municipally owned landfills, such as
the Windsor Essex Waste Management Authority, faced a major loss on waste revenues and as
a result net disposal costs escalated due to the lower tonnages being received at the municipal
. facilities. To counter this, Windsor Essex has aggressively entered the market as a competitor
and has now applied to the MOEE to expand its service area in order to compete with the
Michigan landfills for waste ''flowing down 401".
Toronto, in order to extend the life of the Keele landfill until late 2002, has built into its waste
management planning the export of some 450,000 tonnes to the BFI landf'ill at Arbor Hills,
Michigan. With the expansion of the BFI Ridge Landfill in Chatham-Kent and the approval
of the Green Lane landfill for an all-Ontario service area, some of these wastes will likely be
handled by these facilities.
In 1999 Toronto plans to call for proposals to contract out all waste disposal for all municipal
solid non-hazardons wastes collected in the City. In addition to wastes under Toronto's control
are IC&I wastes which are already being hauled to US facilities. Given the absence of any
alternatives within their municipal limits, it appears quite likely that both the York and
Durham Regions will add their wastes to the management system selected by Toronto for all
MSW and IC&I wastes.
r
r
r
1-
r
I
IH
¡
[
[
I
¡
I
[
L
[
24
Reliance on disposal facilities outside their municipal limits and not owned by the municipalities
appears to be the system that will serve much of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) for the long
tenn. As a result of this, waste management pricing for disposal for an of Southern Ontario
will be influenced by the contract tenus negotiated by the GTA for the "package deal" _
transfer station loading, haulage to disposal and dÌMJosaL Local municipal landfills will have to
price their service to the IC&I sector to take into account this factor. In planning for new
facilities municipalities will have to recognize thlU)revaiIinJtprice structure and the tendency for
the IC&I waste to seek the lowest cost disposal ammgement.
Long tenn export and the pricing structure area an factors that must be considered in any
waste management planning program being undertaken in Southern Ontario.
Second, the implications of there being no control over the flow ofIC&I wastes
Parallel with the emergence of export is the recognition that the disposal of IC&I wastes cannot
be controlled and are "mamet-driven" to seek the lowest cost disposal solution. Increasingly
municipalities are recognizing that they cannot pre-plan or budget for the management of these
wastes. Landfills that have been sized and planned on the baSis of combined MSW and IC&I
waste tonnages are now being faced with drastic reductions in the tonnages being received.
Often the tipping fees being charged to the IC&I sector are set at levels intended to more than
offset actual disposal costs and, with the "migration" of commercial wastes to lower cost
disposal sollftions, municipal costs per tonne accelerate.
As a consequence of their inability to control IC&I wastes, many Ontario municipalities are
now considering in the planning for new landfills for the accommodation of!!!!b: those wastes
they control- the MSW (mainly residential wastes) stream. These waste management plans are
concluding that commercial wastes will be "left to fmd their own solutions" and the municinal
landfills will not be sized for IC&I wastes.
Third, the expansion of markets and the rapid escalation of prices for recyclable materials
Historically the total costs involved in the cøllection and processing of recyclable materials far
exceeded the revenues earned through the sale of the processed materials. Indeed one of the
underlying reasons for the assessment by municipal governments of comparatively high IC&I
tipping fees was to generate sufficient reserves to handle the anticipated deficits in the operation
of 3R programs.
Prices offered for recycled materials and their demand continue change rapidly with the result
that predictions and decision made for the long tenn are extremely risky. Over the past four
year period, prices offered for ONP (News) have escalated in a single year to over four times
and then have dropped in following years to less than the initial fIgUre. If changes are
pennitted in the beverage industry and aluminium cans are no longer used, the fmancial
25
position will alter dramatically as this material has been by far the most attractive revenue
source.
From the standpoint of commercial activities a number of industries are now announcing high
reduction levels - Cami's Plant in Ingersol and Ford Talbotville continue to experience
significant reductions to their waste streams requiring landfill disposal In general, major
production changes and the introduction of in-plant 3R programs have resulted in significant
reductions to commercial waste tonnages.
From the standpoint of the County of Elgin and St. Thomas diversion program planning, these
trends in recyclable markets and prices raise as number of factors to be recognized:
o recycled material markets appear to continue, there is a high level of volatility in the
prices offered;
o highest prices are offered for high quality bailed or densified loads of recyclable
materials. Contaminated loads or loose loads generally receive lower sale fignres;
o commerciallindustrial reduction activities increasingly are operating outside of
municipal reduction programs with the result that recyclable materials are being sold
directly to processors and are not entering the municipally controlled systems;
o net operational costs for municipal programs will likely be in the ''red" and the losses
will have to be reflected in the waste management rates being charged to maintain these
programs;
A fmal factor to be considered is the extent to which service contracts for 3R programs are
contracted over a long tenn period. Should shorter periods be considered so that price
fluctuations are accommodated by both sides of the contract agreement? In responding to
inflexible tendering requirements contractors can be forced into adopting a conservative pricing
I position to accommodate unpredictable changes in recycled material prices. The alternative
l approach is to incorporate adjustments that are triggered either automatically or at
predetennined periods by changes in market prices. The latter approach tends to lessen the
[ contractor's risk thereby producing a "fairer" quotation.
1-
[
[
r
[
r
I
r
I
[
I
[
I
[
l
I
I
L
L
l_
l_
1_
26
6. Diversion Strategy Committee's Recommendations on Waste Reduction
Program Planning
6.1 Introduction
In its rèview of waste reduction activities currently being provided to or available in Elgin
County and St. Thomas, the Diversion Strategy Committee (DSC) observed that in general
terms the County and City are far in advance of the services being provided elsewhere in the
Province. Two separate operational material recycling and compost facilities are in operation
and being used by the municipalities. Both compete for a common market. In addition other
material recycling facilities are in operation in London and Ingersoll.
Two significantly different collection systems are in use within the County and this otTers the
opportunity to assess peñonnance and cost. Where a full service for mixed wastes and
recyclable and organic materials is provided, the reduction levels for the waste stream under
municipal control (MSW) exceed 65 per cent, well above the Provincial objective for the year
2000. Table 1 summarizes current arrangements.
At the time the of the DSC reporting, nearly 88 per cent of the County/City population was
served by either a dry mixed waste or blue box collection system with the reduction levels
achieved by these systems ranging from 7 to 15 percent of the MSW stream. In addition a
number of municipal contracts provided full service systems (i.e. 3 stream collections or 2
stream wet/dry collections) and on a population basis these represented slightly less than 60 per
cent of the combined County/City populations. These full service systems were estimated to be
achieving 65 percent and over in reduction to the MSW stream. On a weighted average basis
the overall County and City peñonnance was nearly 46 percent.
The Committee also observed in its Report that over the past year the range of materials
included in the recycling program had expanded significantly and that most of the materials
identified by Ontario Regulation 101/94 as Schedule 1: Blue Box Materials and Supplementary
Blue Box Materials were now being collected and processed.
Generally the Committee concluded that 3R reduction programs were well-established and that
peñonnance levels appeared to be steadily improving. Some shortfalls were seen in household
hazardous waste management.
6.2 Facility Operations
The DSC carefully considered the question of operation of material recycling and central
compost faciIities. Ownership was considered as a secondary issue since the municipaIity(s)
could own a facility and contract out its operation. With respect to operations, the DSC
27
concluded that the operation of these facilities should remain with the private sector for several
reasons:
(i) the scale of these facilities in order to be economically viable requires a service
area well beyond Elgin County. Both the Green Lane and TCR systems
cun-entIy service areas outside of Elgin County and, as a result of recent
approvals, are licensed to service the entire Province. The Committee views the
scale of such an operation to be outside the municipalities' field of responsibility.
(ii) operating the processes and marketing the product of these facilities requires
management skills and capabilities not normally required or provided by
municipalities.
The Committee generally concluded that the private sector already offers a high level of
capability in 3R collection and processing programs and that marketing of recycled materials
was a field of activity outside of the normal municipal experience and expertise. As a
consequence the Committee concluded that operation of material recycling and composting
facilities shQuld continue to provided by the private sector and that the municipalities should
contract out these services to commercial operators.
6.3 Blue Box Collection and WetJDry CoUection Systems
The DSC examined both processing systems cun-entIy under contract to municipalities within
the County. It is recognized that the MOEE had accepted the TCR wet/dry system as meeting
Regulation 101194 with respect to the blue box system requirements thereby satistying Aylmer's
service arrangements. Placement of compost generated by TCR onto agricultural lands has
been approved by the MOEE. This acceptance was based on a successful post-process screening
program undertaken by TCR.
I
I"
The Committee has concluded that the option as to the level of service should remain with the
local municipality and that this would be determined by open tender. Information was
assembled on the relative costs of the two systems but this proved to be incomplete. The TCR
system appears to cost less if one considers only the published collection and processing fignres.
Final results of compost placement, disposal of residual materials and the associated costs, and
the relatively lower price levels received for loose materials all make comparisons to the Green
Lane system impossible at this time.
I
I
I
Because of the range of services provided across the County and the diversity of the member
municipalities, the Committee felt that a County-wide contract was not a practical proposition.
The Committee did however conclude that smaller "grouped" contracts for common service
levels should be considered since these are likely to produce lower costs when compared to
individual contracts. Grouped contracts could, for example, focus on municipaIities with cross
boundary service opportunities and similar access to processing facilities - Central Elgin,
I
í'_
28
:MaIahide/South Dorchester/Springfield and Aylmer were seen as a possible step. Contracts
could be called for a common set of services that included schedule co-ordination, common
materials collection, program promotion etc.
6.4 Recyclable Materials Collected
The Committee has concluded that a County-wide diversion plan should include
standardization of the list of materials considered for recycling and that this should include the
full Blne Box Schedule 1 materials plus the Supplementary listing. All municipalities in the
County shonld also be reqnired to enter into contracts for the collection of recyclable materials _
depots do not achieve the desired reduction levels. In the case of the Aldborough and Dunwich
landfills removal of recyclable materials at curbside would increase the level of waste reduction
thereby extending the potential life of the two landfills.
6.5 Composting
The Committee Report examines the question of composting and the associated operational and
processing issues. Concern was expressed over the potential for expansion of an organic
collection systems (wet/dry or green compostainer) to a Connty-wide basis. The conclusion
reached was that most rural municipaIities would not support such programs due the fact that
residents already have their own alternatives and would reject the costs of collection and
processing. It was acknowledged that a different situation prevailed in urban settings and
curbside collection of organic materials could be provided in the urban fringe around St.
Thomas, Ay~er and other urban areas.
6.6 Mixed Waste Collection
~
The DSC also examined the issue of total amount of mixed wastes being generated and
concluded that restrictions such as those now in place in St. Thomas should be more widely
implemented. The recommendation was made that in combination with an expansion of
recyclable material collection systems a County-wide limitation on the number of mixed waste
bags being picked-up at curbside should be initiated. Based on the St. Thomas and the Central
Elgin (port Stanley area) experience, two bags/household was considered to be a reasonable
weekly average. In the Committee's opinion waste collections beyond this limit should be
subject to the imposition of a user-pay charge based on the number of bags collected with
collection of the charge implemented through a tag purchase program. The responsibility for
implementing this collection restriction should, however, remain with the local municipalities.
I
I
l_
User-pay systems could be utilized at transfer stations as is the case in Bayham/Port
BurweIl!Vienna and St. Thomas (Southwold Street) stations. User charges should be assessed
29
with the objective being that they cover municipal waste management costs so that cost
transfers to the tax account are minimized.
1-
6.7 Education of the Public
In its Report the DSC stressed the need for public education to be a penuanent feature of waste
management within the County and the diversion plan, that it is absolutely essential and is
required whether the objective is to achieve a 2 bag limit or to optimize recycling efforts and
household hazardous waste control Education should be a function of a County-wide ",aste
management plan with the costs shared between the County and the City.
, -
I
I
6.8
Household Hazardous Waste
The Committee carefully considered the issue of hazardous waste management. From the
review of the ammgements currently being provided across the County and in the City it is
apparent ~at the public plays a major role in identifÿing hazardous materials and in
transporting them to special depots. This position applies in virtually all municipalities and the
success of these voluntary an-angements depends entirely on the general public recognizing the
potential co~sequences of environmentally bad disposal practices.
Materials assembled at the depots are being handled in accordance with MOEE procedures.
As a brief overview ofthe infonuation available to the DSC at that times - lead base paints were
assembled aµd taken to Tricil (Lambton County); oils were taken to BresIau (Waterloo Region)
for recycling; batteries to special battery recyclers; propane tanks to tank refurbishing fInus;
and non-lead paints were mixed and taken away by public users for floors, barns etc.
It is recognized that regardless of the collection system - curbside or depot, the major task of
initially classitying the materials and separating them into mixed wastes, recyclable materials
(blue box and/or organic) and hazardous materials remains with the public - the initial user of
the materials. It is also recognized that this classifIcation responsibility extends to municipal
sewer systems. Wastes such as paint sludges, oils and liquid fertilizers are all generally
considered as hazardous materials and cannot be. handled by municipal sewage treatment
systems. As a consequence, an environmentaIIy responsible approach to the disposal of these
materials is essential.
In the Committee's opinion, education clearly would continue to play a signifIcant role in
helping the public with this task. Uuless the public was fully aware of the types of materials
classifIed as hazardous materials and their implication to the environment, they cannot and
would not act responsibly.
30
Along with education the public also needed to have available accessible depots where materials
could be easily taken. The Committee considered that these depots would have to be easily
accessible to the public and operated on schedules that were well known and published for
public information.
From its review of the arrangements in operation across the County, the Committee concluded
that improvements could be made:
(i) by expanding public education and information activities: - (a) to a County-
wide basis with the distribution of information on the types of materials regarded
as hazardous and the significance of bad disposal practices.
(ñ) by developing and locating depots in areas more accessible to the public. The
Committee noted that at that time a numlier of municipalities did not have easily
accessible facilities;
(ñi) by operating the depots on convenient-to-use schedules.
The Committee concluded that hazardous waste management should be part of an ongoing
County-wid~ public education program. While the County was seen as being the catalyst to
encourage the local municipalities, the local municipalities were responsible for ensuring the
availability of such programs.
6.9 Contractual Approach to 3R Programs/CollectionlWaste Disposal
The Committee carefully considered the problem of maintaining an "equal opportunity" for
both TCR and Green Lane to continue operations. The Committee concluded that
consideration should be given to calling of proposals for the collection of mixed waste and
recyclableslblue box/dry wastes on either: (i) a grouped municipal basis, or (ñ) local municipal
I basis to determine the most acceptable system.
L
With the increased emphasis on diversion systems (MRF - material recycling and CCF _
composting) the role of the landfill, although necessary for all systems, does lessen. In the
Committee's view landfill should be seen as the point for disposal of residual materials from the
processing facilities and should therefore be common to all systems. Consideration should be
given to the calling for proposals from the private sector for the provision of a landfill service
based on "guaranteed" floor tonnages for the entire County including the City. This should be
based on a long term contract approach with allowances for adjustment due to inflation etc.
and alterations to the total tonnage figure.
In developing this proposal call consideration should be given to calling for separate proposals
(based on grouped and separate municipalities) for (i) the collection of mixed wastes, organics,
31
and recyclables - as three separate collections or one collection as a wet/dry system, and (ii) the
processing of materials through the MRF and CCF. The latter proposal call -ie (ü), should be
as a combined service and be based on tonnages delivered to the facility complexes. The
contractor would retain aU revenues from the sale of recycled materials and, based on recent
revenue exp~rience, it is possible that this could result in a significantly lower cost system.
6.10 Summary ofDSC Recommendations
In its Report the DSC recommended to the Joint Board for Waste Management Planning that:
Recommen4ation 1. Geographic service area to be considered by the County of Elgin
and the City ofSt. Thomas in developing a I lunicipal Waste Management Master Plan
be limited to Elgin County;
Recommendation 2. Planning period for the Master Plan be set at 20 years;
Recommendation 3. Waste reduction level target for the County and City of St. Thomas
be the Provincial objective of 50 percent reduction by 2000;
Recommendation 4. A public education program on waste management and reduction
opportunities be developed for the combined County and City as a co-ordinated
County-wide program. Further this program be contracted out to the private sector on
a tenn basis with the monitoring and service delivery being monitored by the Joint
Board.
Recommendation 5. Collection and processing of" recyclable materials to be contracted
out to the private sector;
Recommendation 6. Contracting for the collection and processing of materials to remain
a local municipal responsibility. Individual municipalities to detennine collection
frequency (weekly or biweekly). Local municipalities should consider co-operating with
neighbouring municipalities to achieve the potential cost benefIts of larger scale
contracts and common service arrangements;
l
Recommendation 7. County establish the range of recyclable materials to be collected.
The standard for recyclable materials collected for the entire County to cover the
materials listed on Schedule 1 Blue Box Materials and Supplementary Blue Box
Materials.
Recommendation 8. County establish a bag limit of2 bags per week for the collection of
mixed wastes to be effective wherever municipalities contract for curbside collection;
32
Recommendation 9. County adopt the standard that services for the collection at
curbside and the processing of residential organic materials are to be provided by
municipalities for all urban municipalities and for urban fringe areas adjacent to rural
Townships to urban municipalities.
Recommendation 10. Local municipal coutracts for the contracting of collection and
processing services for recyclable materials and organic materials will consider:-
- Contract terms to be specified
I
I
- Contracts to provide for the possibility of separate collection and processing
contracts as well as integrated contracts
- County to provide for the beuefit of local municipalities suggested standards for
Tendering and Contracts
- All revenues from the sale of recycled materials to be retained by the operator
- Contracts to contain a clause allowing for contract adjustment at year eud if
recyclable material sale prices vary by a specified percentage from the prices
quoted and listed in the tender
or
- Contractor to be entirely responsible for estimating the sale value of recyclable
materials
The DSC recommendations envisioned a continuation of the present level of peñormance for
Aylmer, Malahide/South Dorchester/Springfield, S1. Thomas and Dutton-Dunwich (Dutton
I area). For all remaining municip:ilities the Committee looked for a significant increase in the
'L waste reduction objectives which would be achieved lIu:ge!y through the addition of dry
recyclable/blue box collection programs and the collection of organic materials.
r
33
7. WASTE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES TO BE CONSIDERED
BY ELGIN COUNTY AND ST. THOMAS
7.1 Common Elements
Based to a large degree on the work of the Diversion Strategy Committee, there are a series of
"common" elements that should be incorporated into the development of a County-wide Waste
Management Master Plan:
o Mixed waste collection - curbside collection to be provided by all municipalities with
pick-up limited to 2 bags per household per week. Individual municipalities to
determine the frequency of pick-up and to incorporate this iu local service contracts.
o Blue box or dry recyclable collection - curbside collection to be provided by all local
municipalities with schedules to be determined at the municipal level. Option open for
the municipalities to consider separate blue box or dry waste collection. Materials to be
considered for recyclable collection will be MOEE Regulation 101/94 Schedule 1 and
Supplementary blue box materials.
o Organic collection - curbside collection to be provided by all urban municipalities and
for urban fringe areas in rural areas adjacent to St. Thomas and Aylmer. Pick-up
schedules to be determined at the municipal level. Option open for municipalities to
consider a 2 stream wet/dry system or a 3 stream system.
o Household hazardous waste depots - centralized depots to be in East, Central and
West Elgin and operated on an advertised-schedule basis.
o Education - a County-wide approach to public education.
i All of the above-noted services except for education are services which are currently under the
'L jurisdiction of local municipalities but could be assumed by the County, directly or through a
Joint Board in partnership with the City of St. Thomas. These services could be provided by
municipal organizations or alternatively by continuation of the present approach to contract
out these services to qualified waste collection fIrms.
7.2 Satisfying the County/City Requirement for a Landfill for Residual Materials
7.2.1 Background
Earlier in this Report a review was undertaken of the residual material tounages that would
likely require landfill disposal. Separation into MSW and IC&I wastes was done in order to
34
distinguish those wastes under municipal control from those controlled by the private sector.
Section 1 of this Report noted that fIve landfill disposal alternatives would have to be evaluated
in determining the best solution for the long term waste disposal requirements for a service area
limited to Elgin County and St. Thomas. These alternatives were originally identified for
detailed review in the Terms of Reference Co,!" the 1995 Waste Management Plan and generalIy
included the following:-
r
ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT DISPOSAL ARRANGEMENTS
ALTERNATIVE 1- Identify and develop a CountylCity owned landfIll-within the
County of Elgin;
ALTERNATIVE_2 - Merge with the LondonlMiddlesexWaste Management
Planning program t~ develop-a-long term-waste disposal fatillity.;
ALTERNATIVE 3 - Identify and negotiate a long term agreement for waste disposal
to a landtill outside of Elgin County (in Ontario or US);
ALTERNATIVE 4 - Negotia~purchaseofthe-GreenLane Landfill;
ALTERNATIVE 5 - Negotiate a long term agreement for waste disposal at the Green
LaneLandfdL
In order to evaluate these alternatives a base position for Alternative 1 should fIrst be developed
on the total cost of developing and operating a landtill sized for Elgin CountylSt. Thomas wastes
considering (i) MSW only and (ü) MSW and IC&I combined. With the exception of
Alternative 2, the three remaining alternatives would then _be assessed against the disposal costs
determined in the review of Alternative 1.
r
I
, -
The following section provides a cost review of a series of landfill sizes that broadly cover the
requirements of Elgin CountylSt. Thomas and a site required for the LondonlMiddIesex area.
It should be noted at the outset that the cost fIgures cited in the text are the ones used by the
Joint Board in reaching its decision on the prefeITed alternative and as a consequence may no
longer be current.
7.2.2 Landtill Operational Costs
The approach taken to arrive at the landfill costs estimates utilized and updated costs provided
in a special report commissioned by the Waste Reduction Advisory CODnnittee entitled "Cost
Accounting Methods for Landfill", dated 28 February 1991 which was prepared by VHB
Research & Consulting Ine. and MacLaren Engineers Ine. Table 6.2.2 is drawn from this
Report and pròvides a comparison of three landfills with capacity ranges of smaIl - 300,000
I
I
35
tonnes, medium - 2,000,000 tonnes, and large - 6,000,000 tonnes. The smallest size landfill is
reasonably çIose to the site size required to service only the MSW wastes from the combined
County and City. The large size site refl~ the size of a site that would likely be required for
the greater London area.
í
[
í
[
I
l
This approach was taken to arrive at a very preliminary estimate of the cost levels for the
capitalization, operation and closure for three differently sized landfills. These estimates were
checked against the experience of other areas including those reported by Green Lane in order
to confIl"lIl these costs estimates.
It should be stressed that these costs are for landfill only. They do not reflect an integrated
tipping fee approach whereby cost adjustments are made for deficits for other waste
management activities. Such adjustments to the tipping fees could include transfers to reflect
losses associated with recycled material collection (current experience shows a loss as a result of
low recyçlable material revenues) or compost collection/processing/sale. are reflected in the
tipping fees.
Assumptions in the Model inçlude:
I
o 20 year site life
o average depth of excavation of3 m and height offill oflO m
o 100 m buffer allowance around fill area
o 500 m property compensation zone around the net site area
o refuse-to-daily cover ratio of 4:1 (by volume)
o site proportions of2 (length) to 1 (width)
o above-ground and below-ground (excavation) side slopes of 4 (horizontal) to 1 (vertical)
o surface drainage ditches around the entire site
o 100 years - post closure period
I
I
I
I
r
I
I
l
I
[
[
I
I
L
36
TABLE 7.2.2
Landfill-Size
Small Medium- ÙU'ge
300;OOOionne 2,OOO;OOO·tonne 6,OOO;OOOionne . .
$/t % $It % $It %
Initial capital $16.8'i' 21% $5.9-5 14% $4.%- 13%
cost .
- Annual: $41;12 52% $27.23 63% $25;69 65"Æ.
operating .cost
TreatmentpIànt $0.88 1% $0.67 2% $0.67 2%
capital co~
Occasion:Ø $3.30 4% $1.32 3% $1.43 4%
capital costs I
Occasiona,I $0.00 0% $0.00 0% $0.00 I 0%
operating costs
Treatment plant .$4Al 6% $2;09 5% $1.54 4%
operating c-osts
Site closure costs $0.22 0%. $0.11 0% $0.11 0%
.
Perpetual. care $11.90 15% . $6.06 14% $4;85 12%
costs
TOTAL $78.70 100% $43.43 100% $39.25 100%
Note: Above estimates pre-date the MOEE regulations released in Augnst 1998 on the
development of new and expanded landfills and should be interpreted as being compårative at
this time.
The above l"fVÌew indicated that cost reductions do apply with different orders of magnitude in
the operational size of the landfill. A landfill with a capacity of about 300,000 tonnes will cost
somewhere in the order of $75.00 to $80.00 per tonne for waste disposal and as the total tonnage
approaches 1,000,000 tonnes this will drop to the mid $40 to $50 per tonne range. A large scale
landfill with a capacity of 6,000,000 tonnes would cost close to $40 per tonne (Note: London's
WI2A base costs were estimated to be $28 to $32 per tonne).
37
7.2.3 Revi~w of Alternative Waste Disposal Solutions
r
r
[
I
I
[
Alternative I: Identify and develop a County/City owned landfill within the County of Elgin:
In Section 3.2 of this Report, estimates were provided on the total wastes likely to be generated
in the County and City by the year 2000. These were separated to provide MSW and IC&I
estimates. H the County and City were to assume responsibility for handling only MSW the
total landfill tonnage over a 20 year period would be in the order of 265,000 tonnes, rising to
663,000 tonnes ifIC&I wastes are added.
Based on the estimates developed in Section 6.2.2, costs for the operation of a County/City
landfill for MSW wastes alone would approach $80 per tonne with no allowance incorporated
for replacement of the site after the 20 year period had elapsed. H both MSW and IC&I wastes
were included the estimated costs would likely be about $60 to $65 per tonne.
:
With the availability of alternative landfills to the County and City, which are approved for
IC&I wastes, alternative disposal opportunities currently exist for commercial waste
management fIrms. These sites are believed to be charging "gate" fees in the order of $50 per
ton (or roughly $55 per tonne) with the fee negotiable and based on contract tonnages. Haulage
costs for a longer term volume contract including transfer would likely increase this to a total
cost in the order of $65 per ton.
As a bench¡µark for comparison, the City of London currently charges $66 per ton ($73/tonne)
at the City's WI2-A landfill to commercial waste management fIrms and based on recent
reviews un4ertaken by London many of these waste haulers appear to be using alternative
disposal facilities. Accordingly, and for the purposes of this evaluation, the $65 per ton tipping
fee becom~ a critical "market" figure. H landfill disposal costs for an Elgin County site
exceeded this figure then lower cost export alternatives would become more attractive with the
result that waste tonnages handled by a County and City landfill would be largely limited to
only MSW.
I
I
From review of these costs, the combined capital service and operational costs of a County of
Elgin/City of St. Thomas landfill based on MSW tonnages would appear to exceed the market
disposal rate for area IC&I wastes with the result that these wastes would not be attracted to an
Elgin site. Siguificant lowering of tipping fees would be required in order to increase tonnages
sufficiently to compete with the "area market price for waste disposal". As a consequence,
Alternative 1 does not appear to be an economically attractive solution for the County and City
to pursue. Contract arrangements with larger landfill operations would likely result in more
favourable disposal fees for landfilling MSW materials.
I
l
I
L
Alternative 2 Merging with the LondonlMiddlesex Waste Management Planning program:
With respect to LondonlMiddlesex Waste Management Planning program alternative, the City
preseµtly charges $66/ton, as noted above, to the IC&I sector with a factor of 2 times charged
I
l
I
I
r
I
[
I
I
[
I
I
[
[
l_
I
I
[
I
L
I
1_
I
l_
38
for waste loads containing recyclable materials. Green Lane matches these tipping fees with a
slightly lower rate of$65/ton being charged to St. Thomas IC&I waste haulers.
Although London's cUlTent landfill operational costs are estimated at from $28 to $32/ton, this
cost does not include expenses associated with the long tenn EA planning program for site
replacement, perpetual care costs, or replacement costs for the existing site. Costs assessed to an
outside user - municipal or private would likely remain in the area of$65/too.
London and Middlesex County have just fmaIized an approach for the Long Tenn Waste
Disposal Strategy to satisfy the waste management requirements of the two municipalities.
Tenns of Reference have been drafted for the consideration of 4 alternative approaches and the
criteria for their evaluation. Expansion of the current service and export will be investigated.
From the standpoint of site availability, estimates of landfill capacity suggest that London has
from 20 to 33 years remaining capacity. Should the W12A service area be expanded it is
possible that capacity could be made available for the St. Thomas Elgin County area. At the
time the Joi/lt Board considered this alternative London had indicated that it was not prepared
to modify its service area at that time and as a consequence this alternative would therefore not
be available in time to satisfy ElginlSt. Thomas needs.
In reviewing Alternative 2, it would appear at this time that this alternative would not be open
for consideration for two reasons - (i) significant delays in the program such that it would not be
available in time to resolve the County/City requirements; and (ñ) no expressed desire by either
Middlesex or London to expand their planning program, although the alternatives being
studied will Include serviee area modification.
Despite these reasons this alternative could emerge as a possible alternative because of the
operational scale of the disposal system and the close proximity of the site to 8t. Thomas and the
central area of Elgin County. The City and County may therefore wish to continue exploring
the possibili1Y of expanding the W12A service area.
Alternatives 3 and 5 would involve long tenn contracting for waste disposal at a landfill either
within Elgin County or outside the County. Both represent disposal contracts and are
examined jointly and in more detail later in this section.
Alternative 4 With respect to ownership of the Green Lane landfill, increases in waste reduction
activities and market competition for IC&I wastes have significantly affected the waste
tonnages being received at the Green Lane site. As noted earlier wastes generated by
residential development in Elgin County and St. Thomas are less than half of the total wastes
being received at the site and the IC&I wastes generated in Elgin County are quite likely
market-driven and therefore not predictable in tenns of forecasting landfill tonnages for cost
assessment.
I
I
[
r
I
[
[
[
I
[
[
39
To maintain an economically acceptable tipping fee, the tonnages entering the site would have
to be well a1>ove the MSW estimates for the County and City. Waste tonnages, to maintain a
competitive position relative to other landfill alternatives, would therefore have to be drawn
from a service area well beyond Elgin County. Indeed this is exactly the service experience of
the present Green Lane landfill - in order to generate target operational tonnages the service
area was extended beyond Elgin County to include most of Middlesex County and the IC&I
wastes from London.
In the past purchase of the Green Lane landfill alternative was seen as an possible solution _
until one examined the service area needed to generate the tonnage and indirectly the tipping
fees charged. Ownership of this site by the St. Thomas and Elgin County would effectively limit
the site's market area and the costs associated with the site's operation would immediately rise
and ultimatfly be high enough to "trigger" IC&I wastes being moved to alternative landfills.
Overall the end result would be that this alternative faced the same high costs as encountered
by Alternative 1.
Alternative 4 is not considered as a practical or economically viable alternative for the County
and City to pursue. Further consideration of this alternative should therefore be discontinued
at this time.
Alternatives 3 and 5 should be examined further at this time with Alternative 2 being held in
abeyance.
Alternative 3 - IdentifY and negotiate a long tenn agreement for waste-disposal·to a
I~dfillontside of Elgin County:(ïn-Ontario or US);
Alternative 5 - Negotiate a long tenn agreement for waste disposal at the Green Lane
Landfill.
I
L
Commentary on the Remaining Two Alternatives - For the purposes of comparison
Alternatives 3 and 5 are similar in that a long tenn disposal contract between the muuicipalities
and the landfill operator would be required. Detennining which of these two alternatives is
prefeITed did however require careful consideration and action by the Joint Board and there
were a number of factors that had to be recognized at that time in order to reach a conclusion:
I
1-
(i) At the time of the Joint Board's review the Green Lane landfill had an approved
service life for the period up to March 1999. Oosure of the present site was recognized
to be "time driven" and not based on physical capacity and site loading. Based on
waSte disposal experience since the re-opening of the site, the Green Lane landfill had a
remaining capacity to about year 2000 - or nearly 2 years beyond the EA Board closure
date.
1_
l
1-
I-
I
[
[
I
1_-
[
[
[
[
I
L
L
I_
I-
L
L
40
(ÍI) Green Lane was then in the process of developing a long term 20 year landfill for an
MSW and IC&I service area that would include all of Elgin County, St.Thomas, most of
Middlesex County and London (IC&I only).
(ill) No landfills, outside of Elgin County and within the Province, were presently
approved for the disposal of MSW from Elgin County and St. Thomas - other than
through an emergency order.
(iv) A number of landfills in Ontario had a Province-wide certificate for the disposal of
IC&I wastes and some were in the process of expanding this service capability - such as
BFI's Ridge landfill in Kent County, for which the necessary Environmental Assessment
studies are now underway to permit an expansion of capacity and the service area to
include a wider MSW disposal capability.
(v) A number ofIandfills in the US wére then handling wastes from Ontario sources and
claimed to have sufficient capacity for long term disposal contracts. Based on this it was
considered likely that these landfills could handle EIgin/St.Thomas waste disposal
requirements.
(vi) Privatization of waste collection and disposal was achieving wider acceptance as an
alternative and this could include munic;pal facility sale to the private sector as a
variation.
At that time, the waste disposal marketplace was extremely volatile and changes were being
experienced - in terms of service provision, tipping fees, availability of sites, and long term site
capacities. It was noted that new landfill alternatives appeared to be in the process of being
finalized and could be available for Elgin County and St. Thomas. However, outside of US
disposal facilities, there were no Ontario sites available at that time with a service area approval
for MSW waste disposal that could be meshed with the then applicable closure schedule for the
Green Lane landfIlL All potential Ontario alternatives would still require regulatory approval,
currently under the Environmental Assessment Act, before they could handle MSW from Elgin
County and St. Thomas.
The County/City approach in assessing the remaining alternatives had to be sufficiently flexible
to allow the contractor sufficient to obtain the necessary regulatory approvals. Acceptance of a
long term solution for waste disposal that relied on an Ontario landfill would therefore have to
be based on the condition that all regulatory approvals would be obtained.
The Joint Board explored the possible position that Green Lane may take in its submission of
the ESW - 10 landfill proposal for EA Act approval and concluded that Green Lane would
likely benefit significantly from the support of the County and City. This viewpoint resulted
I
I-
I
r-
I
I
I-
I-
I-
I
I
I
,
l
l
l
41
from an appreciation ofthe requirement for Green Lane to demonstrate "need" in its EA Act
submission.
This situation was quite similar to the circumstances faced by the County/City in the
Euvironmental Assessment Board Hearing into the 5 year expansion of the Green Lane site. As
indicated in the Board's Decision, County/City support of the Green Lane application was a
major factor in the Board's deliberations.
The Joint Board concluded that any Ontario waste disposal alternative would therefore require
a statement of interest and support from Elgin County and St. Thomas to help the applicant
establish the "need" for the landfill. To resolve this position the process followed by the
County/City in identifying and selecting the preferred disposal solution would therefore require
a "blanket ~ndertaking" of support as a conditiou otTered to the potential waste disposal service
supplier. Although not required for the export to US alternative it was felt that this
undertaking would likely be required to help generate Ontario submissions.
After some deliberation the Joint Board opted to "call for waste disposal proposals" by
following a two-phased process - fIrSt, a call for DroDosals (RFP) to generate a list of qualified
and interested submissions, and secondly, a short !istin!! from these submissions of a limited
number of proponents invited to enter into negotiations leading to a formal contract. By
separating tlìe tendering process into two stages and providing in the initial RFP phase the
County/City undertaking of support, it was felt that the County/City would be able to
determine the interested parties, the scope and status of t,heir service proposal, and fmally the
basis for negotiation of a formal contract.
With respect to the landfill disposal requirements of the County and City, these requirements
were to be satisfied by contracting out this service and not by the purchase or development of a
County/City-owned facility.
7.3 Scope of Services Required by the County and the City
A number of options existed for the Joint Board to consider in the handling of contracts for the
collection and disposal/processing of mixed materials, recyclable materials and organic
materials: -
- a collection and disposal/processing contract for individual or grouped municipalities
which was based on a common level of service for all participants and provided for an
"integration" of all service costs;
- a similar all-embracing contract approach which covered the entire County/City area
and was based on a common level of service and provided an integrated service;
42
- separate municipal contracts for each service - waste disposal, mixed waste collection,
recyclable material collection; recyclable material processing; organic material
colleçtion; organic material processing;
Because of the present municipal contractual arrangements, the range of possible service
combinations was potentially extensive. In order to simplify the question these services were
structured into the following service arrangements:
Service Levell Waste Disposal Facility - Contract for the provision of long term (20
year minimum) landfill disposal services for all municipalities within Elgin County, plus
the City of ~t. Thomas, in accordance with pre-determined base yearly tonnages;
Service Level 2 Collection of Mixed Wastes + Waste Disposal Facility - Contract for the
provision or'a long term (20 year minimum) integrated mixed waste and disposal service
for all municipalities within Elgin County, plus the City of St. Thomas, in accordance
with pre-determined collection schedules for each municipality and in ~ccordance with
pre-determined base yearly tonnages of mixed wastes;
Service Level 3 Collection of Mixed Wastes + Recyclable Materials + Waste Disposal
Facility - Contract for the provision of a long term (20 year minimum) integrated mixed
waste and recyclable materials collection and disposal/processing service for all
municipalities within Elgin County, plus the City ofSt. Thomas, in accordance with pre-
determined collection schedules for each municipality and in accordance with pre-
determined base yearly tonnages of mixed wastes and the range of recyclables to be
collected;
Service Level 4 Collection of Mixed Wastes + Recyclable Materials + Organic Materials
+ Waste Disposal Facility - Contract for the provision of a long term (20 year minimum)
integrated mixed waste, recyclable materials, and organic collection and
disposal/processing service for municipalities within Elgin County, plus the City of St.
Thomas, in accordance with pre-determined collection schedules for each municipality
and in accordance with pre-determined base yearly tonnages of mixed wastes and
recyclables to be collected. The collection of organic materials would be limited to
specified municipalities;
The contract for Service Levell would be based on handling wastes from the entire County and
City and for simplicity could be entered into between the County/City and a service supplier.
Earlier in this Report disposal of IC&I wastes was examined and the conclusion reached that,
since a number of landfills are already licensed for such wastes, the IC&I market for disposal
services would be determined almost exclusively by the tipping fees charged for disposal. As a
consequence there could be no "guarantee" of IC&I wastes and flexibility would therefore be
required in setting tonnages. However, to accommodate this uncertainty, the contract should
[
IU
,
r
I
[
r
I-
I
I
I
In
[
I
[
I
I
I
43
be based on a range of waste tonnages which covered the minimum and maximum anticipated
levels. Three waste disposal options were therefore developed and these are shown on Table
6.3.1. For each option a series of six design/operational factors are provided: -
- minimum guaranteed annual quantity
- maximum annual quantity
- minimum daily quantity
- maximum daily quantity
- minimum total quantity over 20 years
- maximum total quantity over 20 years
By setting these ranges the County/City would be in the position to take advantage of increased
tonnages over the minimum MSW levels - Option 1, which would accommodate lower 3R
performanc~ levels. Daily estimates would enable the contractor to gauge operational
requirements and the resultant costs. Option 3 tonnage estimates would include approximately
one-half the IC&I wastes estimated for the County/City area. By setting out these ranges the
County/City would be able to negotiate flexibility in the contract.
Contracts for Service Levels 2, 3, and 4 would be in accordance with the service requirements
listed on attached tables and could be entered into by the County/City on behalf of the local
municipalities or directIy between the seryice supplier and the individual municipalities.
Suppliers should be required to provide individual service level rates for each municiDalitv
within the çounty including the City of St. Thomas which would be based on service tables
provided in this document. These service levels would allow the service suppliers to otTer a
service package that covered all the listed services except for landfill disposaL
The third part of the RFP would require the suppliers to indicate the costs for an integrated
service that included both landfill disposal and the municipal services shown on Table 6.3.2 - an
integrated package of services. The call for submissions should ensure that proposals were
received for each individual municipality and for a combined County and City service.
By requiring suppliers to disclose service costs for each municipality, the County/City would
also be able to determine individual municipal costs and whether or not any service provision or
fmancial advantage existed in having a single County-wide contract, or alternatively, a series of
individual municipal contracts. This approach would also permit evaluation of an "averaged
cost" approach versus the alternative for individual municipal services.
It was considered that the tendering approach should also maintain a considerable degree of
flexibility in order to accommodate current contractual arrangements. Suppliers who were
limited to landf"ill disposal or processing of waste materials could combine their submission with
respondents capable of collecting materials for their handling. The converse also applied
whereby bulk haulers of materials could unite with curbside collection specialists and landfill
operators. Other suppliers might be able to only accommodate a limited number of
[
r
44
municipalities and for a restricted number of services. By taking this approach the County/City
were able to retain a great deal of flexibüity and the range of operational options would not be
limited.
[
[
I-
I
[
l
l
[
I
[
I-
I-
I-
I
l
I
I
I
[
¡--
i-
[
I
I-
I
[
l
I
r
l
l
L
I
I
I
L
45
8. DEVELOPING THE SOLUTION
8.1 Requests for Proposals
On March 27th, 1996 the Joint Board called for proposals for the supply of Waste Management
Services for all municipalities within the County of Elgin and the City of S1. Thomas. A
deadline of April 22"", 1996 was set as the deadline for submissions. All interested suppliers
were asked to write for a package on the RFP entitled, "Information for Waste Management
Suppliers". The Information package provided details on the service standards requested by
the local municipalities that had been developed with municipal input by the Diversion Strategy
Committee (DSC), the number of households and population to be served. Inforamtion on the
frequency of collection of mixed wastes, recycled materials and organic materials was prtovided
together with details on the then current waste contracts. In addition details were provided on
the special services that were required by the municipalities - transfer stations. household
hazardous waste depots ete.
Considerable interest was generated in the RFP but only three fIrms submitted comprehensive
submissions:
Green Lane Environmental Group
Three County Recycling & Composting Ine. (now known as TCR Env.)
Laidlaw Waste Systems
Through May 1996 the Joint Board reviewed the RFP submissions and interviewed two of the
suppliers - Green Lane and Three County whose submissions were cI()se from the standpoint of
the prices s~bmitted.
After consillerable deliberation on the two submissions the Joint Board authorized the
Technical Committee to commence discussions with Green Laue to determine the basis for a
contract that could be considered by the City of S1. Thomas and the local municipalities in the
County of Elgin. By the summer of 1997 a fmal draft document that included an amending
agreement, that amends the then cUlTCnt contract between S1. Thomas and Green Lane, and a
''template'' amending agreement known as the Central Elgin amending agreement had been
completed. The amending agreement was signed by the City of S1. Thomas on October 6th,
1997.
The Central Elgin template amending agreement has been submitted to County Council and
can be used by local municipalities as they deal with the provision of local waste management
services.
[
I
[
I
[
r
[
[
[
In
I_
1-
I
I
l
46
8.2 Finalizing the Waste Management Plan
When the Amending agreement was signed by the City on October r/', 1997, Green Lane had
not received acceptance by the MOEE of their application for EA Act approval to an
undertaking that included the expansion of the landfill to handle a specified waste volume for a
defined period of time. The Agreement contains in· Part ill Oause 27 that specifies "This
Amending Agreement shall be of no fõrce or effect ifon Màrch 1", 1999 the Cõntractor (Green
Lane) has not obtained the EA Approval". In signing the amending agreement in advance of
EA Act approval, the City clearly demonstrated its support of Green Lane's submission.
On August 13'\ 1998 by Order in Council the Minister of the Environment and Energy's
acceptance of the EA Act submission, without a hearing, was approved by Provincial Cabinet.
The conditions cited in this Order include a number of conditions in respect to the landfill, that
are of critical importance to the County of Elgin and the City of St. Thomas. Two condition
warr~nt special referenee since they constitute ''wrap-up'' clauses to Master Plan process.
Clause 4.2
"The landfill may only accept waste (including contaminated soil and waste
material which may be used as cover material) generated within Ontario;"
Oause 4.3
- " The proponent shall ensure for the operating life of the site that the
municipal waste service contracts/obligations relating to the geographical
Counties of Elgin and Middlesex, including the City of St. Thomas, shall at all
times receive fll'St priority and precedence to the allocated "annual air space', for
their waste, upon meeting this requirement fmt, then the balance of the available
"annual air space" can be used for waste disposal from all other waste streams."
In the forthcoming Conditions of Approval certificate to be entered into between Green Lane
and the MOEE, it wiD be critical that the County and City right to the use of the landfill be
secured. Green Lane wiD no doubt be the disposal facility for wastes emanating from areas
outside of Elgin and Middlessex Counties. This waste stream could quickly use up the available
air space and the County and City could be back in the same position they were in, in 1992,
when the landfill was close because its capacity had been reached.
Not only must the City and County secure this right but it must be achieved at a tipping fee
that is reasonable and fair. Hthis is not accomplished, then IC&I waste generators within the
County and City, and other waste management fJrllls serving the County and/or the local
municipalities and the aty wiD not be able to utilize the landfill.
8.3 Carrying out the WMMP
The Waste Management Master Plan has been prepared jointly by the City of St. Thomas and
the County. The County's role has been limited to plan preparation and the negotiations with
r
[
l
r-
I-
I
¡-
[
I
I
L_
l
1-
l
I
47
the successful supplier of an agreement for the provision of services to the local municipalities.
Tbe supply of virtually all municipal waste management services now remains with the local
municipalities and they must determine whether or not to implement the template agreement
prepared by Green Lane and attached to the St. Thomas amending agreement or to initiate a
separate process and selection of a service supplier.
All local municipalities have received copies of the Diversion Strategy Committee's report and
can make reference to the service standard recommended by the Committee. For those
municipalities with over 5000 population, review of the MOEE Regulation 101 dealing with 3R
programs sl¡ould be undertaken to ensure their compliance.
8.4 Updating the WMMP
As has been stated throughout this report the topic of waste management is dynamic and ever-
changing and should therefore be evident that today's solutions may not be adequate for the
management requirements of the future. Regular updating is therefore essential and this
should be considered at fIVe year intervals as a minimum with a major review to be carried out
concurrent with the tennination ofthe initial 10 year City contract.
8.5 Contingency Plan
Over the period involved in the preparation of the WMMP concern has often been extressed as
to the availabiIity of alternative disposal solutions. While this was a major problem in 1992 it
appears to be lessening with the availability and acceptability of export as an alternative.
Alternative disposal facilities now exist outside the County, here in Ontario and in the US and
these are now competing for a portion of the Provincial waste stream. In itself this should help
allay concerns over the need for competitive alternatives. London and Middlesex are
proceeding to carefully consider expanding the service area to be considered in their WMMP.
Elgin County and St. Thomas would be weB positioned to take advantage of this opportunity
and should make this known to the MOEE and the London-Middlesex Waste Management
Committee.
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM:
The Management Team
DATE:
January 1ih, 2001
SUBJECT: SCHEDULE OF COUNCIL MEETINGS FOR 2001
Attached for your consideration are suggested meeting dates for County Council this year.
Council can change meeting dates at any time with advanced notice.
Recommendation:
THAT the attached schedule of meeting dates for County Council be approved.
R~·:;i~:r'd'
Mark G. McDonald,
Chief Administrative Officer.
40
SCHEDULE OF COUNTY COUNCIL MEETINGS FOR THE YEAR 2001
DATE OF MEETING TIME
January 9th
January 23th
9:00 a.m.
9:00 a.m.
February 13th
February 27th
9:00 a.m.
no meeting
February ???
March 13th
March 27th
March 29th
9:00 a.m.
9:00 a.m.
9:00 a.m.
April 10th
April 24th
May 8th
May 22nd
9:00 a.m.
9:00 a.m.
9:00 a.m.
9:00 a.m.
June 12th
June 26th
9:00 a.m.
9:00 a.m.
July 10th
July 24th
9:00 a.m.
9:00 a.m.
August 14th
August 28th
9:00 a.m.
9:00 a.m.
September 11th
9:00 a.m.
September 25th
October 9th
9:00 a.m.
No Meeting
October 23rd
9:00 a.m.
November 13th
November 27th
9:00 a.m.
9:00 a.m.
December 11th
December 13th
7:00 p.m.
9:00 a.m.
NOT REQUIRED - CANCELLED
ROMAlOGRA - Feb. 25,26,27 and 28
DRAFT BUDGET mailed to Council
Council review of budget
Budget approved by Council
Budget meeting if required
- If Required
- If Required
AMO Conference - Aug. 19,20,21and 22
ACRO Conference - Oct. 2001 (not set yet-
sometime in the New Year)
(Monday 12th Remembrance Day Holiday)
Warden's Election
Regular Council Meeting
Council Meetings will be held every 2nd and 4th Tuesday of the month and are subject to
change.
41
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM:
DATE:
Mark G. McDonald, C.A.O.
January 1ih, 2001
SUBJECT: OPTIMIZATION OF GREEN LANE LANDFILL
Introduction:
At the December 14th meeting, questions were raised regarding the County's obligations, if
any, respecting the proposal to optimize the waste disposal capacity at Green Lane
through an environmental assessment. In particular, Council requested an estimate of
costs that may be incurred if the County participated in the Environmental Assessment.
Council also supported the County of Middlesex in its request to have intervenor funding
made available to municipalities.
Discussion:
The potential costs of the County's involvement are difficult to determine. Much depends
on the level of co-operation amongst parties, whether resources can be pooled with others,
and the requirements of the host municipality. A perennial consideration relates to the
hydrological aspects of the site and the risks associated with ground water.
Despite the uncertainty of the assumptions mentioned above, one may assume that a peer
review may cost approximately $30,000 for a consultant with legal fees estimated at an
additional $30,000. As a point of interest, the County has a waste management reserve
containing approximately $25,000.
Conclusion:
The extent of the County's involvement in Green Lane's application to expand its disposal
capacity within the existing site remains unknown. Council has previously supported the
County of Middlesex in its request to amend the terms of reference to allow municipalities
access to intervenor funding. Given the potential costs, that support is warranted.
Recommendation:
That this report be received and filed for information purposes.
ALL of which i
ectfully submitted,
Mark G. McDonald,
Chief Administrative Officer.
42
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM:
Mark G. McDonald,
Chief Administrative Officer.
DATE:
January 10, 2001
SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT TO THE PERFORMANCE EXCELLENCE COMMITTEE
Introduction:
The Performance Excellence Program (PEP) was established in 1998 to recognize
(monetarily) employees who have demonstrated exemplary effort in the conduct of their
duties. The PEP committee is composed of the Warden, the CAD., the Director of
Human Resources and a member of the community appointed by Council. In 1998 the
immediate past warden no longer sitting on County Council was appointed as the
community appointee, Mr. Harry Mezenberg.
Discussion/Conclusion:
Now that Council is commencing a new term it may be appropriate to follow the intent of
the previous community appointment and consider appointing the immediate past warden
who no longer sits on County Council, Mr. Perry Clutterbuck. At the same time, it would be
fitting to formally thank past Warden Mezenberg for his service on the PEP committee.
Recommendation:
As determined by Council.
ALL of which is respectfully submitted,
Mark G. McDonald,
Chief Administrative Officer.
43
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM:
Cathy Bishop, Manager of Library Service
DATE:
November 2000
SUBJECT:
BACKGROUND:
AYLMER LIBRARY RENOVATIONS
Elgin County Council adopted the "Elgin County Library Proposed Staffing and Service
Plan" dated February 2000. The plan suggested that two full-time staff be located in
Aylmer and Dutton in order to provide ''front line" in-depth reference services for all
branch libraries in the system. In order to accommodate the staff change in Aylmer it
was necessary to renovate the Aylmer Library.
DISCUSSION:
The staff and residents of Aylmer have commented very positively on the renovations
made to the Aylmer Library. The benefits they have recognised are ease of access to
collections, better utilisation of space and resources, and a much warmer and friendlier
atmosphere.
Renovation costs of $9,300 were included in the 2000 budget of the library. Aylmer
Library currently had one small office that served as a "multi-function" office. It was the
Supervisor's office to do administrative work, a staff consultation room and a staff
lunchroom. The congestion in the office made it very difficult to concentrate on the
administrative duties. This was seen as an opportunity to build a small lunchroom for the
staff to provide a more efficient working arrangement for staff.
As with most renovations and, in particular, construction in heritage buildings such as
the Aylmer Olde Town Hall, unforeseen circumstances materialised during construction.
For example, in the construction of the lunchroom, windows were required to mirror the
existing heritage character of the building. These windows were not anticipated in the
original budget. Also, as construction planning progressed, it soon became apparent
that new carpeting and painting were required, however these were additions to the
original budget. Cabling costs exceed estimates, as well because of the nature of the
walls in the building made cabling difficult. For efficiency sake the circulation desk was
expanded from the original design to make better use of the limited available space. In
short, once construction began, unforeseen costs arose, and the option of postponing
the renovations was not available.
CONCLUSION:
Attached is a copy of the proposed budget and the actual budget costs for the Aylmer
Library renovations. To help mitigate these extraordinary expenses, it is foreseen that
as of December 31st the total library budget may be underspent by $10,000, which could
accommodate about half of the over expenditure in renovation costs. That leaves a
shortfall of approximately $10,000. Staff are confident that these funds can be absorbed
through surpluses in other budgets as we expect to run a surplus in the composite
county budget.
44
Page 2
Aylmer Renovations
RECOMMENDATION:
For your information
Respectfully submitted
~2
Cathy S's op /\ r
Manager of Library Services
?i.d5~;O"
Chief Administrative Officer
45
1/11/01
AYLMER LIBRARY RENOVATION EXPENSES - 2000
DATE COMPANY DESCRIPTION PROPOSED ACTUAL
Sept. 14/2000 Lovells Carpeting - $6,460.12
Sept. 30/2000 RMB Communications Cabling $500.00 $1,412.07
Oct. 11/2000 Hurak Manufacturing Shelving, furniture $5,000.00 $5,063.89
Oct. 11/2000 Annen Painting Painting - $2,857.23
Oct. 11/2000 Bra-Dart Circulation Desk $3,500.00 $6,920.75
Furniture
Oct. 30/2000 Lovers Office Furniture $300.00 $249.74
Furniture
Oct. 30/2000 Keith Hunt Construction - $7,164.69
Construction Renovations
TOTAL TO DATE $9,300.00 $30,128.49
46
To:
Elgin County Council
From:
Karen Dunn, Emergency Measures Co-ordinator
Roy Lyons, St. Thomas Fire Chief
January 9th, 2001
Date:
Re:
Telecommunications Equipment for the Emergency Operations Centre
Introduction
The final component to complete the Elgin County/City of St. Thomas joint Emergency
Operations Center is telecommunications equipment. At the time of an emergency, this
equipment will enable representatives of the Emergency Operations Center to
communicate with their respective agencies at various locations including the emergency
site.
After investigation, staff have determined that the most cost effective way to obtain a
telecommunications system for the Emergency Operations Center is by equipping the
Training Room with a base radio station and associated equipment.
Discussion
The base radio station will consist of six radios separately programmed with the following
frequencies:
1) Ambulance Dispatch
2) St. Thomas Fire Department (also programmed with the Ontario Fire Marshal
and Elgin County Fire Department frequencies)
3) St. Thomas Police Department
4) Works Department (for all Elgin/St. Thomas Works frequencies)
5) Ontario Works utilizing the National Emergency Frequency to be used by the
Ontario Works Representative to contact Social Service agencies of
evacuation centers (Le. Red Cross, Salvation Army, etc.)
6) Mobile Unit and Mag Mount Antenna, programmed with the National Emergency
Frequency to be used by Social Service agencies in the field.
The OPP have not been included in this proposal as they are fully equipped to provide
their own communications network at the time of an emergency.
The System:
A repeater would be placed on the Port Stanley Water Tower and multicoupled with the
existing antenna system currently being used by the St. Thomas Fire Department. Five
VHF broadband antennas will be placed on the roof of the Administration Building. These
antennas will be appropriately spaced to avoid interfering with each other. Antenna cable,
encased in a protective sheath, will run down the side of the building to the Training Room.
47
The quote obtained includes cabling and equipment to run an additional line to the
Manager of Engineering Services' Office, so the Works radio can be used on a daily basis
to contact Works Departments of the Lower-Tier and City.
The Cost:
Last year we applied and were approved for Federal funding of $12,887.10 under the Joint
Emergency Preparedness Program (JEPP). County/City funding required is as follows:
City Portion (40% of $16,782.00)
County Portion (60% of $16,782.00)
$29,670.00
$12.887.10
$16,782.00
$6,713.16
$10,069.74
Telecommunications Equipment Total Cost:
JEPP funding:
Remaining Cost:
The annual cost for the license for the frequencies and maintenance of the telecommunications
base will be approximately $3,000.00 per year ($1,800.00 County and $1,200.00 City).
Recommendation
THAT County Council take advantage of the Government approved JEPP funding in the
amount of $12,887.10,
AND THAT County Council approve funding in the 2001 budget, in the amount of
$10,069.74 to purchase a base radio communications system for the Joint City/County
Emergency Operations Center; subject to confirmation of the City of S1. Thomas for its
share of the project costs.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Chief A .. rative Officer
«V:~~
S1. Thomas F Chief
48
Elgin County Emergency Planning
To:
Elgin County Council
From:
Karen Dunn, Emergency Measures Co-ordinator
Date:
December 5th, 2000
Re:
POA Agreements - Local Side Agreement & Memorandum of
Understanding
Introduction
County staff and staff of the Ministry of the Attorney General's Office have been working
to come to a common understanding of who is responsible for all aspects of the
downloaded Provincial Offences Court and Administration Office.
Discussion
The Agreements are two-fold. One in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding, and
other in the form of a Local Side Agreement.
The Memorandum of Understanding is a standard agreement which outlines thé details
that the Ministry expects to be used in the daily operations of a Courtroom. The Local
Side Agreement is a detailed outline of the outstanding payments We will be receiving,
contractual agreements with the Crown for Prosecution, and the use of Ministry
equipment.
Recommendations
THAT the Warden and the Chief Administrative Officer be authorized to sign the
Memorandum of Understanding and the Local Side Agreement with the Ministry of the
Attorney General.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
JJ
49
,.
LOCAL SIDE AGREEMENT
-between-
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO
as represented by the Attorney General
-and-
THE CORPORATION OF THE
COUNTY OF ELGIN
LOCAL SIDE AGREEMENT
BET WEE N:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO,
as represented by the Attorney General
(herein referred to as the "Attorney General")
OF THE FIRST PART
and-
THE CORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF ELGIN
(herein referred to as the "Municipal Partner")
OF THE SECOND PART
WHEREAS the Attorney General has entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (the "MOU") pursuant to the Streamlining of Administration of the
Provincial Offences Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, cA, (Bill 108) (the "Act"), with respect to the
transfer of Provincial Offences Act ("POA") functions to the Municipal Partner;
AND WHEREAS the MOU contains terms and conditions that apply to every
Municipal Partner;
AND WHEREAS the Attorney General and the Municipal Partner recognize that
there are certain terms and conditions that are specific to a Court Service Area;
AND WHEREAS the MOU contemplates that the Attorney General and the
Municipal Partner will execute a Local Side Agreement (the "LSA") setting out those
terms and conditions;
NOW THEREFORE in consideration of mutual covenants set forth below, the
Attorney General and the Municipal Partner agree as follows:
2
2.6 In the event of any conflict between the provisions of the LSA and the provisions
of the MOU, the provisions of the MOU shall prevail.
3.0 FACILITY ARRANGEMENTS
3.1 The parties acknowledge that, as of the date of execution of the LSA, the
Ontario Realty Corporation ("ORC") leases space at 30 St. Catharine Street, St.
Thomas (the "Premises") and that the Attorney General has an agreement with
ORC for the use of the Premises.
3.2 Notwithstanding paragraph 3.1 of this LSA, for the purposes of the Municipal
Partner's obligations under the Transfer Agreement:
(a) the space at 30 St. Catharine Street, St. Thomas, used by the Attorney
General prior of the Implementation Date for POA and other matters, will
not be available to the Municipal Partner for its use, unless otherwise
agreed to by the parties;
(b) the Municipal Partner shall renovate space at 450 Sunset Drive, St.
Thomas, for the use of POA administration and courtroom facilities.
4.0 REVENUE AND FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS
4.1 Schedule 1, which contains a summary of 1998 revenues, deductions, expenses
and advances, is attached to this LSA and forms part thereof.
4.2 After completion of the Exit Audit, the Municipal Partner shall receive
approximately $64,209.00 which sum is an estimate only of the revenue
collected for the period from January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1998
inclusive, less eligible deductions, expenses and advances. The estimated sum
is subject to adjustment based on the results of the Exit Audit.
4.3 The Municipal Partner shall receive, after the Implementation Date, the fine
revenue collected from January 1,1999 to the Implementation Date, less eligible
deductions and expenses, which sum is subject to adjustment to take into
account the results of an Audit and a final reconciliation. The Attorney General
shall request the delivery of such fine revenue as expeditiously as possible.
4.4 If the Municipal Partner or a serviced municipality is charged, convicted and
fined under the POA, the Municipal Partner shall forthwith disclose the fine to the
Attorney General and shall forthwith pay the fine to the Minister of Finance.
4.5 The Attorney General shall submit to the Municipal Partner, in a timely manner,
invoices for services rendered in accordance with clause 165 (5)(c) of the POA.
"
4
5.0 RECORDS TRANSFER
5.1 The Attorney General shall provide the Municipal Partner, on the Implementation
Date, with the following:
(a) a list of all files and records to be transferred to the Municipal Partner,
together with the actual files and records;
(b) a list of all 1998 charges with fines paid and a list of all 1999 charges with
fines paid to the Implementation Date;
(c) a list of cases purged after January 1,1998 to the Implementation Date,
after the purge on ICON is complete;
(d) a list of charges with unpaid fines at Central Collection Services (CCS) as
of the Implementation Date;
(e) a list of charges with a completion date 90 days prior to the
Implementation Date that have been converted to the transfer court 10
number; and
(f) a list of all charges with a future court date.
5.2 The Attorney General shall provide to the Municipal Partner all available
manuals necessary for the proper administration of the courts, including the
Municipal Manager Manual, the ICON Operations Manual and the Prosecutor
Training Manual, when completed.
5.3 The Attorney General shall provide to the Municipal Partner a list, current as of
the Implementation Date, showing the names of court translators.
6.0 PART I PROSECUTIONS EXEMPT FROM TRANSFER
6.1 In accordance with paragraph 1.3.2 of the MOU, the prosecutions commenced
under Part I of the POA conducted prior to the Implementation Date by a
ministry, other than the Ministry of the Attorney General, or agency responsible
for the offence creating statúte, regulation or other enactment, shall continue to
be conducted by the responsible ministry or agency, at its own expense.
7.0 CONTRACT PROSECUTORIAL EMPLOYEES
7.1 Further to Schedule 1, paragraph 2.5.5 of the MOU, the parties acknowledge
that the Municipal Partner may contract out prosecutorial services to persons
who personally, or through a partner in the practice of law, act as agent, counsel
or solicitor for persons charged under the POA. The Municipal Partner agrees
6
10.0 AUDIT
10.1 The Exit Audit to be conducted on behalf of the Attorney General as required by
the MOU, may not have been completed as of the Effective Date. If incomplete,
the Exit Audit shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and the Attorney
General shall present the Municipal Partner with a copy of the audit report within
one week of its receipt by the Attorney General.
10.2 The execution of this LSA shall not be deemed to be an acceptance by either of
the parties of the content of the audit. Any issue arising with respect to the
results of the audit may be resolved in accordance with the dispute resolution
mechanism set out in paragraph 13.0 of the MOU.
11.0 AMENDMENTS TO THE LSA
11.1 Either party may at any time make a written request to the other to amend the
terms and conditions of the LSA.
11.2 Any request to amend the LSA shall set out the reason or reasons for the
request and shall include any explanatory or supporting documents.
11.3 The recipient of the notice of a request to amend shall respond to the notice in
writing within thirty (30) days.
11.4 Where the Attorney General and the Municipal Partner agree to amend the LSA,
the amendment shall be made in writing and shall be incorporated into and form
part of the Transfer Agreement.
11.5 Where the Attorney General and the Municipal Partner are unable to agree on
the requested amendment, either party may invoke the dispute resolution
provisions set out in paragraph 13.0 of the MOU.
8
: , (
SCHEDULE 1
NET REVENUE CALCULATION
(To be confirmed by Exit Audit)
St. Thomas
Gross POA Revenue 809,672
(January 1, 1998 to December 31, 1998)
Deductions:
Victim Fine Surcharge 107,367
Dedicated Fines 4,779
Subtotal 112,146
Gross Revenue net of deductions 697,526
Expenses:
Prosecutions under Part 1 23,408
Adjudication and Part 3
Prosecutions 24,144
Administration 65,775
Facilities 6,790
Subtotal 120,117
Net Revenue 577,409
Less: Advances 513,200
Total Owing
64,209
-----------
-----------
10
ó ;{
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
- between -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO
as represented as the Attorney General
- and -
THE CORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF ELGIN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREAMBLE........................................................................................................................................2
1.0 GENERAL...........................................................................................·...............................................3
2.0 PRINCIPLES OF TRANSFER: INTEGRITY OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE,
.íuDICIAL INDEPENDENCE AND FAIR HEARING..........................................·........·......··......·........ 5
3.0 DEFINITIONS .................................................................................................................................... 7
4.0 INTERPRETATION .......................................................................................................................... 9
5.0 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES............................................................. 10
6.0 REVENUES AND COSTS ............................................................................................................... 13
7.0 ACCESS AND OWNERSHIP..................................................................··......·..·....·....................... 14
8.0 ACCOUNTING REQUIREMENTS ...............................................................................................14
9.0 AUDIT REQUIREMENTS .............................................................................................................. 14
10.0 OPERATIONAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS..........................................·..··..........···...· 17
11.0 CONFIDENTIALITY .................................................................................................................. 18
12.0 AMENDMENTS TO THE MOU..........................................................·......····.....·................··...19
13.0 DISPUTE RESOLUTION ...........................................................................................................19
14.0 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY ..................................................................................................21
15.0 INDEMNIFICATION .................................................................................................................. 21
16.0 INSURANCE ................................................................................................................................21
17.0 TERMINATION WITH OR WITHOUT CAUSE.....................................·.....................···.....· 23
18.0 RIGHT OF ASSIGNMENT ........................................................................................................ 24
19.0 COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES .................................................................. 24
20.0 WAIVER OF BREACH .............................................................................................................. 25
21.0 SURVIV AL............................................................................................··..................................... 26
22.0 SCHEDULES................................................................................................................................26
Memorandum of Understanding
Page 1
(.,
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO, as
represented by the Attorney General
(herein referred to as "the Attorney General")
OF THE FIRST PART
- and -
THE CORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF ELGIN
(herein referred to as "the Municipal Partner")
OF THE SECOND PART
WHEREAS the Attorney General recognizes that under the Streamlining
of Administration of Provincial Offences Act, 1997, S.O. 1998, cA, (Bill 1 08)
future improvements in service delivery to the public for local justice matters can
best be achieved in partnership with local governments;
AND WHEREAS the Attorney General has invited the Municipal Partner
into the provincial court system as a justice partner;
AND WHEREAS the Municipal Partner has demonstrated its
commitment to engage in full partnership with the Attorney General to assume
justice responsibilities under the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33,
as amended (hereinafter "the Act');
AND WHEREAS the Attorney General has the power under the Act to
enter into an agreement authorizing the Municipal Partner to perrorm all courts
administration and court support functions under the Act and prosecutions of
matters commenced under Parts I and II of the Act;
AND WHEREAS the Attorney General continues to be responsible for
the integrity of the administration of justice, the Attorney General will enter into a
Memorandum of Understanding (which shall contain the same terms and
conditions as this Memorandum of Understanding) with every Municipal Partner;
NOW THEREFORE in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth
below, the Attorney General and the Municipal Partner agree as follows:
Memorandum of Understanding
Page 2
.
1.0
Parts of the 1.1
transfer agreement
Court service area 1.2
Transfer 1.3
components
GENERAL
The Memorandum of Understanding and its Schedules (referred
to collectively as the UMOUU), the Local Side Agreement (referred
to as the ULSAU), and any amendments to any of these executed
by the Attorney General and the Municipal Partner shall form a
document to be known as the Transfer Agreement.
The obligations of the Municipal Partner pursuant to the Transfer
Agreement relate to the functions transferred under the Transfer
Agreement in the court service area described in Schedule 5 of
the MOU.
The Attorney General transfers, under the Transfer
Agreement, the following functions to the Municipal Partner;
1.3.1 the courts administration and court support functions,
including the functions of the clerk of the court, for
proceedings commenced under Parts I, II and III of the Act
carried out by the Attorney General prior to the transfer,
excluding some court administration and all court support
functions on appeals of these matters;
1.3.2 the prosecution of proceedings commenced under Part I of
the Act carried out by the Attorney General prior to the
transfer, except those excluded by paragraphs 1.4 and 1.5
of the MOU or by the LSA;
1.3.3 the prosecution of any other proceedings commenced
under Part I of the Act, subsequently transferred to the
Municipal Partner;
1.3.4 the prosecution of proceedings commenced under Part II
of the Act, carried out by the Attorney General prior to the
transfer;
1.3.5 the prosecution of matters designated as contraventions
under the Contraventions Act (Canada) and commenced
under Part I of the Act, except those excluded by
paragraph 1.4 or 1.5 of the MOU or by the LSA;
1.3.6 the conduct of appeals of proceedings commenced under
Parts I and II of the Act where the Attorney General
transferred the prosecution of the proceeding to the
Municipal Partner under the Transfer Agreement; and,
Memorandum of Understanding Page 3
1.3.7 Notwithstanding paragraph 1.3.6, where the Attorney
General files an appeal in relation to a matter
commenced under Part I of the Act the Attorney
General shall conduct the prosecution of the appeal.
Exception court 1.4
administration and
court support
Notwithstanding anything else in the Transfer Agreement, court
administration and court support functions relating to proceedings
commenced under the Act shall not be transferred in respect of
proceedings where any of the following conditions exist:
1.4.1 the proceeding is against a young person as defined in
Part VI of the Act,
1.4.2 criminal proceedings have also been commenced in
relation to the same circumstances; or
Exception
Prosecutions
1.4.3 the defendant who is charged with a criminal offence
pleads guilty to a substituted provincial offence or a
substituted offence that has been designated as a
contravention under the Contraventions Act
(Canada).
1.5 Notwithstanding anything else in the Transfer Agreement, the
conduct of the prosecution carried out by the Attorney General
prior to the transfer for the following matters shall not be
transferred to the Municipal Partner:
1.5.1 prosecution of proceedings commenced under Part I of the
Act described in paragraph 1.4 of the MOU or as set out in
the LSA;
1.5.2 prosecution of proceedings commenced under Part I of
the Act where a proceeding has also been commenced
under Part III of the Act in relation to the same
circumstances;
1.5.3 prosecution of proceedings commenced under Part III of
the Act, but the Municipal Partner shall continue to
prosecute offences under municipal by-laws, the Fire
Code, the Building Code and any other matters for which
the Municipal Partner was responsible before the
Transfer Agreement comes into effect, including any
new requirements under the Fire Protection and
Prevention Act, 1997, 8.0. 1997 c.4;
Memoranf!um of Understanding Page 4
Exception parking
contraventions
Other ministry
right to intervene
No agency
Attorney General
right to intervene
Contents of MOU
Effective date
Goal: modem,
efficient justice
system
1.5.4 prosecution of offences designated as contraventions
under the Contraventions Act (Canada) and that are
commenced under Part III of the Act, that do not
relate to the unlawful standing, stopping or parking of
a motor vehicle.
1.6 Notwithstanding anything else in the Transfer Agreement,
offences that relate to the unlawful standing, stopping or parking
of a motor vehicle and designated as contraventions under the
Contraventions Act (Canada) and commenced under Part II or
Part III of the Act shall be administered and prosecuted in
accordance with any agreement made under sections 65.2 and
65.3 of the Contraventions Act (Canada).
1.7 Notwithstanding anything else in this Transfer Agreement, where
the Attorney General transfers to the Municipal Partner the
prosecution of proceedings that were, prior to the transfer,
carried out by the Attorney General, on behalf of another Ministry
other than the Ministry of the Attorney General, the Attorney
General shall retain the right to intervene, on behalf of such other
Ministry, in a proceeding and conduct the prosecution, and
where necessary an appeal, and the cost of any such
prosecution and appeal shall be borne by that Ministry.
1.8 Employees, agents, contractors, members of council and officers
of the Municipal Partner shall not be deemed to be employees,
agents or officials of Ontario.
1.9 Nothing in the Transfer Agreement affects the Attorney General's
right to intervene in a proceeding. Where the Attorney General
develops an intervention policy with respect to particular
proceedings under the Act, the Municipal Partner acknowledges
that once it is informed, it will adhere to the policy.
1.10 The MOU sets out standards for the conduct of prosecutions, for
the administration of the courts and for the provision of court
support services, and sanctions for failure to meet the standards,
in accordance with subsections 162(3) and 162(4) of the Act.
1.11 This MOU shall take effect from the date on which the Local Side
Agreement is signed by or on behalf of the Attorney General after
having been signed by the Municipal Partner and shall remain in
effect unless suspended, terminated or revoked, regardless of
whether there is a change in the person of the Attorney General
or in the council or councils of the Municipal Partner.
1.12 The Attorney General and the Municipal Partner shall work
together to improve services to the public with the goal of putting
in place the most modern, efficient and effective justice system
attainable.
Page 5
Memorandum of Understanding
n
Municipal partner
accountability
No discrimination
No impact on
powers and duties
of judiciary
No alteration to
enforcement
1.13 In fulfilling its responsibilities under the Transfer Agreement, the
Municipal Partner is accountable to the public who are receiving
court services, its serviced municipalities, other municipal .
partners, Ontario and the Government of Canada.
1.14 In fulfilling its responsibilities under the Transfer Agreement, the
Municipal Partner shall ensure that there is no discrimination
under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, and that
there is no discrimination in the performance of functions under
the Transfer Agreement on the basis of place of residence.
1.15 Nothing in the Transfer Agreement shall be taken to affect the
powers, duties and appointment of the judiciary, including the
powers, duties and appointment of justices of the peace pursuant
to the Justices of the Peace Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.J.4, the powers
and duties of the Associate Chief Judge - Co-ordinator of Justices
of the Peace or of the Chief Judge of the Ontario Court
(Provincial Division).
1.16 Nothing in the Transfer Agreement shall be construed so as to
alter the roles and functions of police services and other law
enforcement agencies, as otherwise required by law.
2.0 PRINCIPLES OF TRANSFER: INTEGRITY OF THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE
AND FAIR HEARING
Guiding principles 2.1 In fulfilling their roles and responsibilities under the Transfer
Agreement, the parties recognize and shall respect and adhere
to the following guiding principles:
Judicial 2.1.1 The independence of the judiciary shall be preserved.
independence
Public confidence
in justice system
Fairness and
natural justice
Separation of
prosecution and
police
2.1.2 The confidence of the public in the justice system must be
maintained through every effort by all parties. To this end,
open access to the system and a fair and timely process
must be assured.
2.1.3 The fundamental tenets of procedural fairness and natural
justice shall be affirmed and upheld.
2.1.4 The separation of the prosecutorial function and the
policing function shall be assured.
Page 6
Memorandum pf Understanding
Attorney General's
responsibility
French language
services
No political
intervention
Court service area
Exit audit
Fiscal year
Interim Audit
2.1.5 The Attorney General will continue to be responsible for
the integrity of the administration of justice in Ontario,
pursuant to the Ministry of the Attorney General Act,
RS.O. 1990, c. M.17.
2.1.6 The officially bilingual court system in Ontario, as
prescribed by the Courts of Justice Act, RS.O. 1990, c.
C.43, continues, including the provision of a prosecutor
who speaks French and English when a bilingual trial is
requested on a charge that is covered by the Transfer
Agreement. In areas that are or become designated
under the French Language Services Act, RS.O. 1990, c.
F.32, out-of-court services in French must be provided at
the same levels as are provided by the Attorney General.
2.1.7 The entire justice process, from the laying of charges
through to final disposition of appeals, shall continue to
operate independently and free from political intervention.
3.0 DEFINITIONS
3.1 In the Transfer Agreement the following terms, words and
phrases shall have the following meaning, except where the
context clearly indicates otherwise:
3.1.1 "Court Service Area" means the geographic area as
described in Schedule 5 of the MOU, in which the
transferred court services and prosecution services are
provided;
3.1.2 "Exit Audit" means an audit conducted by the Attorney
General and an independent auditor prior to the date that
the Municipal Partner begins performing the functions
transferred to it under the Transfer Agreement. The scope
of the exit audit shall be determined by the Attorney
General in consultation with the Municipal Partner. The
results of the audit shall be provided to the Municipal
Partner within a reasonable time of its completion.
3.1.3 "Fiscal Year" means the 12 month period for which the
financial statements of the Municipal Partner are prepared
in accordance with the Municipal Act, RS.O. 1990, c.M.
45;
3.1.4 "Interim Audit" refers to the first phase of the Exit Audit
conducted by or on behalf of the Attorney General prior to
the signing of the Local Side Agreement.
Page 7
Memorandum of Understanding
-
intermunicipal
service agreement
3.1.5 "Intermunicipal Service Agreement" means an agreement
between the Municipal Partner and one or more serviced
municipalities as referred to in paragraph 5.3.5 of the
MOU;
Local side
agreement
3.1.6 "Local Side Agreement" or "LSA" means an agreement
executed between the Attorney General and the Municipal
Partner dealing with matters specific to the court service
area, or that are not provided for in the MOU or in law;
Municipal partner
3.1.7 "Municipal Partner" means the municipality or
municipalities or other organizations that have entered
into the Transfer Agreement with the Attorney General.
Ontario
3.1.8 "Ontario" includes the Ministry of the Attorney General and
other Ministries of the Government of Ontario;
Review committee
3.1.9 "Review Committee" means a provincial committee
established pursuant to section 172 of the Act, whose
composition and functions are determined by regulation
made under clause 174 (C) of the Act, and as further
specified in the MOU;
Serviced
municipality
3.1.1 Q"Serviced Municipality" means a municipality or other
organization for which court administration, court support
or prosecution services transferred under this Transfer
Agreement are provided by the Municipal Partner in the
court service area as described in Schedule 5 of the
MOU;
Streamlining
phase
3.1.11 "Streamlining Phase" means the period of time beginning
on the day after the last day of the Transition Phase; and
Transition phase
3.1.12 "Transition Phase" means the period of time beginning on
the date that the first Transfer Agreement pursuant to
subsection 162(1) of the Act is signed to the date that is
six months following the date on which the last Transfer
Agreement is signed, thereby completing the transfer of
functions in all court service areas.
Notice re: phase
dates
3.2 For the purpose of the definitions of "Streamlining Phase" and
'Transition Phase", the Attorney General shall notify the
Municipal Partner of the respective dates once they are
ascertained.
MemornndumofUndeßændmg
Page 8
.
,;
4.0 INTERPRETATION
Interpretation re: 4.1
pñnciples
The Transfer Agreement shall be interpreted in such a way as to
give effect to the Principles set out in paragraph 2.0 of the MOU.
Conflicts between 4.2 In the event of any conflict between the provisions of the LSA
LSA and MOU and the provisions of the MOU including its schedules, the
provisions of the MOU shall prevail.
Conflict between 4.3 The Transfer Agreement shall not affect, modify or interfere with
transfer agreement
and law the rights, duties and responsibilities of the Attorney General or
the Municipal Partner at law. If there is a conflict between one or
more of the provisions of the Transfer Agreement and the laws of
Ontario or of Canada, the law shall prevail and the conflicting
provision shall be of no force or effect. Where the Transfer
Agreement provides for a higher standard than the minimum
standard provided by law, this shall not be deemed to be a
conflict for the purpose of this provision.
Severability of 4.4 If anyone or more of the provisions of the Transfer Agreement is
clauses held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be voidable or ultra
vires, the provision or provisions shall be severed from the
Transfer Agreement. The rest of the Transfer Agreement shall
continue in force according to its terms and conditions and,
provided that the context allows, its provisions shall be
interpreted in the same way as they would have been had the
severance not taken place.
Amendments 4.5 The Transfer Agreement may be amended at any time during the
incorporated term of the Agreement, following the process set out in
paragraph 12.0. The amendment must be made in writing and
executed by both parties. Any such amendment or amendments
shall be deemed to be incorporated into and become part of the
Transfer Agreement.
Deemed 4.6 The Transfer Agreement shall, if necessary, be deemed to have
amendment
where legislation been amended to accord with any changes to the Act, the
has changed regulations made thereunder; the Contraventions Act, (Canada)
and the regulations and schedules made thereunder; and any
other legislation and regulations that have an impact on the
Transfer Agreement.
Marginal notes e 4.7 Marginal notes beside the paragraphs shall have no legal effect,
no effect and shall not be considered in construing the Transfer
Agreement.
Memorandum of Understanding
Page 9
5.0 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES
5.1 The Attorney General is responsible for:
policynegislative 5.1.1 conducting policy and legislative reviews of the Act and
reviews the regulations made under it;
Advising of 5.1.2 advising the Municipal Partner in a timely manner of
legislative and
policy changes legislative or government policy changes that have an
impact on the Transfer Agreement;
Proposing 5.1.3 proposing amendments to the Act before the Legislature
legislative
amendments or making or amending regulations;
Monitoring 5.1.4 monitoring the performance of the Municipal Partner's
responsibilities under the Transfer Agreement, to ensure
all standards are met;
Sanctions 5.1.5 imposing sanctions set out in this MOU where the
Municipal Partner does not meet the standards referred to
in paragraph 5.1.4;
Review committee 5.1.6 establishing a Review Committee prior to the end of the
Transition Phase, whose composition and functions shall
be determined by regulation made pursuant to the
authority in clause 174(c) of the Act;
Transition training 5.1.7 determining the training needs to facilitate the transfer of
functions under the Transfer Agreement, such training to
be provided and funded by Ontario; and,
Exit audit 5.1.8 the performance of an exit audit, such audit to be funded
by Ontario.
Delegation by the 5.2 The Attorney General may delegate any powers, duties or
Attorney Gene'ral responsibilities under the Transfer Agreement to any government
official or employee except a decision pursuant to section 171 of
the Act.
5.3 The Municipal Partner shall:
Perfonnance of 5.3.1 carry out its duties and obligations in accordance with the
duties under
transfer agreement terms and conditions of the Transfer Agreement, and in
particular the Principles set out in paragraph 2.0 of the
MOU, and in accordance with the Act and all other
relevant legislation and regulations;
Memorandum of Understanding
Page 10
Same range and
level of service
delivery as
Attorney General
5.3.2 provide, at minimum, the same services and level of
service delivery as were provided by the Attorney General
before the transfer. Where there is a variance between the
services and the level of service identified in the interim
audit and the standards set out in this MOU and its
schedules, the manner in which this variance will be
addressed will be set out in the LSA.
French language 5.3.3 continue to provide out-of-court services in the French
services continue language, where those services were provided by the
Attorney General before the transfer, in areas designated
under the French Language Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.
F.32, including introducing such services if part or all of the
court service area becomes designated under that Act
after the effective date of the Transfer Agreement;
Bilingual 5.3.4 provide a prosecutor who speaks French and English
prosecutor when a bilingual trial is requested on a charge that is
covered by the Transfer Agreement;
Intermunicipal 5.3.5 maintain an intermunicipal service agreement with all
service agreement serviced municipalities which includes obligations and
arrangements regarding court administration, court
support, prosecutions, reporting, revenue-sharing and
local dispute resolution;
Perfonn duties re: 5.3.6 carry out its duties and obligations to serviced
serviced
municipalities municipalities as specified in the Transfer Agreement and
in the intermunicipal service agreement;
Operations 5.3.7 participate in a review of the operations process during the
process review streamlining phase;
Consult re: 5.3.8 consult with the Attorney General, and such other
changes in
procedure or interested parties as the Attorney General may direct, with
processes regard to changes in procedural guidelines; prosecutorial,
court administration or court support processes; and
changes to case management procedures and court
master plans, it being understood that any changes to
case management procedures and court master plans are
subject to the approval of the judiciary;
Establish 5.3.9 establish and maintain a process for dealing with
complaints
process complaints to ensure expeditious and effective resolution
of day-to-day issues by the Municipal Partner at the local
level.
Memorandum of Understanding
Page 11
í{eporting
contentious
matters
Privacy and
confidentiality
guidelines
Conflict of interest
guidelines
Single source
purchase of fonns
Enforcement
Municipal partner 5.4
agreement with
third party
Third party ~ same 5.5
standards as
municipal partner
Municipal partner 5.6
to follow general
policy
5.3.1 Oensure that matters that may be significant or
contentious including, but not limited to, alleged
prosecutorial impropriety or misconduct or
constitutional challenges are brought to the attention of
the Attorney General as expeditiously as possible.
5.3.11 if not already established, develop guidelines to be used
by elected officials and employees for the protection of
privacy and confidentiality of personal information;
5.3.12 if not already established, develop conflict of interest
guidelines to be used by elected officials and employees
in accordance with the principles, responsibilities and
standards set out in the Transfer Agreement, and shall file
the conflict of interest guidelines with the Attorney
General;
5.3.13purchase sequentially numbered charge and service
related documents and other court related forms as
required from a single source, as approved by the
Attorney General, in accordance with paragraph 6.0 of
Schedule 2; and
5.3.14collect and enforce fines authorized under
subsections 165(1) and (2) of the Act in accordance with
the Act, related regulations and any other
enforcement proceedings authorized by law.
The Municipal Partner may enter into an agreement with a third
party in accordance with paragraph 9.0 of Schedule 2 of the
MOU, with the Attorney General's consent.
An agreement between the Municipal Partner and a third party for
the performance of any function under the Transfer Agreement
shall include a provision which deems the third party to be the
Municipal Partner's agent at all times and binds it to the Transfer
Agreement's provisions.
Where the Municipal Partner enters into an agreement for the
acquisition of services relating to its obligations under the
Transfer Agreement, the Municipal Partner shall follow generally
accepted procedures or its existing policy and procedures
relating to the acquisition of services, provided such procedures
meet the minimum requirements set out in Schedule 2,
paragraph 9.0 of the MOU.
Page 12
MemornndumofUnde~ændmg
6.0 REVENUES AND COSTS
Authority to collect 6.1 The Municipal Partner has the authority to collect fines,fees,
and enforce fine
payments costs and surcharges and enforce their payment, pursuant to
subsections 165(1) and (2) ofthe Act. Collection, enforcement
and disbursement of revenue are to be carried out as specified in
the Transfer Agreement, the Municipal Partner's intermunicipal
service agreement and relevant legislation and regulations.
Monies to be 6.2 All monies received by the Municipal Partner in respect of fines,
separated and
identified surcharges and fees pursuant to paragraph 6.1 of the MOU are
to be separated and clearly identified in the books of the
Municipal Partner and are subject to audit in accordance with
paragraph 9.0 of the MOU.
Separate trust 6.3 All monies received by the Municipal Partner in respect of fines,
account surcharges and fees that are payable to Ontario pursuant to
subsection 165(5) of the Act, are to be separated and clearly
identified in the books of the Municipal Partner and are subject to
audit in accordance with paragraph 9.0 of the MOU. All such
monies owing shall be remitted to Ontario in a timely manner.
Payment of 6.4 The Municipal Partner shall remit to the Minister of Finance, in a
Attorney General timely manner, any amounts owing pursuant to clause165(5)(c)
costs
of the Act, for costs incurred by the Attorney General for
adjudication and prosecution and for monitoring and enforcing
the Transfer Agreement. The method for calculating the
amounts owing to the Minister of Finance shall be specified in
the LSA.
Net revenue 6.5 Revenues, net of amounts calculated and remitted in accordance
division with subsections 165(5) and (6) of the Act, shall be retained by
the Municipal Partner. The net revenue, including revenue from
fines under the Fire Code under the Fire Protection and
Prevention Act, 1997, 8.0. 1997 c.4, may be divided between
the Municipal Partner and serviced municipalities in accordance
with their intermunicipal service agreement, any relevant
legislation, regulation and municipal by-laws. The Municipal
Partner shall remit any monies owing to serviced municipalities
and to other municipal partners, in a timely manner.
Fines imposed 6.6 In accordance with clauses 166(a) & (b) of the Act, the Municipal
before transfer Partner may collect, enforce and retain fines that were imposed
before the Transfer Agreement was executed.
Memorandum of I!nderstanding
Page 13
7.0 ACCESS AND OWNERSHIP
Access to 7.1 Subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy
information,
records, etc. Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.31, Ontario shall permit the Municipal
Partner to have access to such information, data and records,
including software data and the relevant information contained
therein, as the Municipal Partner may require to carry out its
obligations under the Transfer Agreement. Ontario shall at all
times retain ownership rights to the data, information, operating
systems and software.
No warranty re: 7.2 Ontario shall use reasonable efforts to ensure that the
infonnation information to which the Municipal Partner will have access is
reliable and accurate, but does not guarantee the accuracy or
completeness of such information.
Use of data 7.3 The Municipal Partner shall not sell or otherwise provide to any
other person or organization any of the data or information to
which it is permitted access pursuant to the Transfer Agreement,
or extract from the information or data, or create from the
information or data, lists of personal or other information for any
purpose other than for the purpose of its obligations under the
Transfer Agreement.
Transfer of assets 7.4 The Attorney General may, in accordance with Ontario's policies,
transfer to the Municipal Partner such premises, vehicles,
furniture and equipment presently owned or used by Ontario in
the carrying out of court services, as may be agreed upon by the
parties and as specified in the LSA
Attorney General's 7.5 The Attorney General shall use reasonable efforts to assist the
efforts re:
municipal Municipal Partner in assuming contracts and in obtaining rights
partner's to licences and leases currently held or entered into by Ontario.
assumption of
contracts
8.0 ACCOUNTING REQUIREMENTS
Detailed accounts 8.1 The Municipal Partner shall, during the term of the Transfer
and records Agreement and for four years following the termination, expiry or
revocation of the Transfer Agreement, maintain detailed and
accurate accounts, records, books and data of all financial
transactions undertaken by it pursuant to the Transfer
Agreement, prepared in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles (GAAP).
Adequate financial 8.2 The Municipal Partner shall ensure that there are adequate
controls financial controls in place at the premises of the Municipal
Partner, and for greater certainty, shall use its best efforts to
Memorandum of Understanding
Page 14
Semi..annual 8.3
reports to Attorney
General
Annual report 8.4
Form of reports 8.5
ensure the protection of the accuracy, completeness and
auditability of all financial data, the segregation of responsibilities
in the accounting function, and shall institute adequate
management controls.
The Municipal Partner shall maintain accurate accounting and
reconciliation records for each court location in its court service
area, including data on the amount of revenue collected and the
amount outstanding and shall, within two months after the end of
the preceding 6 month period, or as otherwise directed by the
Attorney General, prepare and submit semi-annual reports to the
Attorney General.
The Municipal Partner shall on or before March 31 in each year
during the term of the Transfer Agreement and in the year
following its termination, expiry or revocation, prepare and submit
to the Attorney General an Annual Report for the previous fiscal
year on the performance of its obligations under the Transfer
Agreement.
Reports prepared by the Municipal Partner may be submitted in
electronic or paper form or both, as determined by the Attorney
General.
9.0 AUDIT REQUIREMENTS
Annual financial 9.1
audit
If third party or 9.2
serviced
municipality
performs
municipal partner
function~audit
required
Each year during which the Transfer Agreement is in effect, the
Municipal Partner shall, at its own cost, have prepared and
submitted to the Attorney General and the Ministry of Finance
annual audited financial statements for its fiscal year, together
with the requisite supporting schedules, certified by an
independent public accounting firm. The certification shall state
that the firm has examined the accounts, records, books and
data relating to the transactions undertaken by the Municipal
Partner pursuant to the Transfer Agreement, in accordance with
generally accepted auditing standards and shall express an
opinion that they are fairly presented in accordance with the
provisions of the Transfer Agreement.
Where the Municipal Partner enters into an agreement with a
third party, or a Serviced Municipality, to perform any of its
functions pursuant to the Transfer Agreement, the Municipal
Partner shall at its own cost have prepared and submitted to the
Attorney General and the Ministry of Finance, annual audited
financial statements for the Municipal Partner's fiscal year,
together with the requisite supporting schedules, certified by an
independent public accounting firm. The certification shall state
that the firm has examined the accounts, records, books and
Page 15
Memorandum of Undérstanding
Discretionary audit 9.3
Management 9.4
process audit
Municipal 9.5
partner's own
audit
Business hours 9.6
access to records,
etc. by Attorney
General
Provincial auditor 9.7
Audit expenses 9.8
data relating to the transactions undertaken by the third party or
Serviced Municipality pursuant to its agreement and the Transfer
Agreement in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, and shall express an opinion that they are fairly
presented in accordance with the provisions of both agreements.
The Attorney General may in its discretion and at any time cause
an audit to be made of the Municipal Partner's accounts, records,
books and data related to transactions undertaken by the
Municipal Partner pursuant to the Transfer Agreement and for
this purpose the Attorney General or its agents may enter onto
the premises of the Municipal Partner or its assignees, with
reasonable notice, and the Municipal Partner and its assignees
shall co-operate fully. The Attorney General shall provide the
results of the audit to the Municipal Partner within a reasonable
time of its completion.
The Attorney General or its agents may at any time undertake or
require to be undertaken a management process audit related to
the obligations of the Municipal Partner under the Transfer
Agreement, and for this purpose the Attorney General or its
agents may enter onto the premises of the Municipal Partner or
its assignees, with reasonable notice, and the Municipal Partner
and its assignees shall co-operate fully. The Attorney General
shall provide the results of the audit to the Municipal Partner
within a reasonable time of its completion.
Where the Municipal Partner carries out any audit in relation to
its obligations under the Transfer Agreement, it shall provide the
results to the Attorney General within a reasonable time of its
completion.
For the purpose of ensuring performance of the terms and
conditions of the Transfer Agreement, the Attorney General or its
agents shall during regular business hours have direct and
unrestricted access to all books, records, files, manuals,
systems, and any other pertinent documentation, papers, things
and property belonging to, or in use by, and to all persons
employed by the Municipal Partner, or its assignees associated
with or related to the Transfer Agreement, except such as may
be sealed under statute or by order of a court.
The accounts, records, books and data related to transactions
undertaken by the Municipal Partner pursuant to the Transfer
Agreement may be audited by the Provincial Auditor.
The Municipal Partner shall bear all costs and expenses for
audits under paragraphs 9.1, 9.2 and 9.5, and where audits
performed under paragraphs 9.3 or 9.4 report a material breach
of any standard or requirement under the Transfer Agreement.
Page 16
M:mornndumofUndeßœndmg
-
·10.0 OPERATIONAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Reporting
rationale
10.1 The purpose of the reporting requirements under the Transfer
Agreement is to facilitate effective operational planning,
performance measurement, early identification and early-stage
resolution of issues, and the sharing of best practices.
Accurate
statistical data
10.2 The Municipal Partner shall use its best efforts to ensure the
accuracy and availability of the following data for each court
location in its court service area for functions transferred under
the Transfer Agreement:
10.2.1 number of charges received, by case number and statute,
subdivided into Parts I, II and III of the Act,
10.2.2 number of charges disposed and their dispositions;
1 0.2.3number of charges sentenced with sentence types;
1 O.2.4number of trial requests, including requests for French
trials;
10.2.5courtroom utilization by person type and session type;
10.2.6average time from service date to trial;
1 0.2.7number of appeals and their dispositions;
1 0.2.8number of charges pending, with future court date;
10.2.9incidence of error in data transmission to provincial
ministries;
10.2.10 changes to court master plans;
10.2.11 number of charges received with or without completion
date; and
10.2.12 any other data necessary to meet the reporting
requirements.
Municipal partner 10.3
to ensure that data
is available
The Municipal Partner shall ensure that the information referred
to in paragraph 10.2 is available as required by the judiciary, the
Crown Attorney, the staff of the Ministry of the Attorney General
and the staff of the Government of Canada.
MemorondumofUndeßwndmg
Page 17
Accurate
operational data
10.4 The Municipal Partner shall keep an accurate record of the
incidence and manner of resolution of the following:
Reports quarterly 10.5
Report on 10.6
significant matter
forthwith
Requested reports 1 0.7
Form of reports 10.8
10.4.1 disputes and complaints and their source, including any
matter that proceeds through the dispute resolution
'process set out in paragraph 13.0 of the MOU;
10.4.2conflicts of interest;
1 0.4.3breaches of ethics or law in the performance of functions
under the Transfer Agreement; and
10.4.4 financial or administrative irregularities.
The Municipal Partner shall prepare and submit to the Attorney
General quarterly reports in relation to matters referred to in
paragraph 10.4 of the MOU.
If a matter referred to in paragraph 10.4 of the MOU may affect
the proper administration of a statute, or is a matter that can
reasonably be expected to attract substantial public interest, the
Municipal Partner shall advise the Attorney General forthwith.
Notwithstanding anything else in the Transfer Agreement, the
Attorney General may at any time request any kind of report from
the Municipal Partner, and the Municipal Partner shall use its
best efforts to comply with the request in a timely manner.
Reports prepared by the Municipal Partner may be submitted in
electronic or paper form or both, as determined by the Attorney
General.
11.0 CONFIDENTIALITY
Personal
information
exchange
11.1 The Transfer Agreement requires that personal information be
exchanged between Ontario and the Municipal Partner.
11.2 An agreement between:
Exchange of
information
between parties
11.2.1 a Municipal Partner and a serviced municipality;
11.2.2a Municipal Partner and a third party;
11.2.30ntario and a third party; or
11.2.4any of the parties
may require that personal information be exchanged between the
parties.
Page 18
Me?1orandum of Understanding
.'
11.3 The disclosure and the exchange of information referred to in
paragraphs 11.1 and 11.2 of the MOU are authorized by
subsection 42(e) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.31, and by subsection 32(e) of the
Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act,
R.S.O. 1990, c. M.56.
FOIPOP Acts'
application
12.0 AMENDMENTS TO THE MOU
Request to amend 12.1
Reason for the 12.2
request
Notice to 12.3
municipal partners
Written reponse 12.4
Agreement to 12.5
amend
Dispute ra: 12.6
amendment
Either party may at any time make a written request to amend
the terms and conditions of the MOU.
Any request to amend shall set out the reasons for the request
and shall include any explanatory or supporting documents.
Where the Attorney General makes a request to amend the
terms and conditions of the MOU or where the Municipal Partner
and the Attorney General agree to the Municipal Partner's
requested amendment, the Attorney General shall notify all
municipal partners in writing of the requested amendment.
Any Municipal Partner may respond to the notice of a request for
an amendment by providing a written response to the Attorney
General within 30 days of receiving a copy of the notice of the
request to amend. Where a Municipal Partner fails to respond
within the 30 day period, it will be deemed not to oppose the
amendment
Where the Attorney General and all municipal Partners agree to
amend the MOU, the amendment shall be made in writing and
shall form part of the Transfer Agreement
Where the Attorney General and the Municipal Partner, including
any Municipal Partner who receives notice under paragraph
12.3, disagree with the requested amendment and the issue can
not be resolved, the Attorney General or any Municipal Partner
may invoke the dispute resolution mechanism set out in
paragraph 13.0 of the MOU.
13.0 DISPUTE RESOLUTION
13.1 The parties agree to foster and participate in a co-operative
approach to the resolution of disputes arising under the Transfer
Agreement. The parties also agree that all reasonable efforts will
be made to resolve disputes informally and amicably at an early
stage at the local level.
Principle
Page 19
MemorondumofUndersœndmg
13.2 In the event that a dispute arises between the Attorney General
and the Municipal Partner with respect to the terms and
conditions of the Transfer Agreement, the parties to this Transfer
Agreement agree to use the mechanism set out in this paragraph
to resolve the dispute.
13.3 The provisions of this paragraph do not apply to issues relating to
the judiciary.
Scope
Exception ~
judiciary
Mediation to be 13.4
considered
Role of mediator 13.5
Referral to review 13.6
committee
Review committee 13.7
- referring party
Review committee 13.8
- responding party
Recommendation 13.9
of review
committee
Where the parties to this Transfer Agreement are unable to
resolve a dispute without the assistance of a neutral third party,
the parties shall consider using the services of a mediator to
facilitate resolution of the dispute.
Where the parties to this Transfer Agreement agree to use the
services of a mediator, the parties shall jointly select the
mediator and the cost of the mediator's services shall be shared
equally by the parties. The mediator shall inquire into the issues
in dispute and shall attempt to assist the parties in resolving the
dispute. All information exchanged during the mediation process
shall be for the purpose of resolving the issues in dispute, and
therefore shall be treated as confidential.
Whether or not a mediation has taken place, if the parties to this
Transfer Agreement are unable to resolve the dispute, the matter
may be referred by either party, in writing, to the Review
Committee for recommendations, with written notice to the other
party .
A party referring a dispute to the Review Committee, shall
identify the issues in dispute and shall provide the Review
Committee with any supporting material upon which the party
intends to rely.
The responding party shall provide the Review Committee and
the referring party with a written response, and any supporting
material upon which it intends to rely, within 30 days of receiving
notice that the matter has been referred to the Review
Committee.
The Review Committee may recommend to the parties how the
matter ought to be resolved, and shall provide the parties with a
reasonable amount of time to implement the recommendations.
13.10 Where the Municipal Partner fails to implement a
recommendation of the Review Committee within the time period
set by the Review Committee, the Review Committee may
invoke the compliance provisions set out in paragraph 1.0 of
Schedule 3 ofthe MOU.
Failure to
Implement
Recommendations
Page 20
Memorandum of Understanding
Court remedy 13.11 Nothing in the Transfer Agreement precludes a party to the c
preserved Transfer Agreement frorn submitting a dispute to a court of
competent jurisdiction.
14.0 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
No liability for 14.1 Ontario shall not be liable or responsible in any way for any injury
municipal partner,
employees, etc. or damages whether physical Of economic, direct or
consequential, of any kind (including death) that may be suffered
or sustained by the Municipal Partner, or any member of council,
officer, employee, agent, contractor, member of the judiciary,
accused person, police officer or any other person who may be
in, or in the vicinity of, a courtroom or court office administered
by the Municipal Partner, or for any loss or theft of, or damage or
injury to, any property belonging to the Municipal Partner or
members of council, officers, employees, agents, contractors,
members of the judiciary, accused persons, police officers or any
other person, while such property is in, or in the vicinity of, a
courtroom or court facility administered by the Municipal Partner.
15.0 INDEMNIFICATION
Municipal partner 15.1 The Municipal Partner shall indemnify and save harmless
to indemnify
Ontario for its Ontario, its officers, employees, agents and contractors, from all
action, etc. re: manner of claims, losses, costs, expenses, actions or
transfer. proceedings of any kind or nature whatsoever based on,
occasioned by or attributable to anything done or omitted to be
done by the Municipal Partner or by its members of council,
officers, employees, agents or contractors in connection with the
Transfer Agreement, or with the performance of the Municipal
Partner's obligations under the Transfer Agreement.
Ontario to 15.2 Ontario shall indemnify and save harmless the Municipal Partner,
indemnify
Municipal Partner its members of council, officers, employees, agents and
for its actions, contractors, from all manner of claims, losses, costs, expenses,
etc. re: transfer actions or proceedings of any kind or nature whatsoever based
on, occasioned by or attributable to anything done or omitted to
be done by Ontario or by its officers, employees, agents or
contractors in connection with the Transfer Agreement, or with
the performance of Ontario's obligations under the Transfer
Agreement.
16.0 INSURANCE
Claims against 16.1 The Municipal Partner shall protect itself from and against all
Municipal Partner claims that might arise from anything done, purported to be done
or omitted to be done under the Transfer Agreement by the
Memorandum of Understanding
"
Page 21
Comprehensive
general liability
insurance policy
Municipal Partner, its members of council, officers, employees,
agents or contractors._
16.2 For the purpose of paragraph 16.1 of the MOU, and without
restricting the generality of that paragraph, the Municipal Partner
shall, at its own expense, maintain in full force and effect during
the term of the Transfer Agreement, a policy of comprehensive
general liability insurance, in form and substance acceptable to
Ontario and written by a responsible carrier or carriers
acceptable to Ontario, providing coverage for a limit of not less
than five million dollars ($5,000,000.00) per occurrence for any
cause of action, demand or claim with respect to personal injury
(including death) or property damage, including loss of use
thereof, and for any cause of action, demand or claim arising out
of or occurring in connection with the obligations of the Municipal
Partner under the Transfer Agreement, including, but not limited
to, a cause of action, demand or claim with respect to
defamation; false arrest, detention, imprisonment; malicious
prosecution; contravention of rights guaranteed under the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and errors and
omissions insurance.
16.3 The policy of insurance referred to in paragraph 16.2 of the MOU
shall include the following terms:
16.3.1 a clause adding Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario
as represented by the Attorney General, its officers,
employees, agents and contractors as additional named
insureds;
16.3.2 a cross-liability insurance clause endorsement acceptable
to Ontario;
16.3.3a clause requiring the insurer to provide 30 days' prior
written notice to Ontario in the manner set forth in the
policy in the event of the termination, expiry, variation or
non-renewal of the policy;
16.3.4 a clause providing that the protection for Ontario under the
policy will not be affected in any way by any act or
omission of the Municipal Partner, its members of
council, officers, employees, agents or contractors; and
16.3.5 a clause including liability arising out of contract or
agreement.
Proof of insurance 16.4 The Municipal Partner shall, immediately upon request, provide
Ontario with proof of the insurance coverage in the form of a
certificate, and a copy of the relevant portion or portions of the
policy that incorporate the terms and clauses set out in
paragraph 16.3 of the MOU.
Required clauses
for policy
Page 22
Memorandum of Understanding
Tennination
without cause
Tennination With
cause
Transfer of
intellectual and
other property
during termination
period
Property rights on
tennination
Termination plan
Access to
transferred
property
-)
17.0 TERMINATION WITH OR WITHOUT CAUSE
17.1 Either party may terminate the Transfer Agreement without cause
by giving nine months' express written notice to the other party.
17.2 Either party may terminate the Transfer Agreement with cause by
giving one month's express written notice to the other party.
17.3 Where termination notice is given:
17.3.1 the Municipal Partner shall provide to the Attorney
General unfettered access to any property requested by
the Attorney General including, but not limited to, systems,
records, data, information and material in the possession
or control of, or owned by, the Municipal Partner as may
be required to ensure the continued effective
administration of justice;
17.3.2all rights in the property described in paragraph 17.3.1 of
the MOU transferred by Ontario to the Municipal Partner,
and any records, data, information and material
accumulated during the performance of the Transfer
Agreement shall vest in and become the property of
Ontario, and the Municipal Partner shall immediately
transfer such property to the Attorney General; and
17.3.3 the Municipal Partner shall either cease or continue to
perform functions under the Transfer Agreement during
the notice period in accordance with a termination plan
approved by the Attorney General.
17.4 Notwithstanding paragraph 17.3.2;
17.4.1 the Municipal Partner shall be entitled to access all
transferred property, including the right to make and
keep copies of documents, where the Municipal
Partner is named or otherwise becomes a party to any
legal proceedings, or is put on notice that it will be
named as a party in legal proceedings, arising from or
in connection with the performance by the Municipal
Partner of its functions under the Transfer Agreement;
and
17.4.2 property shall not include property purchased by the
Municipal Partner from the Attorney General or a third
party unless otherwise agreed to by the parties.
Page 23
Memorandum of Understanding
Components of
tennination plan
Duty to infonn
Appointment of a
manager
Reconciliation of
finances
Rights of Attorney
General
17.5 The termination plan referred to in paragraph 17.3.3 ofthe MOU
may include provisions for the transfer of any courts
administration, court support or prosecution functions from the
Municipal Partner to any replacement or alternative Municipal
Partner or other entity, named by the Attorney General.
17.6 The Municipal Partner shall keep the Attorney General informed
of all matters that are necessary for the Attorney General to
ensure the effective ongoing administration of justice during the
termination period.
17.7 In the event of termination, the Attorney General may appoint a
person to manage the termination for the purpose of ensuring the
continued effective administration of justice.
17.8 On termination, the Municipal Partner shall carry out a financial
accounting and shall pay to Ontario any monies owing to Ontario
including the Ministry of Finance.
17.9 The rights of the Attorney General under this paragraph are in
addition to and do not derogate from any other rights and
remedies of the Attorney General under the Act or the Transfer
Agreement or otherwise at law.
18.0 RIGHT OF ASSIGNMENT
Attorney General's 18.1
consent required
The Municipal Partner has no right to assign, sublease,
subcontract, transfer, cede, offer for sale, deal or offer to deal in
or with the Transfer Agreement, or any rights or obligations
hereunder, in whole or in part (the foregoing collectively called an
"assignment") unless the Attorney General has given or is
deemed to have given consent to such assignment. The
Municipal Partner shall ensure that any assignee undertaking any
of the Municipal Partner's obligations to Ontario shall be bound
by the terms and conditions of the Transfer Agreement. The
Municipal Partner shall not be released of its obligations to
Ontario by reason of the assignment, and the Municipal Partner
shall be deemed to be liable for any breaches of the Transfer
Agreement, or of any legislation or regulations, by the assignee.
19.0 COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES
Method of service 19.1 Unless otherwise directed by the Attorney General, any written
communication shall be given by personal service, by facsimile
transmission or electronic mail, or by prepaid first class mail. If
personally served or transmitted by facsimile or electronic mail, a
communication shall be deemed to be validly given to and
received by the addressee on the date of such service or
Page 24
Memorandum of Understanding
.
Municipal
partner's address
Attorney General's
address
transmission. A transmi~sion completed after 4:30 p.m. shall be
deemed to have been delivered on the next business day. A
communication sent by prepaid first class mail shall be deemed to
be validly given to and received by the addressee on the fifth
business day after the day on which it was mailed in Canada.
19.2 The Municipal Partner's address and facsimile number for
communications are:
Karen Dunn
POA Transfer Project Lead
County of Elgin
450 Sunset Drive
St. Thomas, Ontario
N5R 5V1
Fax: (519) 633-7661
19.3 The Attorney General's address and facsimile number for
communications are:
Ministry of the Attorney General
720 Bay Street, 2nd Floor
Toronto, Ontario M5G 2K1
Attention: Assistant Deputy Attorney General
Court Services Division
FAX: (416) 326-2592
Change of address 19.4 When either party changes its address, phone or facsimile
number, it shall give written notice forthwith to all other parties.
Attorney General
contact person
Municipal Partner
contact person
Change of
contacts
19.5 The Attorney General shall designate a person and an alternate
who will be the primary contacts for all issues and
communications related to the Transfer Agreement
19.6 The Municipal Partner shall designate a person and an alternate
who will be the primary contacts for all issues and
communications related to the Transfer Agreement
19.7 Each of the parties shall keep the other informed of the names of
its contact person and alternate person.
20.0 WAIVER OF BREACH
Waiver of breach 20.1 Any breach of any provision of the Transfer Agreement may be
waived in whole or in part by a party without prejudice to that
party's rights in the event of the breach of any other provision of
the Transfer Agreement A waiver shall be binding on the
waiving party only if it is in writing. The waiver of any breach of
any provision of the Transfer Agreement shall not be taken or
held to be a waiver of any further breach of the same provision or
any breach of any other provision.
Page 25
-
Memorandum of Understanding
21.0 SURVIVAL
Survival
21.1 The provisions of paragraphs 4.6, 7.1, 7.3, 8.0, 9.0, 11.0, 14.0,
15.0, 16.0, 17.3 to 17.9, 21.0 and Schedule 2, paragraphs 2.10,
3.1, 3.2, 3.3 shall survive the suspension, termination, revocation
or expiry of the Transfer Agreement.
22.0 SCHEDULES
Schedules
22.1 The following Schedules are attached to this agreement and shall
form a part of this Memorandum of Understanding:
Schedule 1: Prosecutorial Standards
Schedule 2: Operational Standards
Schedule 3: Compliance and Performance Measures
Schedule 4: Existing Contracts
Schedule 5: Court Service Area
Memorandum of Understanding
Page 26
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this
Memorandum of Understanding.
DATED AT
THIS
DAY OF
2000.
THE CORPORATION OF THE
COUNTY OF ELGIN
{Corporate Seal}
Warden
Chief Administrative Officer
DATED AT
THIS
DAY OF
2000.
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN
RIGHT OF ONTARIO, as represented
by the Attorney General
Witness
Attorney General
Memorandum of Understanding
Page 27
SCHEDULE 1
PROSECUTORIAL
STANDARDS
Adherence to
standards
Principles
Prosecutorial
independence
Impartial
prosecution
Fair appeals policy
SCHEDULE I
STANDARDS FOR PROSECUTIONS BY MUNICIPALITIES
1.0 Scope
1.1 Where the Municipal Partner conducts prosecutions transferred to
the Municipal Partner by the Attorney General under the Transfer
Agreement, the Municipal Partner shall adhere to the standards
set out in this schedule.
2.0 Standards
2.1 The Municipal Partner shall ensure that prosecutions transferred
in accordance with the Transfer Agreement are conducted in a
manner consistent with the following principles:
2.1.1 prosecutorial independence;
2.1.2 fairness and impartiality;
2.1.3 competence and integrity; and
2.1.4 timeliness of prosecutions.
2.2 The Municipal Partner shall ensure that any of its prosecutors
acting under the Transfer Agreement who are not lawyers are
supervised by or report to the city solicitor or another lawyer
designated for this purpose and that its reporting relationships are
structured so that the prosecutors' exercise of discretion is not
influenced by any person or body, including:
2.2.1 members of council;
2.2.2 policing and other enforcement agencies; and
2.2.3 municipal financial officers.
2.3 The Municipal Partner shall be responsible for:
2.3.1 ensuring that any prosecution policies are applied
impartially;
2.3.2 ensuring that a fair and reasonable appeals policy is in
place and is applied consistently;
Schedule 1
Page 1
Notification of
witnesses
Prosecutorial
discretion
Municipal partner
to educate its
prosecutors
Disclosure to
defendants
Prosecutors' oath 2.4
Conflict of interest 2 5
rules .
2.3.3 notifying prosecution witnesses of dates and times of
hearings in accordance with legislative requirements;
2.3.4 permitting prosecutors to exercise their discretion in a fair
and impartial manner, free from influence or bias;
2.3.5 taking appropriate steps to educate and inform its
prosecutors of any policies set out by the Municipal
Partner, Ontario or the Government of Canada which apply
to the prosecution of proceedings commenced under the
Act; and
2.3.6 ensuring provision of full and timely disclosure to
defendants upon request.
All municipal prosecutors engaging in prosecutions under the
Transfer Agreement shall swear the following oath or affirmation
before the Regional Senior Judge, or, where the Regional Senior
Judge is unavailable, a judge of the Ontario Court (Provincial
Division), and the oath or affirmation shall be a term of
employment:
Oath:
I swear (or affirm) that I will truly and faithfully, according to the
best of my skill and ability, execute the duties, powers and trusts
of a prosecutor, as an officer of the Court, without favour or
affection to any party, so help me God (omit last four words in an
affirmation).
I also swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully discharge my duties as
a prosecutor, and will comply with the laws of Canada and
Ontario, and except as I may be legally authorized or required, I
will not disclose or give to any person any information or
document that comes to my knowledge or possession by reason
of my being a prosecutor, so help me God (omit last four words in
an affirmation).
In addition to the conflict of interest rules set out in paragraph 8.0
of Schedule 2.0, and any conflict of interest rules that may be
imposed by the Municipal Partner, the Municipal Partner shall
also ensure that the following apply to prosecutors acting under
the terms of the Transfer Agreement:
Schedule 1
Page 2
Not an
enforcement
officer
Not a Municipal
politician within
past 12 months
Avoid conflict
Disclosure of
conflict
Not to act for
defendants
Disclosure of
charges
Municipal partner 2.6
responsible to set
procedure
2.5.1 A person employed as a prosecutor shall not also be
employed as an enforcement officer.
2.5.2 A prosecutor shall not hold or have held a municipal
political office within the preceding 12 months.
2.5.3 A prosecutor shall not be placed or place him or herself in
a position where the integrity of the administration of
justice could be compromised.
2.5.4 A prosecutor shall disclose any actual or reasonably
perceived conflict as soon as possible to the Municipal
Partner.
2.5.5 A prosecutor shall not, personally or through any partner
in the practice of law, act or be directly or indirectly
involved as counselor solicitor for any person, in respect
of any offence charged against the person under the laws
in force in Ontario, unless it relates to hislher own case,
except where the LSA provides otherwise.
2.5.6 Where a prosecutor is charged with an offence under the
Criminal Code of Canada or any other federal statute or
regulation that is dealt with under the Criminal Code of
Canada, such charge shall be disclosed forthwith to the
Municipal Partner by the prosecutor. Where a
prosecutor is charged with an offence under other
federal statutes or regulations thereunder or a provincial
statute or regulation thereunder and where
continuing to perform his or her duties may erode
public confidence in the administration of justice, the
charge shall be disclosed to the Municipal Partner by the
prosecutor. The Municipal Partner shall determine if any
actual or perceived conflict exists and, if so, the Municipal
Partner shall take appropriate action to address the
conflict.
The Municipal Partner shall establish and follow a procedure that
ensures a prosecutor does not act in any matter where a conflict
of interest has been identified, until the conflict no longer exists.
Schedule 1
Page 3
Municipal partner 2.7
to ensure
competent
prosecutions
Knowledge of the
law
Knowledge of the
procedure
Professionalism
Addressing
complaints
Municipal partner
to train and
educate
prosecutors
Direction not to
appear
Prosecutorial
policies
Reporting protocol
for significant cases
The Municipal Partner shall ensure that its prosecutors are
competent in relation tothe following factors;
2.7.1 knowledge of the current law, including the Act, related
statutes and regulations, the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms and any common law relevant to the
conduct of prosecutions;
2.7.2 knowledge of the rules of court and legal procedures, as
amended from time to time;
2.7.3 ability to treat members of the judiciary and other persons
involved in the court process with professional courtesy;
and
2.7.4 ability to address complaints promptly and effectively.
2.8 To ensure that municipal prosecutors' knowledge and skills are
adequate and current, the Municipal Partner shall be responsible
for and bear the cost of the ongoing training and education of its
prosecutors.
2.9 The Director of Crown Operations, on the advice of the Crown
Attorney and after consulting with the supervising solicitor, may
direct that the prosecutor not appear in court where, in the opinion
of the Director of Crown Operations, public confidence in the
administration of justice is or may be eroded through the
continued appearance of the prosecutor in the courts.
2.10 The Municipal Partner shall ensure cooperation with local Crown
Attorneys and shall ensure compliance with provincial directives
and policies that are made known by Ontario. The Municipal
Partner may establish its own prosecutorial policies, provided that
its policies are consistent with provincial policies and not contrary
to law.
2.11 In addition to any legislative requirements and any provincial
prosecutorial directive or policy made known to the Municipal
Partner, the Municipal Partner shall maintain a reporting protocol
Schedule 1
Page 4
Judicial review
Constitutional
issue
Substantial public
interest
Report to federal
prosecutor
Report to other
provincial ministries
to notify the local Crown Attorney and the Attorney General of
any matter that appears likely to raise a substantive legal issue at
trial or appeal, including;
2.11.1 an application for judicial review or prerogative writ
sought in relation to a prosecution transferred under
paragraph 1.3 of this MOU;
2.11.2 anything that may affect the administration,
constitutional validity, or enforceability of a
statute or regulation; and
2.11.3 any matter where there could be a substantial public
interest in its outcome.
2.12 The reporting protocol referred to in paragraph 2.11 of this
Schedule shall also include a provision that the regional federal
prosecutor shall be notified with respect to offences designated as
contraventions under the Contraventions Act (Canada).
2.13 The reporting protocol referred to in paragraph 2.11 of this
Schedule shall also include a provision that where the matter
relates to a statute or regulation for which a provincial Ministry
other than the Ministry of the Attorney General is responsible, the
Legal Services Branch of that Ministry shall be notified.
Schedule 1
Page 5
SCHEDULE 2
OPERATIONAL
STANDARDS
Municipal
partner's
obligations
Efficiency of
proceedings
Service to
enforcement
agencies
continues
SCHEDULE 2
OPERATIONAL STANDARDS
1.0 Scope
1.1 Where the Municipal Partner performs court administration and
court support functions transferred to the Municipal Partner under
the Transfer Agreement, the Municipal Partner shall maintain the
standards set out in this schedule and shall meet all legislative
and regulatory requirements with respect to proceedings under
the Act.
2.0 Processes & Proceedings
2.1 The Municipal Partner shall provide for and accommodate the
efficient processing of all court proceedings.
2.2 The Municipal Partner shall continue to provide the existing
services and level of service to enforcement agencies, including:
2.2.1 consulting enforcement agencies about witness
availability before scheduling trials;
2.2.2 distributing ticket sets and other forms to enforcement
agencies; and
2.2.3 providing copies of First Attendance Notices, Notices of
Intention to Appear, Certificates of Offence, Fail to
Respond (FTR) lists, Notices of Appeal, and other
documents containing disposition information, as required.
The Municipal Partner shall respond effectively to all enquiries
and shall provide prompt and efficient service in person and by
phone.
Subject to any statutory limitations, all proceedings under the Act
shall be open to the public, unless otherwise ordered by the
judiciary in a particular proceeding.
The Municipal Partner shall continue to provide the language
services required by the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.
C.43, including the following services:
Effective service 2.3
Proceedings open 2.4
to public
Language services 2.5
Schedule 2
Page 1
Qualified
interpreters
2.5.1 The Municipal Partner shall supply and pay for qualified
interpreters for witnesses and defendants upon their
request.
Document
translation
2.5.2 The Municipal Partner shall ensure that documents are
translated, upon request by the defendants, or if necessary
for administrative purposes.
Witness fees 2.6
The Municipal Partner shall ensure that witnesses are paid the
amounts to which they are entitled as prescribed by regulation.
Clerical court 2.7
support services
The Municipal Partner shall ensure that clerical court support
services are provided to the judiciary at least at the level provided
by the Attorney General prior to the transfer.
Accuracy of court 2.8
record
The Municipal Partner shall ensure the accuracy of the court
record for all matters transferred under the Transfer Agreement,
including:
2.8.1 the recording of all proceedings taken before the judiciary;
2.8.2 the preparation and certification of transcripts of
proceedings; and
2.8.3 the maintenance, retention and release of records and
information relevant to the court proceedings, including
tapes, transcripts, files, documents and exhibits or any
other data in paper or electronic form in accordance with
the record retention schedules contained in paragraph
2.10 of this Schedule and with legislative requirements.
Preparation and
delivery of court
documents
2.9 The Municipal Partner shall ensure the accurate and timely
preparation and delivery of court-related documents required to
carry out a judicial order relating to:
2.9.1 the attendance of a person at a hearing;
2.9.2 the arrest, detention or release of a person;
Schedule 2
Page 2
Record retention
periods
Universal access
to fine payment
Secure collection
of fines
Ongoing training
and education
2.9.3 the commencement, processing and disposition of a
proceeding; and
2.9.4 the imposition of a sentence, or other consequence of
conviction.
2.10 The following mandatory record retention periods shall apply
once a matter has been completed:
2.10.1 for all proceedings commenced under Parts I and III of the
Act, the calendar year of the date of judgment plus 2
additional years, except where there has been an accident
or a charge of careless driving, the calendar year of the
judgment plus 7 additional years;
2.10.2 for all proceedings commenced under Part II of the Act,
the calendar year of the date of judgment plus 2 additional
years; and
2.10.3 any other record retention requirements prescribed by
law.
2.11 The Municipal Partner shall continue to permit the public to pay
fines imposed on convictions for offences covered by this
Transfer Agreement in any court service area.
2.12 Fine revenues shall be collected in a secure manner, in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, to
ensure proper accountability and to meet the audit requirements
set out in paragraph 9.0 of the MOU.
2.13 The Municipal Partner shall be responsible for and bear the cost
of ongoing training and education of persons performing functions
under the Transfer Agreement.
Schedule 2
Page 3
3.0 Records & Information
Secure storage of 3.1
records and
information
Accurate and 3.2
secure exchange
of information
Continued access 3.3
to information
Accuracy of 3.4
provincial
offences database
Charges for court 3.5
services
Common 4.1
integrated
technology system
To preserve the integrity of court records and data for all
processes and proceedings under the Act, all files, tapes,
transcripts, papers, documents, exhibits and any other court
process information, whether in electronic, mechanical, physical
or other form, shall be stored in a secure manner.
The Municipal Partner shall ensure that the exchange or sharing
of information, electronically or otherwise, is done in a secure
manner to preserve the accuracy and security of the data.
The Municipal Partner shall continue the current practice of
providing information and access to information relating to the
disposition of cases, fine payments and defaults, and other court
related matters to all relevant provincial Ministries, enforcement
agencies and others who have access on the effective date of
transfer.
The Municipal Partner shall ensure the accuracy of the provincial
offences database by entering the following information in a timely
and accurate manner:
3.4.1 the charges received;
3.4.2 the status of the charge;
3.4.3 the charge dispositions;
3.4.4 the fine payments; and
3.4.5 the imposition and removal of sanctions.
The Municipal Partner may charge a fee for photocopies,
certification of copies, transcripts and any other service provided
and charged for by the Ministry of the Attorney General, in
accordance with the Administration of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990,
c.A.6.
4.0 Technology
The Attorney General and the Municipal Partner acknowledge
that the use of a common integrated technology system is
necessary to ensure accurate and timely access to information
Schedule 2
Page 4
Use of ICON and
replacement of
ICON
Must meet
technology
standards
Technology
standards
and will facilitate the sharing of information among justice
partners.
4.2 The Municipal Partner shall use the ICON system or its
replacement during the Transition Phase. A system to replace
ICON will be developed by the Integrated Justice Project of the
Ministry of the Attorney General and the Ministry of the Solicitor
General and Correctional Services. This system will take into
account the requirements of the Municipal Partner in carrying out
its obligations under the Transfer Agreement, and of Ontario. This
system will be offered to the municipal partners for a fee.
4.3 Where a Municipal Partner chooses to use a system other than
that provided by the Attorney General after the Transition Phase,
the system will meet the requirements of paragraph 4.4 of this
Schedule.
4.4 Any system used by the Municipal Partner must meet the
technology standards, case flow management and information
sharing requirements as directed by the Attorney General,
including the development of a common application environment,
and the system must be "Year 2000" compliant.
5.0 Ministry of Transportation Protocols
Information to be 5.1
transmitted to
MTO
The Municipal Partner shall transmit to the Ministry of
Transportation (MTO) information relating to the following:
5.1.1 orders and directions to suspend or reinstate drivers'
licenses;
5.1.2 orders and directions to deny or reinstate plate permits;
and
5.1.3 convictions, in accordance with subsection 210(1) of the
Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.S.
Schedule 2
Page 5
, ,
Electronic 5.2 Orders transmitted to MTO shall be transmitted electronically, in a
transmissions standardized format prescribed by MTO and in the consolidated
"one window" template that is provided for by ICON and the
Defaulted Fines Control Center, or by any other agent doing
similar work as directed by the Attorney General.
Complete and 5.3 The information referred to in paragraph 5.1 of this Schedule must
accurate data be complete and accurate, and submitted to MTO in a timely
manner, in accordance with all statutory and regulatory
requirements, including the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.
H.8.
Access to 5.4 The Municipal Partner shall ensure that MTO will continue to have
information by
MTO access to information relating to the status and disposition of
cases.
Municipal 5.5 The Municipal Partner shall designate a representative to work
partner's
representative with MTO to resolve data transmission issues.
6.0 Tickets and Other Court Forms
Sequentially 6.1 The Municipal Partner shall purchase all provincial offences
numbered tickets tickets from a single source as approved by the Attorney General.
Provincial offences tickets must be sequentially numbered with an
ICON, or its replacement system, location number.
Purchase of court 6.2 The Municipal Partner shall purchase all charging and service
forms from a
singles source related documents, and other court forms and documents
prescribed by regulation, and other standard forms used by the
Attorney General prior to the transfer, from a single source as
approved by the Attorney General.
7.0 Facilities
Court facilities 7.1 The court facilities shall be easily accessible to the public and all
easily accessible other interested parties and, without limiting the generality of the
foregoing, shall:
Transit 7.1.1 be accessible by public transit or private vehicle;
Schedule 2
Page 6
Parking
7.1.2 where parking is available, provide sufficient parking
areas to accommodate the court's caseload;
Signage
7.1.3 be clearly identified as a court facility and shall have signs
to identify the location of court offices and courtrooms;
and
Barner free access
7.1.4 provide barrier-free access into and within the court
facilities, including courtrooms, meeting rooms,
washrooms, and parking areas.
7.2 The Municipal Partner shall maintain the following minimum
standards for court facilities:
Facilities
standards
Separate Areas 7.2.1 Public areas shall be separate from the court
administration offices and the prosecutors' offices, all of
which shall be separate from the areas designated for the
judiciary.
Offices for the 7.2.2 The judiciary shall continue to have chambers which are
judiciary private and secure and sufficiently equipped to permit the
performance of their judicial responsibilities. The judiciary
shall also continue to have separate and secure access to
parking areas, to the court building, and to the
courtroom(s) and other rooms in which proceedings take
place.
Court staff offices 7.2.3 Courts administration and court support staff shall have
secure office areas that contain the furniture, equipment,
technology and supplies necessary for them to be able to
perform their responsibilities under the Transfer
Agreement.
Prosecutors 7.2.4 Prosecutorial staff shall have secure office areas that
offices contain the furniture, equipment, technology, and
supplies necessary for them to be able to perform their
responsibilities under the Transfer Agreement.
First.;, Attendance 7.2.5 If the facility is used for a first attendance process, the
meeting· rooms meeting room(s) shall be separate from the room(s) in
which the court proceedings take place.
Secure areas for 7.2.6 A secure area shall be available for persons in custody.
persons in
custody
Schedule 2 Page 7
Consultation
before renovation
7.2.7 Before making substantial renovations to an existing court
facility, or when preparing plans for a new facility, the
Municipal Partner shall consult with all groups that may be
affected by the change, including the judiciary,
enforcement agencies, prosecution agencies, the Ontario
Realty Corporation, the Ministry of the Attorney General's
Court Services Division and its Facilities Branch.
Variances from 7.3
facilities standards
Notwithstanding paragraphs 7.1 and 7.2 of this Schedule, and
subject to paragraph 7.4 of this Schedule, where the Interim Audit
reveals that a particular standard is not met, the variance may be
permitted where:
7.3.2 the Municipal Partner occupies facilities used by the
Ministry of the Attorney General that do not meet the
standards; or
7.3.3 the costs required of the Municipal Partner to modify the
existing facilities are more reasonably spread over one or
more fiscal years.
Manner to address 7.4
variances
Where the Interim Audit reveals that the minimum standards for
court facilities are not being met, the parties shall identify, in the
LSA, any variance and the manner in which such variance shall
be addressed.
8.0 Conflict of Interest
8.1 The Municipal Partner shall ensure that all employees and other
persons performing duties under the Transfer Agreement shall, in
addition to any of the Municipal Partner's guidelines, abide by the
following rules:
Report improper
influence
8.1.1 An employee or other person performing duties under the
Transfer Agreement shall report any attempt at improper
influence or interference, financial, political or otherwise,
to the Municipal Partner and to the local Crown Attorney.
No action shall be taken against the employee or other
person for making any such report in good faith.
Schedule 2
Page 8
, ,
Employee must
report charge
Existing
municipal policy
Attorney General's
right to withdraw
consent
8.1.2 Where an employee or other person performing duties
under the Transfer Agreement has been charged with an
offence created under a federal statute or regulation or a
provincial statute or regulation, and where continuing to
perform his or her duties may erode public confidence in
the administration of justice, the charge shall be disclosed
to the Municipal Partner by the employee or other person.
Upon notification, the Municipal Partner shall determine if
any actual or perceived conflict of interest exists, and if so,
shall take appropriate action to address the conflict
8.1.3 All persons performing functions under the Transfer
Agreement, except Municipal Prosecutors who shall
swear the oath setout in paragraph 2.4 of Schedule 1,
shall swear the following oath or affirmation before a
Commissioner for Taking Affidavits, and the oath or
affirmation shall be a term of employment:
I swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully discharge my duties,
and will observe and comply with the laws of Canada and
Ontario, and except as I may be legally authorized or
required, I will not disclose or give to any person any
information or document that comes to my knowledge or
possession by reason of my employment, so help me God
(omit last four words in an affirmation).
9.0 Contracting Out
9.1 Where the Municipal Partner proposes the contracting out of
services relating to the performance of its obligations under the
Transfer Agreement the following conditions shall be satisfied:
9.1.1 The Municipal Partner shall follow generally accepted
procedures or its existing policy and procedures relating to
the acquisition of services.
9.1.2 The Municipal Partner shall ensure that the documents
provide that where it is alleged that the Municipal Partner
or its contractor has breached any term, condition or
standard in the Transfer Agreement, the Attorney General
has the right to withhold or withdraw its consent.
Schedule 2
Page 9
Conflict of interest
Performance
standards
Definite term of
contract
Process for
complaints
Confidentiality
standards
Perform all
aspects of
contract
Contingency plan
Attorney General's 9.2
deemed consent
9.1.3 Documents shall include a provision requiring the
prospective contractor to disclose any real or perceived
conflict of interest.
9.1.4 The contract shall provide that the person or organization
performing the contract will perform the work to the same
standard as required of the Municipal Partner under the
Transfer Agreement and the Municipal Partner shall take
whatever steps are necessary to ensure that applicable
standards are met.
9.1.5 The contract shall be for a definite term and may be
subject to renewal as long as the applicable standards
under the Transfer Agreement are being met.
9.1.6 The Municipal Partner shall ensure that there is an
effective process in place to deal with complaints against
the contractor and the Municipal Partner shall respond to
such complaints directly.
9.1.7 The contract shall contain a provision requiring the
contractor to adhere to the same confidentiality standards
as those required of the Municipal Partner.
9.1.8 Persons providing services pursuant to such a contract
must perform all aspects of the contract to ensure
consistency and continuity in the administration of justice.
9.1.9 The Municipal Partner shall ensure that an effective
contingency plan is in place to address any situation
where the contractor or its employees fail to comply with
any term, condition or standard of the Transfer
Agreement.
The consent of the Attorney General required for the contracting
out of services under the Transfer Agreement shall be deemed to
have been given where the process followed by the Municipal
Partner has met the conditions set out in paragraph 9.1 of this
Schedule and, where a regulation has been made pursuant to
section 174 of the Act, the criteria prescribed by the regulations
have also been met.
Schedule 2
Page 10
-
.; J .:::
SCHEDULE 3
COMPLIANCE AND
PERFORMANCE
MEASURES
.
SCHEDULE 3
COMPLIANCE AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES
1.0 Compliance
Principle 1.1
The provisions set out in this schedule are intended to provide the
Attorney General with an effective means to ensure compliance
with the Transfer Agreement to preserve the integrity of the
administration of justice.
Where the Review Committee determines that there has been a
breach of a term or condition of the Transfer Agreement following
the dispute resolution process set out in paragraph 13.0 of the
MOU, the Review Committee shall advise the parties of the
nature of the breach, and may take one or more of the following
measures:
Sanctions for Non- 1.2
compliance
1.2.1 The Review Committee may order that the parties
continue to work together to achieve compliance or
resolution of the issue.
1.2.2 The Review Committee may issue a written caution
against continued non-compliance with the Transfer
Agreement.
1.2.3 Where previous attempts have failed to result in
compliance by the Municipal Partner, the Review
Committee may recommend to the Attorney General that
an audit, pursuant to paragraph 9.0 of the MOU, be
undertaken.
1.2.4 Where previous attempts have failed to result in
compliance by the Municipal Partner, the Review
Committee may recommend to the Attorney General that a
person be appointed to superintend the Municipal
Partner's performance. Where the Attorney General
accepts such recommendation, the Attorney General shall
provide written notice to the Municipal Partner, advising of
the following:
1.2.4.1
1.2.4.2
the identity of the appointee;
the purpose and duration of the appointment;
and
whether the Municipal Partner will be
responsible for the costs of the appointment.
1.2.4.3
Schedule 3
Page 1
\
Rationale for
performance
measures
Best practices
/
1.2.5 Where previous attempts have failed to result in
compliance by the Municipal Partner, the Review
Committee may recommend to the Attorney General that
financial penalties be assessed against the Municipal
Partner.
1.2.6 Where previous attempts have failed to result in
compliance by the Municipal Partner, the Review
Committee may recommend to the Attorney General that
an order be issued, pursuant to subsection 171(1) of the
Act, directing the Municipal Partner to comply within a
specified time.
1.2.7 Where previous attempts have failed to result in
compliance by the Municipal Partner, the Review
Committee may recommend to the Attorney General that
the performance of a specific function or functions under
the Transfer Agreement be assumed by or reassigned to
someone other than the Municipal Partner, at the
Municipal Partner's own expense.
1.2.8 Where the Municipal Partner fails to comply with the
order issued pursuant to paragraph 1.2.6 of this Schedule,
the Review Committee may recommend to the Attorney
General that the Transfer Agreement be suspended or
revoked, pursuant to subsection 171 (2) of the Act.
2.0 Performance Measures
2.1 The parties acknowledge that performance measures will assist
the parties in meeting the standards set out in the Transfer
Agreement and will provide the Attorney General with a
management tool to assess the Municipal Partner's progress
towards achieving stated goals and promote accountability.
2.2 The Municipal Partner and the Attorney General agree to
exchange best practices with other Municipal Partners to promote
efficiency, consistency and compliance with the Transfer
Agreement, and to assist in identifying and developing methods of
improving service delivery.
Schedule 3
Page 2
.
{ (I .;,--
SCHEDULE 4
EXISTING CONTRACTS
"
Purpose 1.1
Central contracts 2. 1
Fonns and ticket
contracts
Printing and
mailing of notices
contract
3.1
SCHEDULE 4
EXISTING CONTRACTS
,-.
The purpose of this Schedule is to set out current contracted
obligations relating to functions under the Transfer Agreement
that are managed by Ontario.
Ontario currently has two such contracts.
2.1.1 Management Board Secretariat has a sub-contract with
its Vendor of Record for the purchase of sequentially
numbered charging and service documents. The current
sub-contract commenced in 1996 and is for a period of 7
years (5 years and 2 one year renewals).
2.1.2 Xebec Imaging Services is a centrally managed contract
for the printing and mailing of Notices of Fine and Due
Date. Costs are based on the number of pieces produced
per year. The contract, which expired on December 31,
1998, was renewed, and, unless sooner terminated or
extended under its provisions, expires December 31,
2000. The term of the contract may be extended for two
separate one-year periods to December 31, 2002, on the
same terms and conditions by mutual agreement. The
Municipal Partner shall reimburse the Ministry in relation
to functions governed by the Transfer Agreement, from
the effective date of transfer through December 31,2000
and the Municipal Partner may at its option negotiate any
further renewals.
In addition to the contracts referred to in paragraph 2.1,
Management Board Secretariat has contracts with private
collection agencies for the collection of outstanding fines
imposed before January 1, 1998, which contracts are due to
expire on September 30, 2000. The Municipal Partner will not
assume these contracts, but will be bound by them in that it will
not be permitted to enter into separate contracts with these or
other collection agencies in respect of outstanding fines imposed
before January 1, 1998, until on or after October 1, 2000.
Schedule 4
Page 1
Other contracts
3.2
~
However, the MunicipaLPartner may use any method authorized
by relevant legislation or regulation for the collection of fines
imposed on or after January 1, 1998.
Various contracts are held by local court offices for the purposes
of data input, technology maintenance, and courier and armored
car services. These contracts cover services for the Ontario
Court (Provincial Division) and the Ontario Court (General
Division). The Municipal Partner may assume these contracts
as they relate to functions under the Transfer Agreement, as of
the effective date of transfer.
Schedule 4
Page 2
{ c ,
SCHEDULE 5
COURT SERVICE AREA
The boundaries of the Court Service Area, which are set out in the attached map,
include the following municipalities:
County of Elgin
City of St. Thomas
Municipality of Bayham
Municipality of Central Elgin
Municipality of DuttonlDunwich
Municipality of West Elgin
Town of Aylmer
Township of Malahide
Township of Southwold
-
" C'l ,-
SCHEDULE 5
COURT SERVICE AREA
Court Profile of
Provincial Offences
Administration
N~TH'
SOUr,
CNI
eKt=RID
¡?/
d
,~:,-
Centre in
ST. THOMAS
December 1997
HOUGHToN
~<1........",...........,._,"""-eo.,...<..-~.'m'~...._"Qo__"'''~'''"'''''''''''''''''~'~(~·_Øl.tiIÐoØ''''1I2.
s.
ERIE
Glen~
VOSA
, ,/
/
Wardsville
./
/
)i
¡
r'
~rornl Kettle Creek C.A.
S19 531 5026
Page 1 of 2
02/02/01 16,38
February 02, 2001
John D. Johnson
R.R.#1 Rodney
Ontario
NOL 2CO
Mr. Jo]mson:
This letter is to confirm that the County of Elgin did, at its January 23rd Council meeting,
approve your Application for Minor Exception to clear bush at Lot 14, Conc. 5 West
Elgin as described in your January 04th, 2001 submission. The County is also satisfied
that you have contributed funds to the Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority in
COlllpliancc ofthe County No Net Loss Policy.
You are hcreby authorized to commence the cJearing of the woúdlot as per the tcnns of
your submission. This approval is valid for one year. Please contact me when you are
aboulIa commence the work @ 519-631-1270.
Sincerely;
,
f
, ¿ , /:,"
. .< I /.
>./'" t, (~ ,..- .,....,.
¿ ,) . -ï ,"" '~eO "'eO)
'\,.'¥.-'
Hugh Geurts
Elgin County Tree Commissioner
(Mrs.) SANDRA J. HEFFREN
DEPUTY COUNTY CLERK
450 SUNSET DRIVE
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
N5R 5V1
PHONE (519) 631-1460
FAX (519) 633-7661
MARK G. McDONALD
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
01 01 29
Mr. Don Leitch
Clerk-Administrator
Municipality of Central Elgin
450 Sunset Drive
St.Thomas, ON
N5R 5V1
Re: MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS
Elgin County Council adopted a resolution on November 28, 2000 to send the latest draft
of the maintenance agreements to each Road Superintendent to confirm how comments
from their respective areas were addressed. County Council requested all final comments
be addressed and brought to the Road Superintendents meeting on December 7, 2000. At
the working meeting with the local Road Superintendents, several concerns were mitigated
and four were incorporated into the final agreements.
The first concern was an omission of the flashing beacons at #25 and #52. This was
corrected in the Southwold Maintenance Agreement.
The second concern was regarding the updating of the payments to the Municipalities for
maintenance, by the Consumer Price Index. It was determined that the most appropriate
way to update the payments would be to use the October year over year Ontario CPI for
the increase in the following year's payments. Each of the seven agreements was
updated to reflect this change.
The third concern was from Lloyd Perrin of Central Elgin. His comment was that the
Municipalities should be held harmless from capital projects initiated or run by the County.
For instance, Municipalities should not be liable for a traffic accident associated with a
paving operation run by the County. The exact wording of this clause can be seen in
Section 9.2, as created by the County Solicitor, Steve Gibson. In general, the clause
states that the Municipalities will be held harmless from work initiated or contracted by the
County.
The fourth concern was an error in Schedule C-1 concerning the description of Road #73.
This error was amended in all agreements.
.....2
Municipality of Central Elgin
2
January 29, 2001
On January 23, 2001 County Council reviewed the changes and adopted the following
resolution:
"THAT the County formally adopts the maintenance agreements between the
County and the Lower-Tiers, as amended; and,
THAT Engineering Services forward the final draft maintenance agreements
back to the Lower-Tiers to be adopted by resolution."
The reasons for forming the maintenance agreement were heard again by County Council
and are as follows.
> Drafting a formal agreement of this nature clarifies any potential ambiguities or
misinterpretation of responsibilities, now and in the future. Further, it takes the intent of
the Restructuring Order and puts it in operational terms by clearly defining those
responsibilities.
> Frank Cowan Co. and the County Solicitor both suggest a definite need for a formal
contract such as this to mutually protect all parties against liability issues and minimize
to potential for misinterpretation. This document shall also ensure that minimum
standards are met and services are consistently rendered across the County.
> Finally, this agreement shall formalize and compile many issues that may be only
verbally understood or are present in many separate documents. Some of these
issues are: responsibilities of boundary/shared roads and structures, payments to
municipalities, time frames, insurance, traffic signals/beacons, inspection, sub-
contractors, Trans-Canada Trail/London Link sections, disputes and notices.
Included with this letter is the final copy of the maintenance agreement as endorsed by the
County of Elgin Council. Please forward this agreement to your Council for consideration.
If you have any questions, please contact Justin Lawrence at extension 121.
We look forward to your concurrence with the amendments proposed by municipal road
superintendents.
Yours truly,
00.~
S.J.(kffr~;fßr:'), -
Deputy Clerk.
Att.
c.c. - Justin Lawrence
(Mrs.) SANDRA J. HEFFREN
DEPUTY COUNTY CLERK
450 SUNSET DRIVE
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
N5R 5V1
PHONE (519) 631-1460
FAX (519) 633-7661
MARK G. McDONALD
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
01 01 29
Mr. Kyle Kruger
Administrator
Municipality of Bayham
9344 Plank Road, P. O. Box 160
STRAFFORDVILLE, Ontario
NOJ 1Y0
Re: MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS
Elgin County Council adopted a resolution on November 28, 2000 to send the latest draft
of the maintenance agreements to each Road Superintendent to confirm how comments
from their respective areas were addressed. County Council requested all final comments
be addressed and brought to the Road Superintendents meeting on December 7, 2000. At
the working meeting with the local Road Superintendents, several concerns were mitigated
and four were incorporated into the final agreements.
The first concern was an omission of the flashing beacons at #25 and #52. This was
corrected in the Southwold Maintenance Agreement.
The second concern was regarding the updating of the payments to the Municipalities for
maintenance, by the Consumer Price Index. It was determined that the most appropriate
way to update the payments would be to use the October year over year Ontario CPI for
the increase in the following year's payments. Each of the seven agreements was
updated to reflect this change.
The third concern was from Lloyd Perrin of Central Elgin. His comment was that the
Municipalities should be held harmless from capital projects initiated or run by the County.
For instance, Municipalities should not be liable for a traffic accident associated with a
paving operation run by the County. The exact wording of this clause can be seen in
Section 9.2, as created by the County Solicitor, Steve Gibson. In general, the clause
states that the Municipalities will be held harmless from work initiated or contracted by the
County.
The fourth concern was an error in Schedule C-1 concerning the description of Road #73.
This error was amended in all agreements.
.....2
Municipality of Bayham
2
January 29, 2001
On January 23, 2001 County Council reviewed the changes and adopted the following
resolution:
"THAT the County formally adopts the maintenance agreements between the
County and the Lower-Tiers, as amended; and,
THAT Engineering Services fOrward the final draft maintenance agreements
back to the Lower-Tiers to be adopted by resolution."
The reasons for forming the maintenance agreement were heard again by County Council
and are as follows.
» Drafting a formal agreement of this nature clarifies any potential ambiguities or
misinterpretation of responsibilities, now and in the future. Further, it takes the intent of
the Restructuring Order and puts it in operational terms by clearly defining those
responsibilities.
» Frank Cowan Co. and the County Solicitor both suggest a definite need for a formal
contract such as this to mutually protect all parties against liability issues and minimize
to potential for misinterpretation. This document shall also ensure that minimum
standards are met and services are consistently rendered across the County.
» Finally, this agreement shall formalize and compile many issues that may be only
verbally understood or are present in many separate documents. Some of these
issues are: responsibilities of boundary/shared roads and structures, payments to
municipalities, time frames, insurance, traffic signals/beacons, inspection, sub-
contractors, Trans-Canada Trail/London Link sections, disputes and notices.
Included with this letter is the final copy of the maintenance agreement as endorsed by the
County of Elgin Council. Please forward this agreement to your Council for consideration.
If you have any questions, please contact Justin Lawrence at extension 121.
We look forward to your concurrence with the amendments proposed by municipal road
superintendents.
Yours truly,
00+
~.J. (Jeffren (Mrs.),
Deputy Clerk.
Att.
c.c. - Justin Lawrence
(Mrs.) SANDRA J. HEFFREN
DEPUTY COUNTY CLERK
450 SUNSET DRIVE
ST THOMAS, ONTARIO
N5R 5V1
PHONE (519) 631-1460
FAX (519) 633-7661
MARK G. McDONALD
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
01 01 29
Mr. Ken Loveland
Clerk-Treasurer -Administrator
Municipality of Dutton/Dunwich
199 Main Street, P. O. Box 329
DUTTON, Ontario
NOL 1 JO
Re: MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS
Elgin County Council adopted a resolution on November 28, 2000 to send the latest draft
of the maintenance agreements to each Road Superintendent to confirm how comments
from their respective areas were addressed. County Council requested all final comments
be addressed and brought to the Road Superintendents meeting on December 7, 2000. At
the working meeting with the local Road Superintendents, several concerns were mitigated
and four were incorporated into the final agreements.
The first concern was an omission of the flashing beacons at #25 and #52. This was
corrected in the Southwold Maintenance Agreement.
The second concern was regarding the updating of the payments to the Municipalities for
maintenance, by the Consumer Price Index. It was determined that the most appropriate
way to update the payments would be to use the October year over year Ontario CPI for
the increase in the following year's payments. Each of the seven agreements was
updated to reflect this change.
The third concern was from Lloyd Perrin of Central Elgin. His comment was that the
Municipalities should be held harmless from capital projects initiated or run by the County.
For instance, Municipalities should not be liable for a traffic accident associated with a
paving operation run by the County. The exact wording of this clause can be seen in
Section 9.2, as created by the County Solicitor, Steve Gibson. In general, the clause
states that the Municipalities will be held harmless from work initiated or contracted by the
County.
The fourth concern was an error in Schedule C-1 concerning the description of Road #73.
This error was amended in all agreements.
.....2
Municipality of Dutton/Dunwich
2
January 29, 2001
On January 23, 2001 County Council reviewed the changes and adopted the following
resolution:
"THAT the County formally adopts the maintenance agreements between the
County and the Lower-Tiers, as amended; and,
THAT Engineering Services forward the final draft maintenance agreements
back to the Lower-Tiers to be adopted by resolution."
The reasons for forming the maintenance agreement were heard again by County Council
and are as follows.
>- Drafting a formal agreement of this nature clarifies any potential ambiguities or
misinterpretation of responsibilities, now and in the future. Further, it takes the intent of
the Restructuring Order and puts it in operational terms by clearly defining those
responsibilities.
>- Frank Cowan Co. and the County Solicitor both suggest a definite need for a formal
contract such as this to mutually protect all parties against liability issues and minimize
to potential for misinterpretation. This document shall also ensure that minimum
standards are met and services are consistently rendered across the County.
>- Finally, this agreement shall formalize and compile many issues that may be only
verbally understood or are present in many separate documents. Some of these
issues are: responsibilities of boundary/shared roads and structures, payments to
municipalities, time frames, insurance, traffic signals/beacons, inspection, sub-
contractors, Trans-Canada Trail/London Link sections, disputes and notices.
Included with this lelter is the final copy of the maintenance agreement as endorsed by the
County of Elgin Council. Please forward this agreement to your Council for consideration.
If you have any questions, please contact Justin Lawrence at extension 121.
We look forward to your concurrence with the amendments proposed by municipal road
superintendents.
Yours truly,
0.0.,-~
S.J. affr~~ ~rs~;" ~
Deputy Clerk.
Alt.
c.c. - Justin Lawrence
(Mrs.) SANDRA J. HEFFREN
DEPUTY COUNTY CLERK
450 SUNSET DRIVE
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
N5R 5V1
PHONE (519) 631-1460
FAX (519) 633-7661
MARK G. McDONALD
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
01 01 29
Mrs. Jo-Anne Groch
Administrator-Treasurer
Municipality of West Elgin
22413 Hoskins Line, P. O. Box 490
RODNEY, Ontario
NOL 2CO
Re: MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS
Elgin County Council adopted a resolution on November 28, 2000 to send the latest draft
of the maintenance agreements to each Road Superintendent to confirm how comments
from their respective areas were addressed. County Council requested all final comments
be addressed and brought to the Road Superintendents meeting on December 7, 2000. At
the working meeting with the local Road Superintendents, several concerns were mitigated
and four were incorporated into the final agreements.
The first concern was an omission of the flashing beacons at #25 and #52. This was
corrected in the Southwold Maintenance Agreement.
The second concern was regarding the updating of the payments to the Municipalities for
maintenance, by the Consumer Price Index. It was determined that the most appropriate
way to update the payments would be to use the October year over year Ontario CPI for
the increase in the following year's payments. Each of the seven agreements was
updated to reflect this change.
The third concern was from Lloyd Perrin of Central Elgin. His comment was that the
Municipalities should be held harmless from capital projects initiated or run by the County.
For instance, Municipalities should not be liable for a traffic accident associated with a
paving operation run by the County. The exact wording of this clause can be seen in
Section 9.2, as created by the County Solicitor, Steve Gibson. In general, the clause
states that the Municipalities will be held harmless from work initiated or contracted by the
County.
The fourth concern was an error in Schedule C-1 concerning the description of Road #73.
This error was amended in all agreements.
.....2
Municipality of West Elgin
2
January 29, 2001
On January 23, 2001 County Council reviewed the changes and adopted the fOllowing
resolution:
"THAT the County formally adopts the maintenance agreements between the
County and the Lower-Tiers, as amended; and,
THAT Engineering Services forward the final draft maintenance agreements
back to the Lower-Tiers to be adopted by resolution."
The reasons for forming the maintenance agreement were heard again by County Council
and are as follows.
}. Drafting a formal agreement of this nature clarifies any potential ambiguities or
misinterpretation of responsibilities, now and in the future. Further, it takes the intent of
the Restructuring Order and puts it in operational terms by clearly defining those
responsibilities.
}. Frank Cowan Co. and the County Solicitor both suggest a definite need for a formal
contract such as this to mutually protect all parties against liability issues and minimize
to potential for misinterpretation. This document shall also ensure that minimum
standards are met and services are consistently rendered across the County
}. Finally, this agreement shall formalize and compile many issues that may be only
verbally understood or are present in many separate documents. Some of these
issues are: responsibilities of boundary/shared roads and structures, payments to
municipalities, time frames, insurance, traffic signals/beacons, inspection, sub-
contractors, Trans-Canada Trail/London Link sections, disputes and notices.
Included with this letter is the final copy of the maintenance agreement as endorsed by the
County of Elgin Council. Please forward this agreement to your Council for consideration.
If you have any questions, please contact Justin Lawrence at extension 121.
We look forward to your concurrence with the amendments proposed by municipal road
superintendents.
Yours truly,
í!!d!!:lt:;
Deputy Clerk.
Att.
c.c. - Justin Lawrence
(Mrs.) SANDRA J. HEFFREN
DEPUTY COUNTY CLERK
450 SUNSET DRIVE
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
N5R 5V1
PHONE (519) 631-1460
FAX (519) 633-7661
MARK G. McDONALD
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
01 01 29
Mr. Wendell Graves
Administrator-Deputy Clerk
Town of Aylmer
46 Talbot Street West
AYLMER, Ontario
N5H 1 J7
Re: MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS
Elgin County Council adopted a resolution on November 28, 2000 to send the latest draft
of the maintenance agreements to each Road Superintendent to confirm how comments
from their respective areas were addressed. County Council requested all final comments
be addressed and brought to the Road Superintendents meeting on December 7,2000. At
the working meeting with the local Road Superintendents, several concerns were mitigated
and four were incorporated into the final agreements.
The first concern was an omission of the flashing beacons at #25 and #52. This was
corrected in the Southwold Maintenance Agreement.
The second concern was regarding the updating of the payments to the Municipalities for
maintenance, by the Consumer Price Index. It was determined that the most appropriate
way to update the payments would be to use the October year over year Ontario CPI for
the increase in the following year's payments. Each of the seven agreements was
updated to reflect this change.
The third concern was from Lloyd Perrin of Central Elgin. His comment was that the
Municipalities should be held harmless from capital projects initiated or run by the County.
For instance, Municipalities should not be liable for a traffic accident associated with a
paving operation run by the County. The exact wording of this clause can be seen in
Section 9.2, as created by the County Solicitor, Steve Gibson. In general, the clause
states that the Municipalities will be held harmless from work initiated or contracted by the
County.
The fourth concern was an error in Schedule C-1 concerning the description of Road #73.
This error was amended in all agreements.
.....2
Town of Aylmer
2
January 29, 2001
On January 23, 2001 County Council reviewed the changes and adopted the following
resolution:
"THAT the County formally adopts the maintenance agreements between the
County and the Lower-Tiers, as amended; and, .
THAT Engineering Services forward the final draft maintenance agreements
back to the Lower-Tiers to be adopted by resolution."
The reasons for forming the maintenance agreement were heard again by County Council
and are as follows.
~ Drafting a formal agreement of this nature clarifies any potential ambiguities or
misinterpretation of responsibilities, now and in the future. Further, it takes the intent of
the Restructuring Order and puts it in operational terms by clearly defining those
responsibilities.
~ Frank Cowan Co. and the County Solicitor both suggest a definite need for a formal
contract such as this to mutually protect all parties against liability issues and minimize
to potential for misinterpretation. This document shall also ensure that minimum
standards are met and services are consistently rendered across the County.
~ Finally, this agreement shall formalize and compile many issues that may be only
verbally understood or are present in many separate documents. Some of these
issues are: responsibilities of boundary/shared roads and structures, payments to
municipalities, time frames, insurance, traffic signals/beacons, inspection, sub-
contractors, Trans-Canada Trail/London Link sections, disputes and notices.
Included with this letter is the final copy of the maintenance agreement as endorsed by the
County of Elgin Council. Please forward this agreement to your Council for consideration.
If you have any questions, please contact Justin Lawrence at extension 121.
We look forward to your concurrence with the amendments proposed by municipal road
superintendents.
Yours truly,
>40."ilM~ -
S.J. (lffr~n~rts.~·-
Deputy Clerk.
At!.
c.c. - Justin Lawrence
(Mrs.) SANDRA J. HEFFREN
DEPUTY COUNTY CLERK
450 SUNSET DRIVE
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
N5R 5V1
PHONE (519) 631-1460
FAX (519) 633-7661
MARK G. McDONALD
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
01 01 29
Mr. Randy Millard
Administrator-Clerk
Township of Malahide
87 John Street South
AYLMER, Ontario
N5H 2C3
Re: MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS
Elgin County Council adopted a resolution on November 28, 2000 to send the latest draft
of the maintenance agreements to each Road Superintendent to confirm how comments
from their respective areas were addressed. County Council requested all final comments
be addressed and brought to the Road Superintendents meeting on December 7, 2000. At
the working meeting with the local Road Superintendents, several concerns were mitigated
and four were incorporated into the final agreements.
The first concern was an omission of the flashing beacons at #25 and #52. This was
corrected in the Southwold Maintenance Agreement.
The second concern was regarding the updating of the payments to the Municipalities for
maintenance, by the Consumer Price Index. It was determined that the most appropriate
way to update the payments would be to use the October year over year Ontario CPI for
the increase in the following year's payments. Each of the seven agreements was
updated to reflect this change.
The third concern was from Lloyd Perrin of Central Elgin. His comment was that the
Municipalities should be held harmless from capital projects initiated or run by the County.
For instance, Municipalities should not be liable for a traffic accident associated with a
paving operation run by the County. The exact wording of this clause can be seen in
Section 9.2, as created by the County Solicitor, Steve Gibson. In general, the clause
states that the Municipalities will be held harmless from work initiated or contracted by the
County.
The fourth concern was an error in Schedule C-1 concerning the description of Road #73.
This error was amended in all agreements.
. . . .. 2
Township of Malahide
2
January 29, 2001
On January 23, 2001 County Council reviewed the changes and adopted the following
resolution:
"THAT the County formally adopts the maintenance agreements between the
County and the Lower-Tiers, as amended; and,
THAT Engineering Services forward the final draft maintenance agreements
back to the Lower-Tiers to be adopted by resolution."
The reasons for forming the maintenance agreement were heard again by County Council
and are as follows.
>- Drafting a formal agreement of this nature clarifies any potential ambiguities or
misinterpretation of responsibilities, now and in the future. Further, it takes the intent of
the Restructuring Order and puts it in operational terms by clearly defining those
responsibilities.
>- Frank Cowan Co. and the County Solicitor both suggest a definite need for a formal
contract such as this to mutually protect all parties against liability issues and minimize
to potential for misinterpretation. This document shall also ensure that minimum
standards are met and services are consistently rendered across the County.
>- Finally, this agreement shall formalize and compile many issues that may be only
verbally understood or are present in many separate documents. Some of these
issues are: responsibilities of boundary/shared roads and structures, payments to
municipalities, time frames, insurance, traffic signals/beacons, inspection, sub-
contractors, Trans-Canada Trail/London Link sections, disputes and notices.
Included with this letter is the final copy of the maintenance agreement as endorsed by the
County of Elgin Council. Please forward this agreement to your Council for consideration.
If you have any questions, please contact Justin Lawrence at extension 121.
We look forward to your concurrence with the amendments proposed by municipal road
superintendents.
Yours truly,
:1fL'!It::
Deputy Clerk.
Att
c.c. - Justin Lawrence
(Mrs.) SANDRA J. HEFFREN
DEPUTY COUNTY CLERK
450 SUNSET DRIVE
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
N5R 5V1
PHONE (519) 631-1460
FAX (519) 633-7661
MARK G. McDONALD
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
01 01 29
Mr. Dave Aristone
Administrator -Clerk-Treasurer
Township of Southwold
35663 Fingal Line
FINGAL, Ontario
NOL 1 KO
Re: MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS
Elgin County Council adopted a resolution on November 28, 2000 to send the latest draft
of the maintenance agreements to each Road Superintendent to confirm how comments
from their respective areas were addressed. County Council requested all final comments
be addressed and brought to the Road Superintendents meeting on December 7, 2000. At
the working meeting with the local Road Superintendents, several concerns were mitigated
and four were incorporated into the final agreements.
The first concern was an omission of the flashing beacons at #25 and #52. This was
corrected in the Southwold Maintenance Agreement
The second concern was regarding the updating of the payments to the Municipalities for
maintenance, by the Consumer Price Index. It was determined that the most appropriate
way to update the payments would be to use the October year over year Ontario CPI for
the increase in the following year's payments. Each of the seven agreements was
updated to reflect this change.
The third concern was from Lloyd Perrin of Central Elgin. His comment was that the
Municipalities should be held harmless from capital projects initiated or run by the County.
For instance, Municipalities should not be liable for a traffic accident associated with a
paving operation run by the County. The exact wording of this clause can be seen in
Section 9.2, as created by the County Solicitor, Steve Gibson. In general, the clause
states that the Municipalities will be held harmless from work initiated or contracted by the
County.
The fourth concern was an error in Schedule C-1 concerning the description of Road #73.
This error was amended in all agreements.
.....2
Township of Southwold
2
January 29, 2001
On January 23, 2001 County Council reviewed the changes and adopted the following
resolution:
"THAT the County formally adopts the maintenance agreements between the
County and the Lower-Tiers, as amended; and,
THAT Engineering Services forward the final draft maintenance agreements
back to the Lower-Tiers to be adopted by resolution."
The reasons for forming the maintenance agreement were heard again by County Council
and are as follows.
~ Drafting a formal agreement of this nature clarifies any potential ambiguities or
misinterpretation of responsibilities, now and in the future. Further, it takes the intent of
the Restructuring Order and puts it in operational terms by clearly defining those
responsibilities.
~ Frank Cowan Co. and the County Solicitor both suggest a definite need for a formal
contract such as this to mutually protect all parties against liability issues and minimize
to potential for misinterpretation. This document shall also ensure that minimum
standards are met and services are consistently rendered across the County.
~ Finally, this agreement shall formalize and compile many issues that may be only
verbally understood or are present in many separate documents. Some of these
issues are: responsibilities of boundary/shared roads and structures, payments to
municipalities, time frames, insurance, traffic signals/beacons, inspection, sub-
contractors, Trans-Canada Trail/London Link sections, disputes and notices.
Included with this letter is the final copy of the maintenance agreement as endorsed by the
County of Elgin Council. Please forward this agreement to your Council for consideration.
If you have any questions, please contact Justin Lawrence at extension 121.
We look forward to your concurrence with the amendments proposed by municipal road
superintendents.
Yours truly,
~g.;.'$:::
Deputy Clerk.
Atl.
c.c. - Justin Lawrence
(Mrs.) SANDRA J. HEFFREN
DEPUTY COUNTY CLERK
450 SUNSET DRIVE
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
N5R 5V1
PHONE (519) 631-1460
FAX (519) 633-7661
MARK G. McDONALD
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
January 29, 2001
Mr. Don Leitch
Clerk Administrator
Municipality of Central Elgin
450 Sunset Drive
ST. THOMAS, Ontario N5R 5V1
Dear Mr. Leitch:
The Council of the Corporation of the County of Elgin, at its January 23rd, 2001 meeting,
adopted the following resolution:
"THAT the Municipality of Central Elgin be requested to undertake a Class
Environmental Assessment for the provision for sanitary sewer servicing for the
Administration Building and report back to the County of Elgin on the cost
sharing formula and the time frame for the discontinuance through the existing
Ontario Psychiatric Hospital system; and further,
THAT the Warden and Chief Administrative Officer be authorized to sign the
agreement with the Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet regarding the
three-year sewage agreement."
- Carried.
(signed) Warden Duncan J. McPhail"
As you are aware, the provision of the water and sewer services to the Sunset area has
been under active consideration. Please refer to the attached staff report for a more
complete explanation.
One of the more pressing issues is the need to conduct an Environmental Assessment to
determine options relative to sewage treatment in the area. An EA will, of course, impact
your municipality and, therefore, we are requesting Central Elgin's involvement in the EA
process.
We look forward to hearing from you.
0~rs t~~I!tJJß~._~ ..
S.J. ff;~;J:
Depu y Clerk.
SJH/db
Att.
c.c. - Clayton Watters
(Mrs.) SANDRA J. HEFFREN
DEPUTY COUNTY CLERK
450 SUNSET DRIVE
ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO
N5R 5V1
PHONE (519) 631-1460
FAX (519) 633-7661
MARK G. McDONALD
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
January 29, 2001
Mr. Don Leitch
Clerk Administrator
Municipality of Central Elgin
450 Sunset Drive
ST. THOMAS, Ontario N5R 5V1
Dear Mr. Leitch:
The Council of the Corporation of the County of Elgin, at its January 23rd, 2001 meeting,
adopted the following resolution:
"THAT Burgess Engineering Incorporated complete the structural, mechanical
and electrical inspection of the King George Lift Bridge, that will ensure
compliance with the Bridge Code, at the quoted price of $22,500 plus G.S.T.;
and,
THAT the Municipality of Central Elgin be requested to fund 50% of the total
cost of the King George Lift Bridge inspection report commissioned by the
County of Elgin; and,
THAT the remaining 50% of the total cost to create the report be funded by the
2001 Engineering Services Budget.
- Carried.
(signed) Warden Duncan J. McPhail"
The rationale for the above-mentioned resolution is contained in the attached staff report
provided for your information.
We look forward to working together on this inspection.
Yours truly,
00.J/Jl.~
S.J.Gfie;;e~t,~.)~
Deputy Clerk.
SJH/db
Atl.
C.c. - Clayton Watters
PETER DUTCHAK, CET.
Technical Services Officer
450 Sunset Drive
S!. Thomas, Ontario
N5R 5V1
Phone (519) 631-1460 ex!. #4
Fax (519) 631-4297
CLAYTON WATTERS, BASe., P.Eng.
Manager of Engineering SeNices
2001 01 25
Earth Tech Canada Inc.
285 King Street, Suite 300,
London, Ontario
N68 3M6
Attention: John Haasen, P.M.P., London Regional Manager
Re: County Road #4, Sunset Road
Engineering Services
On January 23rd, 2001 Elgin County Council chose your firm to provide design and
inspection services as described in your Request for Proposal Submission. Information
outlined in your letter dated January 4, 2001 was also given to Council for their
approval.
This letter shall serve a formal notice that your firm may complete the survey, detailed
design and contract document preparation as described in your submission during the
2001 calendar year. Your submitted fee percentage of 3.7% based upon the total
construction cost will be used for work completed during this year.
Actual construction is proposed to be completed during 2002 and 2003 for the south
and north sections of Sunset Road respectively. Your firm will tender, inspect and
administer this work and be reimbursed using your fee structure as described in your
January 4th letter.
Upon receipt of this letter please contact this office to arrange a meeting to tour the
road and confirm the scope of the requested services.
I,
\
Peter Dutchak, CET
Technical Services Officer
Earth tech Q1.doc
PETER DUTCHAK, C.E.T.
Technical Services Officer
450 Sunset Drive
SI. Thomas, Ontario
N5R 5V1
Phone (519) 631-1460 ext. #4
Fax (519) 631-4297
CLAYTON WATTERS, BASc., P.Eng.
Manager of Engineering Services
2001 01 29
Higgins Engineering Limited
Suite 204, 23 Lesmill Road
North York, Ontario
M3B 3P6
Attention: R.A. Downey, P.Eng.
Re: Ford Road Realignment at Wellington Road
Township of Southwold
Elgin County Council has directed staff to arrange for consulting services to coordinate
and complete intersection improvements on Wellington Road (Elgin County Road #25)
at McBain Line and Wellington Road at Ford Road.
As discussed at our meeting on January 9th, 2001, the County of Elgin will also
coordinate the completion of the Ford Road realignment onto Wellington Road in the
Township of Southwold.
The County will obtain consulting services once a formal request is received from the
developer to complete this work. Construction will commence once the County is
satisfied that funds are secured to complete the work proposed to realign Ford Road.
í
.
Peter Dutchak, CET
Technical Services Officer
Hîggins02.doc
Faxed copy:
Peter Hegler, City of St. Thomas, Engineering Services
Dave Aristone, Township of Southwold
Don Leitch, Municipality of Central Elgin
mSTIN LAWRENCE, P.ENG
ENGINEERJNG SERVICES
rc~~y
450 SUNSET DRIVE
STTHOMAS, ONTARIO
N5R 5Vl
PHONE (519) 631-1460 X121
FAX (519) 631-4297
01 01 29
Cyril J. Demeyere Limited
P.O. Box 606, 261 Broadway
Tillsonburg, ON
NOJ I YO
Attention: Cyril J. Demeyere, P.Eng
Re: CONSTRUCTION IN STRAFFORDVILLE AND EDEN FOR 2001
This letter is a formal approval from the County of Elgin to proceed with the work on
Plank Road in Eden and in Straffordville. On Tuesday January 23, 2001, Elgin County Council
passed the following resolution.
"THAT the County of Elgin complete the road reconstruction project of Plank Road
(County Road #19) in Straffordville in 2001 for an estimated cost of $475,000.00, and,
"THAT the County of Elgin complete the road reconstruction of Plank Road (County
Road #19) in Eden for the price of $500,000.00 as submitted by tender rrom Classic
Excavating Inc. in conjunction with the Municipality of Bayham's sanitary sewer
project... "
It is my understanding that in Eden, the Municipality of Bayham will pay the contractor
directly and the County will reimburse the Municipality for the work on County roads. In
Straffordville, the County will pay the contractor directly. Your engineering fees for
Straffordville will also be paid directly.
Due to future development issues, please remove the surface asphalt rrom both of the
construction contracts. The $500,000.00 figure and the $475,000.00 figure are designed to cover
our portion of the construction, taxes, engineering fees, and any other miscellaneous charges.
Any questions or concerns please calL
Sincerely,
Justin Lawrence, P.Eng
Construction Technician
CD acœptanœ of Eden work _ Bayham.doc
mSTIN LAWRENCE, P.ENG
CONSTRUCTION TECHNICIAN
ç~r~f
450 SUNSET DRIVE
ST.THOMAS, ONTARIO
N5R 5VI
PHONE (519) 631-1460 XI21
FAX (519) 631-4297
01 01 25
Municipality of Bay ham
9344 Plank Road
Straffordville, ON
NOJ 1 YO
Attention: Kyle S. Kruger, Administrator
Re: CONSTRUCTION IN EDEN FOR 2001
This letter is a fonnal approval trom the County of Elgin to proceed with the work on
Plank Road in Eden. On Tuesday January 23, 2001, Elgin County Council passed the following
resolution.
"THAT the County of Elgin complete the road reconstruction of Plank Road (County
Road #19) in Eden for the price of $500,000.00 as submitted by tender from Classic
Excavating Inc. in conjunction with the Municipality of Bayham's sanitary sewer
proj ect.. . "
It is my understanding that the Municipality of Bayham will pay the contractor directly
and the County will reimburse the Municipality for the work on County roads. We have directed
Cyril Demeyere to remove the surface asphalt from the construction contract. The $500,000.00
figure is designed to cover our portion of the construction, taxes, engineering fees, and any other
nllscellaneous charges.
Congratulations so far on managing a very complex project and best of luck with its'
completion. Any questions or concerns please call.
Sincerely,
Justin Lawrence, P.Eng
Construction Technician
acccptanceofEdenwork_Bayham.doc
JUSTIN LAWRENCE, P.ENG
ENGINEERING SERVICES
tÖ)[PY
450 SUNSET DRIVE
ST.TIIOMAS, ONTARIO
N5R 5VI
PHONE (519) 631-1460 XI21
FAX (519) 631-4297
01 01 29
Municipality of Bay ham
9344 Plank Road
Straffordville, ON
NOJ 1 YO
Attention: Kyle S. Kruger, Administrator
Re: CONSTRUCTION IN STRAFFORDVILLE FOR 2001
After review of the Bayham construction file, I realized we had not given you a formal
acceptance of the 2001 Straffordville work. The County Council resolution on Tuesday January
23,2001 also contained the following statement.
"THAT the County of Elgin complete the road reconstruction project of Plank Road
(County Road #19) in Straffordville in 2001 for an estimated cost of$475,000.00,..."
It is my understanding that in Straffordville, the County will pay the contractor and Cyril
J. Demeyere directly as we did on the same project in 2000. The County has also given Cyril
Demeyere official approval to proceed with both the Eden and Straffordville-2001 projects with
the amendment of removing surface asphalt from the construction contract. The $475,000.00
figure is designed to cover our portion of the construction, taxes, engineering fees, and any other
miscellaneous charges.
Sincerely,
Justin Lawrence, P.Eng
Construction Technician
acceptanceofStraffordviJIcworl<-Bayham2_doc
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM:
Sandra Heffren
Deputy Clerk.
January 18th, 2001
DA TE:
SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE INSURANCE PROGRAM - 2001
Backaround:
Last year we requested quotations for our insurance needs for a three-year term. Frank
Cowan Company Limited was the successful firm and we renewed with them for three
years on the understanding that premiums would not increase unless we made additions
to property coverage or if our claim$ experience increased in a significant manner. The
firm also agreed to a 5% "discounf' on the premiums for each of the three years.
Discussion:
Last year's insurance premium was $111,440 and we have received notice that the 2001
premium would be $96,563, both plus taxes. The decrease was realized due to the
removal of ambulances from our fleet insurance. The County own$ the ambulances and
the Operators with whom we have contracted to provide the service carry insuraoce
coverage.
Conclusion:
The 2001 premium for the County's Comprehensive Insurance Program is in keeping with
the terms and conditions of our three-year agreement with the Frank Cowan Company Ltd.
Recommendation:
For Council's information.
v1g., 4~
S.J. Heffren,
Deputy Clerk
Mark G. McDonald,
Chief Administrative Officer.
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM:
Mark G. McDonald, C.A.O.
January 1 yth, 2001
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CONFIRMATION OF THE POLICE SERVICES BOARD (ELGIN GROUP)
Introduction:
The interviews for the community representative to the Police Services Board are now
complete. As authorized by the six participating municipalities, County Council can now
recommend three of the five members of the Police Services Board and a number of
procedural requirements can be initiated.
Discussion:
The Mayor of Malahide and the Mayor of Central Elgin have previously been nominated
to the Police Services Board, to represent specific jurisdictions. Mr. Kenneth Ward, a
resident of Dutton/Dunwich, has previous experience as a member of a police force and
is the community member being recommended.
Council should also be made aware that the Police Services Board Selection
Committee, which was composed of Councillors Wilson and Rock and Warden McPhail,
have submitted names of potential Provincial appointees to the Police Services Board.
For privacy reasons, the names cannot be released publicly. However, the nominees
are residents within Elgin County. The Ministry of the Solicitor General is under no
obligation to approve these nominees but will consider them nonetheless.
In order to meet the legislative requirements, lower-tier municipalities should complete
the following and forward their approvals to the County office:
1) Adopt the resolution contained in Appendix A, attached.
2) Pass a by-law in the manner described in Appendix B, attached.
3) Pass the recommendation suggested in Appendix C, attached.
Conclusion:
As indicated, the County will collect this information from each of the participating
municipalities and forward the documentation to the Public Appointments Unit for final
approval. This will trigger the establishment of the Elgin Group Police Services Board.
2
Recommendation:
THAT the report from the Chief Administrative Officer dated January 17th, 2001 entitled
"Confirmation Of The Police Services Board (Elgin Group)" be approved for distribution
to the six participating municipalities for consideration.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
~
Mark G. McDonald,
Chief Administrative Officer.
Appendix A
That the following be appointed to the Police Services Board, known as the Elgin
Group, effective upon ratification by all six participating municipalities for a term
ending on December 31, 2003:
1. Mayor John Wilson
an elected member representing
Bayham and Malahide.
2. Mayor Daye Rock
an elected member representing
Central Elgin
3. Mr. Ken Ward
a community member representing
Southwold, DuttonlDunwich and
West Elgin
Appendix B
SAMPLE BY-LAW
ESTABLISHING A JOINT BOARD
WHEREAS section 5.0 of the Police Services Act specifies that a council may enter into
an agreement under section 10 of the Act, alone or jointly with one or more other
councils to have police services provided by the Ontario Provincial Police;
AND WHEREAS the Councils of the Corporation of the Municipalities of Bayham,
Central Elgin, DuttonlDunwich, West Elgin, the Townships of Malahide and Southwold,
have entered into a contract agreement with the Ontario Provincial Police to provide
services to the six (6) municipalities;
AND WHEREAS section 10(3) of thePolice Services Act specifies that in order for two
or more municipalities to. enter into an agreement under this section, the municipalities
must have a joint board;
THEREFORE, be it enacted that a Joint Police Services Board consisting of five
members, as provided by section 27(5) of the Police Services Act, as amended, be
hereby constituted and that such board be know as the "Elgin Group".
Appendix C
THAT the Council of the Corporation of
agrees with the establishment of a five (5)
member Police Services Board for the Elgin Group and all recommendations contrary to
this one be rescinded.
CORRESPONDENCE - January 23rd, 2001
Items for Consideration
1. Janet Beckett, City Clerk, Port Colborne, with a resolution requesting the Federal and
Provincial Governments to enact Remembrance Day as a statutory holiday
throughout Canada. (ATTACHED)
2. Federation of Canadian Municipalities, with the Membership Fee invoice April 1, 2001
to March 31, 2002 for the County of Elgin. (ATTACHED)
3. David M. Anderson, Director of Development & Property, County of Renfrew, with
resolutions: 1) concerning the proposal to dump garbage in the abandoned Adams
Mine; and 2) concerning the Ontario Property Assessment Corporation's proposed
Ontario Parcel Alliance. (ATTACHED)
4. Ann Mulvale, President, Association of Municipalities of Ontario, 2001 Membership
Invoice and report on AMO's Record of Achievement 1999-2000. (ATTACHED)
5. Greg Grondin, Chair, St. Thomas Public Library, with a request for renewal of funding
to the St. Thomas Public Library. (ATTACHED)
6. 2001 ROMAlOGRA Annual Conference, Nominations and Elections 2001 Annual
Conference information. (ATTACHED)
7. Celebrate Canada Committee for Ontario, with information on the Canada Day Youth
Award 2000. (Nomination Form and additional information available from the
Administrative Services Office.)
8. Helen Johns, Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, with information on
three award programs for volunteer recognition. (Nomination Forms and additional
information available from the Administrative Services Office.)
9. Lori Chamberlain, STEPAC Executive Director, St. Thomas-Elgin Public Art Centre,
requesting that one member of Elgin County Council be appointed to STEPAC's
Board of Directors for the Year 2000101. (ATTACHED)
10. Carl-Wilhelm Bienefeld, President, St. Thomas-Elgin Tourist Association, requesting
the appointment of Perry Clutterbuck to the ETA Board as well as a member of the
Ontario Farmers Association. (ATTACHED)
50
12/B4/BB 23:2B:2B ~ST; ASSOCIATION OF?-)
1 519 633 7661 CLERH-Elgin Co
Page BB2
DEC-04-00 MON 04:54 PM AMO
FAX NO, 416 971 6191
p, 01/01
CITY OF PORT COLBORNE
Municipal Offices
66 Charlotte Street
Port Colborne, Ontario
l3K 3CB
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
OF COMMUNITY & CORPORATE SERVICES
November 27th, 2000.
TO: AI1 Municipajjties in Ontario
RE: I~nact Ronmnbrancc Day ¡lS a Statutory lIoJid¡IY Throughout Canada
The CouIlcil of the City of Port Colbomc, at its meeting of November G"" 2000, adopted ihe
1()1Jowjng reso1lttjon to en"çl Remembrançe D:¡y as a statu(ory holiday throughout Canada. Your
considcration and support would be appreciated.
"Thai' ':Vh~r~as Romcmbrance Day provides an opporttl1lity for al1 Canadians to p:¡use and
reflcct on the many sacrifices that our fellow Canadians gave during times of war.
That Wherens the n'cedom and safety that we nOUTish today iö the outcome of' the efforts 0 f'
the so many scrviœ nwn anù women who gave of their lives, as weB as ihe suffering in
which their families have bad to endure ever since.
'nUlt Whereas we must m:ver forget to remember those whom paid ihe ultimate sacrifice
with their lives, as well ¡IS, ihe l11'my more who were wounded ill the proieciìOI1 of our
freedoms and love oflheir country.
That Whereas we mllst continue to emphasize the importance of this day as ft day of
reflection, especially to our youth. whom we expect to carryon this day of remembrance
well into the fulure.
Now Therefore, be Íl reso1ved that the Council of the Corporation ofthc City of Port
Colborne cneourage tbe Provincial and Pederal Governments to enact this day as a statLltory
holiday lhroughout the country.
And that all municipalities be circulated this motion for their support."
Yours vary truly,
Janel Beckett,
City Clerk.
51
Telephone: (905) 835-2900
E-Mail: dccs@portcolborne.com
Fax: (90S) 834-5746
Federation of Canadian Municipalities
Fédération canadienne des municipalités
24, rue Clarence Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1 N 5P3
TelephonefTéléphone: (613) 241-5221 - Fax/Télécopieur: (613) 241-2126
M No de Membre:1
A E Member ID: 017588
D M
H B
É E County of Elgin
S R 450 Sunset Drive
I S SI. Thomas ON
0 H N5R 5V1
N I
P
INVOICE/FACTURE
:,}:
.'/,.¡:'':;
·:~;··ED}
DEC
Invoice Numberl
No de facture:
Invoice Datel
Date de I'envoi:
Billing Yearl
Année d'adhésion:
Membershipl
Adhésion:
2081
November 27,2000
2001
MUNI
Membership Fee fori
Frais d'adhésion pour la période de:
April 1 , 2001 to March 31, 2002
Total Fee Population 46884
Base Rate of $100 + 9.8 Cents Per Capita
Dues I Frais
3.0 % Inflation Rate, October 31, 2000
Consumer Price~lndex - Ottawa
$4,694.63
140.84
Total dues ISolde
(GST does not apply I TPS ne s'applique pas)
$4,835.47
Include a copy of this invoice with your payment quoting member 10: 017588.
Your prompt response will help us serve you better. Thank you.
Retourner une copie de la facture avec votre paiement et inscriver Ie numéro de membre: 017588.
= - ....;......-....-..... -~. ;-! . --..- _ -.:-.-.&.; ..... -. . :., '.. .
vile . "'t-õ......:.,..... i~P¡~~ ;,...u.,:; t'~h.-~H.¡;;:...~~ c~ :rh~h..:;X VO~5 se!''V~r'.
~l!e!'C'j;
2001 Annual Conference & Municipal Expo TM
May 25 - 28, Banff, AB
"A Municipal Odyssey"
See you thère I
52
Con9rès annuel et Expo municipale 2001 MC
du 25 au 28 mai, Banff (AS)
II Una odyssée municipale II
Au plaisir de vous rencontrer !
Accountingl Comptabilité
DEVELOPMENT & PROPERTY OEPARTMENT
9 INTERNATIONAL ORIVE
PEMBROKE, ONTARIO, CANAOA
K8A6W5
TEL: (613) 735-3204
(613) 735·8602
FAX: (613) 735·2492
December 8. 2000
DEC 18 2000
Dear County Council:
Re: Adams Mine
Please be advised that the Council of the Corporation of the County of Renrrew passed the
following resolution at its November 29,2000, session:
WHEREAS cities, town, villages, homes and business establishments in the County of Renfrew
depend on local water sources (individual, privately owned water wells, municipal wells, rivers,
lakes and streams) for potable water;
AND WHEREAS the water catchment area supplying the Ottawa River extends north into the
District of Temiscaming in the Province of Ontario, including Lake Temiscaming;
AND WHEREAS any proposal to dump garbage into the abandoned Adams Mine iron ore pit in
Northern Ontario puts at risk the contamination by leachate of the major water supply of the
Ottawa River and associated water tables;
NOW THEREFORE be it resolved that the Federal Government of Canada intervene and require
a full Federal Government environmental assessment review be done on the Adams Mine;
FURTHER that copies of this resolution and letter stating our objection to the transfer of any
garbage to the Adams Mine site be sent to the Prime Minister of Canada, the Minister of
Environment, the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries, the Premier of the Province of Ontario, [MP
Cheryl Gallant], MPP Sean Conway, and County Councils of Ontario.
Yours truly,
¡¿I!L~
Director of Development & Property
DMAljhk
, 53
DEVELOPMENT & PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
9 INTERNATIONAL DRIVE
PEMBROKE, ONTARIO, CANADA
K8A 6W5
TEL: (613) 735-3204
(613) 735-8602
FAX: (613) 735-2492
December 8, 2000
Warden Duncan J. McPhail
County of Elgin
450 Sunset Dr.
St. Thomas, ON N5R 5VI
DEC 1 9 2000
Dear Warden:
8J3~N
Re: Proposed Ontario Parcel Alliance
Please be advised that the Council of the Corporation of the County of Renfrew passed the following
resolution at its November 29, 2000, session:
THAT the Development and Property Committee recommend to County Council that a resolution be
adopted at its next session to address mapping services in Renfrew County;
AND THAT the Ontario Property Assessment Corporation and Teranet have approached municipalities in
Ontario with a proposal to build and maintain an integrated accessible and common parcel fabric for the
entire Province of Ontario;
AND WHEREAS the Ontario Assessment System database (OASYS) and all related digital map files
currently established and maintained for Renfrew County by the local Pembroke office of the Ontario
Property Assessment Corporation (OP AC) meets or exceeds current needs;
AND WHEREAS the business of property parcel development, maintenance and management currently
lies with municipalities.
~:'
NOW THEREFORE be it resolved that the Ontario Property Assessment Corporation (OPAC) not enter
into any agreement with Teranet Land Information Services Inc. for mapping or database creation or
maintenance relating to assessment of properties in the municipalities of the County of Renfrew;
AND FURTHER that other bnsiness partnerships be explored for the development and continued
maintenance of the current parcel fabric;
AND FURTHER that this resolution be circulated to AMO and all Wardens across the Province of
Ontario.
Your consideration and action on this resolution would be appreciated.
DMAljhk
Attachments
54
COUNTY OF RENFREW
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Economic Development, Planning and Property Committee
DATE: November IS, 2000
1. Proposed Ontario Parcel Alliance
The governing Board of the Ontario Property Assessment Corporation (OP AC) is in the
process of implementing significant changes to the maintenance and delivery of property
assessment maps in Ontario. These changes pose significant implications for the way in
which municipalities conduct business in the future.
Background:
The Ontario Property Assessment Corporation (OPAC) was created in 1997 and replaced
the Property Assessment Division ofthe Ministry of Finance. OP AC is a not-for-profit,
non-share capital corporation composed of its members. Every municipality in Ontario is
a member of OP AC. The Board of Directors ofOP AC is comprised of 12 municipally
appointed or elected officials and 2 Provincially appointed officials.
For the year 2000, the County of Renfrew paid OPAC $1,178,441.00 to provide mapping
and assessment services for the 48,513 tax-assessable properties in the local
municipalities. Provincial taxes and these service fees have financed the creation and
maintenance of the Ontario Assessment System (OASYS) database and all related maps.
Municipalities therefore can be considered to own the data and OPAC is only the
contractor for its ongoing production and maintenance. All local municipalities and the
County of Renfrew use assessment maps for many daily tasks, ranging from building
permits, land severance, zoning amendments and 9-1-l/civic addressing.
In 1991, the government of the Province of Ontario (the "Province") partnered with a
private consortium and created Teranet Land Information Services Inc. (Teranet). The
mandate of Teranet is to computerize the Province's land registration records under a
program called POLARIS (Province of Ontario Land Registration System). The
automation includes a textual title index file, a scanned document image database and a
digital (vector) property map database. The Province is committed to the completion of
the POLARIS project and its continued maintenance at taxpayer's expense.
Under the new Land Titles Act, the Province guarantees title to property, removing the
requirement to search titles back 40 years at the time of transfer. Instead, lawyers will be
provided will a pre-searched title document and a scanned image of the property survey
plan. Teranet is the agency that has compiled these automated documents and images on
behalf of the Province. Unfortunately, experience in Renfrew County has been that often
property title is incorrectly assigned and applications for error correction must be handled
through court action. It is unlikely that the existing land registry system in Renfrew
County will be entirely replaced by Land Titles since survey plans and deeds are unclear
or non-existent for many parcels of land.
55
- 2 -
In 1998, the Province established Land Infonnation Ontario (LIO) to facilitate a
standards-based approach to the collection. management and distribution of digital data in
Ontario, including the boundaries and o"J11ership of property parcels. To this end, Land
Infonnation Ontario has proposed a pennanent partnership entitled the "Ontario Parcel
Alliance" (OPA) between the Province, the Ontario Property Assessment Corp. (OPAC)
and Teranet Land Information Systems Inc. (Teranet). All land-based infonnation would
be centralized in a "warehouse" controlled by Teranet. Municipalities have not been
included as principle partners in the Alliance. Instead, municipalities are being
considered clients, and thus would be required to purchase a licence to receive and use
Teranet's data. A èlause in the Ontario Parcel Alliance "agreement in principle"
prevents the release of any documents that would reveal the exact tenns and conditions of
the Alliance. Thus, the true implications for municipalities regarding ownership,
maintenance and related costs cannot be verified.
What has changed?
The Board of Directors of OP AC has reviewed its mandate and detennined that the
maintenance of property maps is extraneous to the maintenance of the assessment
database. OP AC intends to assign ownership, which it does not have, of digital
assessment maps to T eranet in exchange for ongoing maintenance of the maps. Through
the proposed alliance with T eranet, property maps would be accessible to assessors to
locate properties and as a link to update the assessment database.
There are several property parcels in every local municipality that do not have clear title
or registered survey plans. For this reason, Teranet states that it will need to continually
work, over the next several decades, to improve its "Basic Index Mapping" (BIM) in the
attempt to achieve the level of sophistication that is unique to the POLARIS digital maps.
The title database and related map files are not linked together with the use of a unique
Property Index Number (PIN). Items such as assessment roll numbers, civic addresses,
easements, unregistered right-of ways and private roads are not included in the Teranet
maps.
Issues:
OP AC provides a service on behalf of all municipalities and does not have the right to
negotiate with Teranet for the ongoing production and maintenance of assessment
mapping services. Any agreement would need to be directly between the
municipalities/County of Renfrew and Teranet.
OP AC, in cooperation with the County of Renfrew has built extremely accurate
assessment property maps. The technical standards that were followed in the creation of
these map files are comparable to the Basic Index Maps produced by Teranet. More
importantly a "one-to-one" match between the map parcels and the assessment database
has been achieved. The staff and/or consultants of OP AC, the County of Renfrew, Town
ofPetawawa, Town of Amprior and Township of Laurentian Valley currently use these
map files with great success. An interruption of the mapping service provided by the
local OP AC office would be significantly detrimental to all municipalities in the County
of Renfrew and City of Pembroke.
56
- 3 -
If the mapping services of OP AC are discontinued, possibly at the end of2000,
municipalities will be forced to purchase a licence to use Teranet's digital mapping
products or be faced with the ongoing maintenance of the property maps. The source for
revisions to the property maps would be trom approval authorities, currently the County
of Renfrew for land severance and subdivisions and the Township of McNab /Braes ide,
Town of Rentrew, Town of Arnprior and the Town of Deep River for land severance.
The Provincial Registry Office/Teranet would be the source for revisions to ownership
title.
According to unofficial reports trom local lawyers, surveyors, title searchers and
mapping technicians, the Teranet products are highly inaccurate and out-of-date, contrary
to the claims made by Teranet. A disclaimer by Teranet absolves it of any obligation to
provide accurate or current data leaving any errors or conflicts to be resolved by court
action. Several independent contractors have reported that attempts to use the T eranet
map files for municipal applications have resulted in unacceptable costs of time and
money.
Based on a proposal submitted to the County of RenITew in 1998 by Teranet, the County
could purchase a five year maintenance subscription at a cost $18,500.00 per yèar for a
total of $92,500.00 plus taxes. Additional monthly, semi-monthly or quarterly updates
would cost $500.00 each. At the end of the term, the subscription could be extended for
an additional three years or the County could purchase a licence for $55,500.00 and do
maintenance and updates itself. Use of the T eranet digital files would be restricted for
internal municipal use only.
Teranet files do not keep current assessment information such as the roll number or
zoning. It may be possible to have Teranet build assessment information for an
additional 30% of the cost noted above. This translates to an annual cost of $24,050.00
for a total of $120,250.00 over a five-year subscription. A significant amount of work
and expense would be required to make the map and database products useful for
municipal applications. There would need to be a lengthy overlap of mapping services to
ensure a smooth transition trom OPAC maps to the Teranet maps, if this is at all possible.
Summary:
If the Ontario Property Assessment Corporation discontinues the maintenance of the
current assessment map products for the municipalities in the County of RenITew, these
municipalities will need to choose either to maintain the maps internally or purchase the
Teranet maps. The exact cost and associated benefits or disadvantages of each option
will need to be determined.
Recommendations:
· That the Development and Property Committee recommend to County Council that a
resolution be adopted at its next session to address mapping services in ReniÌew
County.
~f
-4-
· The Ontario Assessment System database (OASYS) and all related digital map files
be built and maintained in the same manner as currently established for all
municipalities in the County of Renfrew. Further that these services continue to be
provided by the statI and contract workers of the local Pembroke office of the Ontario
Property Assessment Corporation (OP AC).
· That the Ontario Property Assessment Corporation (OP AC) not enter into any
agreement with Teranet Land Information Services Inc. for mapping or database
creation or maintenance relating to assessment of properties in the municipalities of
the County of Renfrew.
· Given that the Province is committed to standardizing the collection, management
and distribution ofland information and eliminating the duplication of these etIorts
and given that the local OP AC office and the County of Renfrew, on behalf of all
local murlicipalities, have achieved current and accurate assessment mapping, the
County of Renfrew should pursue a partnership with the Province for the
standardization and maintenance of digital property maps at the local leveL
· That the County of Renfrew should be authorized by the Province to receive for
evaluation purposes, the digital files created by Teranet.
· That the Province provide all documents pertaining to the proposed "Ontario Parcel
Alliance" (OP A) to all municipalities for full review prior to execution of the
agreement.
· That all municipalities are given full partnership status in any alliance or partnership
agreement such as the "Ontario Parcel Alliance" prior to it being enacted.
· Prior to the execution of the "Ontario Parcel Alliance:" agreement, any restrictions on
the use of the digital data for internal, municipal and Internet use are fully disclosed
to all municipalities.
58
Ministry of
Consumer
Corporate
Relations
Land Titles
& Registry
Teranet Land
Information
Systems
(Teranet)
-5-
MANAGEMENT BOARD OF CABINET
Ministry of
Natural
Resources
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Land
Information
Ontario (LIO)
Ministry of
Finance
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
Ontario
Property
Assessment Corp
(OP AC)
Ontario Parcel Alliance (OP A)
I
Centralized data warehouse
(Teranet maps)
Municipalities
~9
MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AND
COMMERCIAL RELATIONS
Project to Automate the
Land Registration System
(POLARIS)
BACKGROUND
In 1980, the Ministry established POLARIS (Province of Ontario Land Registration System), a
project to automate the province's land registration system. Documents and plans affecting land
in Ontario had been maintained under either the Registry System or the Land Titles System.
Until the implementation of the POLARIS project, both of these systems were exclusively
maintained in paper and microfilm form at land registry offices operated by the province. The
POLARIS project involves the gradual conversion of all properties in the Registry System to
the Land Titles System and the automation of records to permit the searching and registration
of real property documents through the use of computers. Prior to the commencement of this
project, approximately 70% of properties in Ontario were registered under the Registry System.
In 1991, TeranetLand Information Services Inc. (Teranet)-a corporation owned jointly
between the province and a private sector company-assumed from the Ministry financial and
contractual responsibility for the implementation and operation of POLARIS. At the time, the
Ministry had converted approximately 250,000 properties to the POLARIS electronic format.
Teranet's services also include providing users with online remote access to the POLARIS
database and allowing users to electronically register documenrs that affect land title.
As part of the new venture, the Ministry provided Teranet with a Licence Agreement, which
transferred ownership of POLARIS to Teranet, including all software, hardware, licences and
trademarks associated with POLARIS. This transfer did not include original land registration
documents, the information contained in these documents, and survey and parcel mapping data.
Teranet, which holds a conditional exclusive licence for providing automated land registration
services, receives fees collected by the Ministry for registration and ancillary transactions that
the Ministry processes using POLARIS. The Ministry receives from Teranet a royalty of 25%
for registration-related revenue and 5% for ancillary non-search services and certain other
services.
The Ministry owns 40% of voting shares in the corporation, plus other special shares that entitle
the Ministry to 50% of dividends and distributions declared by Teranet. The province and the
private sector partner were required to provide $29 million each to Teranet for their equity in
68
60
Office of the Provincial Auditor
3.03
the corporation. In addition, when the corporation was established, the Ministry received
preferred shares (non-voting, non-participating), redeemable for $30 million, for its contribution
of work already completed on the project and for POLARIS.
The Shareholder Agreement provides that the Ministry and the private sector partner are each
entitled to nominate four of Teranet's 11 directors and jointly nominate another three. In
addition, the Shareholder Agreement requires that certain matters be approved by 75% of the
directors present at a meeting and restricts the distribution of profits. As well, Ministry approval
is generally required should the private sector partner change ownership.
As of March 31, 2000, approximately 2.5 million of the estimated 4.3 million properties in the
province had been fully converted to electronic format. Since 1991, the Ministry has, out of the
Consolidated Revenue Fund, paid Teranet $235 million from revenue obtained for automated
land registration and ancillary services, of which Teranet has paid back $45 million in royalties
to the Ministry. The majority of Teranet's revenues, along with funds obtained through
financing, have been used for ongoing project costs incurred to date and the operation and
maintenance of the automated system.
REVIEW OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE
In the course of conducting a financial controls review of the Ministry, we identified significant
issues and concerns regarding the status of the POLARIS project and the Ministry's
arrangement with Teranet. Our objective was to determine whether the Ministry had
adequately assessed the impact of its arrangement with Teranet on the continued operation of
the land registration system and on the province's investment in the project.
The scope of our review, which was substantially completed in April 2000, included interviews
with appropriate staff and an examination and analysis of documentation available to the
Ministry. Our review was conducted primarily at the Ministry's Registration Division. We did
not rely on the work of the Ministry's Internal Audit Services because they had not conducted
any recent work that was relevant to our review.
Our review was conducted in accordance with the standards for assurance engagements
established by t.l:1e Canadian bstitute of Chartered Accountants and accordingly included such
tests and other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.
OVERALL REVIEW CONCLUSIONS
We identified a number of significant concerns with the Ministry's arrangements with Teranet
and the status of its project to automate the province's land registration system. In 1991, the
POLARIS project had an original cost estimate of $275 million and an anticipated 1999
completion date. In April 1999, Teranet provided the Ministry with an estimate of over $700
million to complete the project and a projected completion date of 2010. According to a
consultant hired by the Ministry, due to significant uncertainties in the assumptions used by
61
Special Report: Accountability and Value for Money
69
Teranet, the project could cost over $1 billion. Consequently, the Ministry's risk, costs and
benefits with respect to the project have changed considerably.
In September 1999, Teranet pledged most of its significant assets as security for a $280-million
bond offering, primarily to repay debts and to fund further implementation of the project. This
financial restructuring by Teranet could increase the cost to the Ministry in the event that the
Ministry chooses to terminate its agreement with Teranet and assume operation and control of
the POLARIS project.
We plan to follow up on the project to automate the province's land registration system in
future, since the Ministry had not yet decided on an appropriate course of action.
DETAILED REVIEW OBSERVATIONS
PROJECT COMPLETION DA TE AND COSTS
In 1991, an Implementation and Operation Agreement was established that required Teranet to
achieve certain benchmarks in connection with the automation of the land registration system.
Specifically, Teranet was required to perform all work necessary to automate and convert
properties in Ontario in accordance with the progress schedule and timetable stated in the
agreement.
The original Implementation and Operation Agreement called for automating all properties by
November 1999. In December 1993, the agreement was amended to require fulfillment by
November 2000. In January 1998, the Ministry agreed to a contractual extension and a further
revision of the project's completion date to March 2004. At the time of our review, the Ministry
was evaluating a forecast from Teranet, dated April 1999 , that indicated a further extension to
2010 was required. The Ministry advised us that they had not agreed to further changes to the
contractual obligations of Teranet for completing the project.
In December 1999, Teranet terminated its contract with its principal subcontractor, who had
been converting land registration information to electronic format. This resulted in a reduction in
the number of properties being automated from about 23,000 per month during 1999 to about
12,000 for February 2000. Although ministry staff informed us that they believe Teranet will
meet its existing contractual benchmarks for the year ending March 31, 2001, the information
we obtained indicated that Teranet will not be able to automate a sufficient number of
properties to meet such benchmarks for the year ending March 31, 2002, or for future years.
In addition, we noted that cost estimates to complete the project had substantially increased. In
1991, the initial estimate to complete the project was $275 million. However, in June 1998, in a
report to the company's bankers, Teranet's auditors stated that projected costs were expected
to be $560 million. As of April 1999 , Teranet estimated that the total costs for the project would
be more than $700 million, and this was based on Teranet's assumption that certain cost-saving
methods could be implemented.
In September 1999, the Ministry engaged a consultant to review Teranet's POLARIS project,
which included providing advice on the Ministry's financial risk with respect to the project. In its
November 1999 report, the consultant noted the following:
62
70
Office of the Provincial Auditor
·
Teranet's estimate of over $700 million in total project costs is one of many scenarios.
There are significant uncertainties in the assumptions that were utilized to develop the
estimate. Other, less favourable scenarios estimate total project costs in excess of
$1 billion.
·
The cost to convert the remaining 1.8 million properties using existing workflows and
processes exceeds the anticipated revenues from conversions.
Teranet should reassess its estimation procedures for determining project conversion costs
and timetables, and the Ministry should independently review Teranet's procedures and cost
estimates.
·
3.03
The consultant also made several recommendations for improving Teranet's accountability
process to ensure that relevant operational and financial matters are brought to the attention of
key ministry officials on a timely basis.
We found evidence that corroborated the risks identified by the consultant.
In addition, we noted that the Ministry had initially anticipated that transferring the POLARIS
project to Teranet would maintain government revenue. However, for fiscal 1994/95, the
Ministry's revenues, net of expenditures, from land registration transactions were $38 million;
by fiscal 1999/2000, the Ministry's net revenues, including royalties received from Teranet, had
declined to about $13 million. In addition, Teranet had not declared any dividends to its
shareholders since its inception, and, as of March 31, 2000, it had an accumulated deficit of
$44 million.
OTHER COSTS
In the event that Teranet does not perform in accordance with the terms of its Implementation
and Operation Agreement, such as inadequate progress made on automating land registration
information, the Ministry has the option of issuing a notice of termination of the agreement to
Teranet. In this event, the matter is referred to an arbitrator to determine if termination is
appropriate under the circumstances. If the arbitrator decides it is appropriate, the arbitrator
can then determine fair and equitable compensation for either party in the circumstances.
We noted L1.at unless 3.J."'1 adequate contingency plan is in place, te1111Ìnation of û'1e agreement
could result in increased risk for the ongoing, uninterrupted operation of the province's land
registration system. However, the Ministry asserted that should its agreement with Teranet be
terminated, there were adequate safeguards in place to ensure the continued operation of the
province's land registration system. For instance, upon termination, the agreement permits the
Ministry to assume operation and control of POLARIS in an orderly manner.
We also noted that a recent financing restructuring by Teranet could increase costs to the
Ministry should it choose to assume operation and control of the POLARIS system. In
September 1999, Teranet issued $280 million in bonds, which mature September 8, 2009.
Teranet used the net proceeds from the sale of the bonds primarily to repay existing bank loans
and to finance its future implementation costs for automating land registration information. The
province acquired $30 million of these bonds in exchange for the preferred shares of equal
value that it acquired when Teranet was established.
63
Special Report: Accountability and Value for Money
71
As security for the bonds it issued, Teranet pledged most of its significant assets, including
monetary assets held by the company, revenues and receivables, computer software, equipment
and agreements. This includes the Licence and the Implementation and Operation agreements
between Teranet and the province. As a result, if the Ministry were required to terminate its
agreement with Teranet and assume operation and control of the project, it would have to
address Teranet's obligation to the bondholders. In addition, the Ministry may have to
compensate Teranet for all or part of the costs it has incurred. For instance, since 1991, Teranet
has substantially invested in automating land registration documents and further developing the
POLARIS system. As of March 31, 2000, Teranet reported these costs to be over $300 million.
FUTURE FOLLOW-UP
As indicated earlier, the Ministry advised us .that they had not agreed to further changes to the
contractual obligations of Teranei for completing the POLARIS project. The Ministry also
advised us that it was in the process of assessing its options for automating the land registration
system, implementing improvements to its accountability process with Teranet and deciding on
an appropriate course of action. We plan to follow up on the Ministry's progress in due course.
64
72
Office of the Provincial Auditor
.,
Association o¡ Municipalities of Ontario
DEC 13 2000
December 8, 2000
TO:
The Head and Members of Council
Subject:
your municipality's 2001 AMO membership
Dear Municipal Colleague:
Imagine an Ontario where no AMO existed. Imagine a situation where your municipality, on its own, had to cope with
the challenges, uncertainty and expense facing local government today. What would it be like?
Municipalities would not have obtained the recent $600 million provincial OSTAR program which was a result, in
part, of an effective AMO campaigu to highlight the need for provincial funding assistance for municipal
inftastructure. Municipalities would not have received an additional $30 million worth of funding in addition to the
$63.6 million for transition costs that the Province announced as a result of the Social Housing Transfer. And
municipalities would have faced an extra $292 million in costs because no AMO lobbying effort would have been
present to convince the Province that they should reverse their funding formula for public health and ambulance.
The fact is that you do have an AMO to whom your municipality can turn for help. And as a result, your municipality
has been able to share in the nearly $1 Billion worth of direct savings or new money that AMO has brought as a result
of its advocacy work over the past 18 months. A detailed list of other accomplishments is attached.
AMO is very much a results driven, service based organization. Our new partnership with other municipal
organizations, and the participation of over 300 municipal volunteers have made a major contribution to our success.
AMO now has its highest participation rate in our 102 year history, with over 90% of municipalities as members,
representing 98% of the Province's population.
Your membership invoice for 200 1 is enclosed and renewal in AMO is critical for you to continue receiving the many
benefits of membership including the important advocacy initiatives on key issues that affect Ontario municipalities.
If you would like more information or wish to ask questions, do not hesitate to contact our Executive Director, Patrick
Moyle directly at (416) 971-9856 Ext. 306 (toll-free 1-877-426-6527).
On behalf of the AMO Board of Directors, I thank you for your continued support.
Yours very sincerely,
M~
Ann Mulvale
President
ASSOCIATION OF MUNICIPALITIES OF ONTARIO
N:1User\FD/ANCE\Membership\2001 memhershipl2001JTlemhmhip _lelter. wpd
65
393 University Ave., Suite 1701 Toronto, ON M5G 1E6
tel: (416) 971-9856' toli free 1-877-426-6527' fax: (416) 971-6191 . email: amo@amo.municom.com
AMO's Record of Achievement
(1999 - 2000)
A;¡;¡ociafiO!J of J'AunîÔpa¡¡ties of Ontario
While the provincial legislature did not have lengthy
sittings in 1999-2000, it was another busy year for
municipal governments. Your Association's efforts
were either focused on getting policy developed at
the federal and provincial levels, or preventing and
improving some of the government's own initiatives.
Ontario's municipalities benefitted from AMO's
activity in a number of ways.
Uploading part of the cost of ambulance and public
health services saved municipalities $292 million in
1999. This was a significant step in reducing
municipal exposure. In addition, AMO's efforts
secured additional funding for base budget costs of
delivering ambulance services estimated at $30
million in 2001 and work is underway to try to secure
100% of the capital and 50% of the operating costs
to bring services to the provincial standard.
As well, municipalities received about $65 million
related to their 1998 provincial offences revenue in
advance of the transfer of responsibility. As
members know, the POA revenue was part of the
fiscal balancing equation along with the Community
Reinvestment Fund, Special Circumstance Fund and
Northern Transitional Assistance Fund to deal with
the downloading. While the Province changed these
funds in 2000, AMO was successful in convincing the
Province to not clawback 1999 CRF over payments
and to top up the CRF where actual costs exceeded
estimates. AMO has provided advice to the Province
on how to bring increased stability and predictability
to the 2001 LSRlCRF relationship. Whether or not
the Province take§: this advice has yet to be
determined. However, we do know that the
municipal budgeting process has been severely
strained with the late release of provincial information
along with the ongoing issues related to assessment
and taxation, in particularly the 1 0-5-5 capping.
These and many other issues continue to be a
significant part of our work plan with the help of the
municipal staff associations whose assistance is
invaluable.
While there has been a lot of work and effort to
ensure the smooth transition of the downloaded
services, one significant piece continues to remain
outstanding B a new provincial-municipal relationship
that is enshrined in a new Municipal Act. The
importance of municipal government, their service
responsibilities, and financial capacity must all be
recognized.
November 2000
The initial draft released in 1998 was not acceptabie
to our members and others. For the municipal
sector, it did not provide clarity on roles nor the
necessary autonomy and authority. AMO has asked
for a more collaborative, effective process that brings
the parties, including the private sector, together to
build a new Act. Minister Clement has taken our
suggestion and in November began renewed
consultations. Without a new Municipal Act,
municipal governments will be stymied in their ability
to meet the expectations of their communities,
amon9 other matters.
Lobbying campaigns for new infrastructure programs
has seen positive results. With both the federal and
provincial announcements of fundin9 for
infrastructure, Ontario's municipalities are well
positioned to be9in to move on their infrastructure
deficit. Program design must recognize the billions
of dollars in municipal roads, bridges, water, and
sewer system deficits. Water quality and quantity
have attracted much public attention. AMO released
its Municipal Action Plan for Protectin9 Ontario's
Water in June and it set out a comprehensive plan
for managing this vital resource. Our efforts are
beginning to payoff, as the Province has decided to
continue the tile drainage programs and is doing
work on mapping groundwater sources. We are also
awaiting the government's response to the
consultation on nutrient management.
AMO has been busy working with other organizations
on other fronts, particularly improving services to
people. Municipalities have been busy and are
achieving the integration of human and community
health services, effectively linking social services
with housing, child care, and health care. AMO was
successful in lobbying for seven call centres for
Ontario Works rather than the one or two that was
being preferred by the Province. And we have been
providin9 advice to the Province on the devolution of
social housing administration. We are working
diligently to ensure that the risks to property tax
payers are mitigated. At the same time,
communities are trying to cope with the ever-growing
need for affordable housing and a renewed
partnership including all orders of government and
the private sector must occur if we are to see
success in addressing housing issues.
The transfer of the ambulance service has proven to
be very complicated. Convincing the 90vernment to
66
~,tr1.
extend the transfer date to January 2001
was a critical move as was their agreement to keep
the Ontario Government Pharmacy and Judson
Street Store open and available for municipal
purchasing of ambulances and equipment for five
years while we pursue alternatives. AMO continues
to work on the other ambulance transition issues,
including costs and standards, and dispatch issues.
AMO is also involved in the O'Connor Public Inquiry
into the Walkerton Tragedy, providing the municipal
voice. The Inquiry is looking at the policies and
pro9rams that may have contributed to the situation
and how to prevent such a tragedy from ever
occurring elsewhere. AMO also provided the first
contribution to the Walkerton Relief Fund set up by
the municipality to help provide water and support
services to the community. Municipalities helping
municipalities in times of trouble happens without
hesitation. Through our communication network with
member municipalities, others provided financial or
manpower support, which in turn spurred on the
provincial and federal governments to provide
financial assistance.
While there are many more examples of how AMO is
meeting its members' interests, three are of special
note. Municipalities have been totally footing the bill
for blue box recycling since 1995, so AMO's
participation in establishing the Waste Diversion
Organization is a significant step toward involving
industry in sustainable funding for municipal waste
diversion. Recommendations for a long term funding
formula for 50% of waste diversion costs were
submitted to the government in September and we
will be working hard to get an approach in place.
Advancin9 improvements to the Model Gas
Franchise A9reement has also been high on our
members' list of priorities since many agreements
were coming up for renewal. Ne90tiations with the
gas industry resolved a significant number of
municipal issues, however, at the time of writing, we
are awaitin9 a decision from the Ontario Energy
Board on charging user fees for road cuts, permits
and for occupation of the municipal road right-of-way.
The Ontario Ener9Y Board has also played a
significant role in electricity restructuring. AMO's
coordinated efforts with its members resulted in the
government agreein9 to not proceed with Bill 100,
which amended Bill 35, the Energy Competition Act.
Bill 100 would have re-written the rules for
municipalities staying in the electricity business. The
proposed new rules undermined the business
planning process that municipalities had undertaken,
following the government's own rules. The Bill also
November 2000
had a significant, negative impact on the value of this
municipal asset. It is a unique occurrence when a
9rouP can find other solutions and see the
government hal.t a Bill.
A public awareness campaign was launched, aimed
at explaining the new roles and responsibilities of
local government. The realignment of
responsibilities has strengthened municipal
government in Ontario. It is now clear that municipal
government is delivering the services that mean the
most to people. Despite these historic changes, the
public is largely unaware of the impact of service
realignment. The public awareness campaign is
changing that. Check out
www.yourlocalgovernment.com.
On the corporate front, AMO completed the
successful conversion to a new accounting system
that enables the reportin9 of more frequent and
timely financial data. The AMO Resource Centre
continues to be regarded by members as a valuable
asset with the number of information requests
processed increasing to over 850, representing a
70% increase over the past two years. If you need
some leads on research information, call. In addition,
a survey of Municom users was undertaken to
determine the most valued features of AMO's
intranet site and how AMO's new site should be
redesigned.
Local Authority Services Ltd. (LAS), the Association's
wholly-owned subsidiary company, successfully
launched a new leasing program for municipalities
which offers asset financing at the Canadian prime
rate of interest minus 1 %. The pro9ram is a more
cost-effective way of financin9 than traditional forms.
Check out how we can help you save money.
AMO also undertook a complete review of its
business practices. New ways of deliverin9 services
to members have been introduced in 2000. Formal
working partnerships have been struck with
professional associations, and specialized work has
been outsourced to municipal experts in an effort to
get the best information and advice for the Board.
As a result of these new business practices and the
quality of our work, membership in AMO has reached
a record level in 2000. Again, there is no fee increase
for 2001. AMO has achieved many other
accomplishments on your behalf. The Association's
staff and its many volunteers have worked hard on
our members' behalf and along with the membership
are proud of its accomplishments. With your
support, we will be as successful, if not more, in
2000-2001.
67
~.tt.
¿~.
Association of Municipalities of Ontario
Association of Municipalities of Ontario
2001 MEMBERSHIP INVOICE
Clerk
County of Elgin
450 Sunset Dr.
St. Thomas, ON N5R 5V1
Invoice No.: 2001 -10707
Invoice Date: December 6, 2000
DEC 1 ~ 2COD
BILLED TO AMOUNT
County of Elgin $ 2,752.92
Membership fee for the period: January 1, 2001 - December 31, 2001 GST EXEMPT
(fold bottom edge to this line)
MUN/UPP
At its meeting on November 24, 2000, the AMO Board of Directors passed the Association's 2001 budget which provided that
membership fees be calculated using the most current household data avaliable from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
and that the fees rates be increased by 0% over 2000 fee rates.
Your municipality's fee was based on a calculated total of 17,932 households.
The calculated total households is equal to the total households as reported by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs less the total
number of households of separated municipalities in your upper tier as reported by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.
Your municipality's fee was calculated using the following fee rate schedule for upper tier municipalities:
Households
1 to 30,000
over 30,000
Fee Rate
$ 0.15352
$4,605.60
per household
plus $ 0.01212
per household above 30,000
68
Please direct questions to:
Reena Feliciano at 416-971-9856 Ex!. 324
rfeliciaQo@amo.municom.com
393 University Avenue, Suite 1701 Toronto, Ontario M5G 1E6 Tel: 416-971-9856 Fax: 416-971-6191
ST. THOMAS PUBLIC LIBRARY
153 Curtis Street, ST. THOMAS, Ontario N5P 3Z7 (519) 631-6050
Carolyn Kneeshaw, Chief Executive Officer
December 18, 2000
JAN 2 2001
Duncan McPhail, Warden
Elgin County Council
450 Sunset Dr.
St. Thomas, Ontario N5R 3Vl
ElG~r~
SEHV~CES
Dear Warden McPhail:
Congratulations on your election as Warden of Elgin County.
I am writing to request Council's consideration of a renewal of funding to the St.Thomas
Public Library in 2001 in support of county residents who use the St. Thomas Public
Library.
Latest surveys show that 26% of the registered borrowers at the St. Thomas Public
Library live outside the City of St. Thomas, primarily in the area immèdiately surrounding
the City.
The Board would be pleased to meet with you at your earliest convenience to discuss this
request. .
Yours sincerely,
~.g.~
Greg Grondin, Chair
St. Thomas Public Library Board
69
81/89/81 23:32:87 EST; ASSOCIATION OF?->
1 519 633 7661 CLERK-Elgin Co
Page 882
JAN-09-01 TUE 02:53 PM AMD
FAX NO, 416 971 6191
p, 01
2001 ROMAfOGRA Annual Conference
Fobruary 25 - 28,2001 HoysJ York Hotel
ROMA NOMINATIONS AND ELECTIONS
2001 ANNUAL CONFERENCE
Attached please find a list of persons currently serving as members of the ROMA
Executive, together with any indicated vacancies or resignations as known at the time of
the writing of this communication. A Section Zone map has also been included to assist
in identifying the municipalities within a particular zone.
As a result of recent changes by AMO, the five members of the Executive Committee who
currently form the Rural Caucus of the AMO Board will remain in office until the AMO
annual meeting in August. This means that there will be no election for the Officer positions
referred to on the attached sheet.
In order to qualify for nominations for the Zone Representatives, the following information
should accompany the nomination.
a) name of the nominee;
b) position for which the nomination is made;
c) municipal titie and name of municipality;
d) experience as an elected representative or appointed official;
e) any other information you feel would assist the nominating committee
in making a recommendation to the Annual Conference.
Nominations must be submitted by February 2, 2001 to:
Association of Municipalities of Ontario
393 University Avenue, Suite 1701
Toronto, ON M5G 1 E6
Fax: (416) 971-6191
Attention: Pat Moyle, Executive Director
71
---
Bl/B9/Bl 23:32:43 EST; ASSOCIATION OF?->
1 519 b33 7bbl CLERK-Elyin Co
Paye BS3
JAN-09-0l rUE 02:53 PM AMO
FAX NO, 416 971 6191
p, 02
MEMBERS OF THE
RURAL SECTION (ROMA) EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
QF.FIC~8~
Chair:
Lloyd Churchill, Mayor, Town of BarlCroft
Executive Treasurer:
Julian Tofts, C.A.O., Township of Springwater
Officers:
Gary O'Connor, Mayor, Municipalìty of West Nipissing
Eleanor Renaud, Councillor, Township of Elizabeth Town -
Kitley
Bill Semeniuk, Mayor, Township of Zorra
ZOIiI;..REPßJ;.;;?..ENT A TIVES
Zone 1:
vacant
Zone 2:
William French, Councillor, Township of West Perth
Zone 3:
Lou Rinaldi, Mayor, Municipality of Brighton
Zone 4:
vacant
Zone 5:
vacant
Zone 6:
vacant
Zone 7:
vacant
Zone 8:
vacant
Zone 9:
vacant
72
OUilbec
Hudsoo Bay
-.:(
~:
Bay .~
\" "~:",
~.... :::'!:Î
.....
o
t::
~
tT
.
"
~ 9
L,aXe on~
"'"
.'~'. .,-....;
""
.L
-
.
-
j.#oí:.if'
..--
LaJca
Huron
RURAL SECTION
(ROAM) OF AMO
ZONE MAP
""'-I
LN
m
=
0..:
~
0>
~
«)
f-
0")
«)
~
=
c:5
:z:
:x:
<r:
lL.
=
>::::
<r:
>::::
t:L.
m
LD
N
=
\..L!
:::>
é--
~
=
I
m
=
I
:z:
<r:
--,
...
a:¡
a:¡
"
'"
'"
....
o
w
"
.~
'"
-
""
I
::x:
'"
""
.....
w
....
""
""
r'-
M
M
""
'"
....
Ln
....
^
I
".
...
o
:c
o
-
....
<J:
-
W
o
Of)
Of)
<J:
....
Of)
""
...
....
M
M
M
N
....
a:¡
.....
'"
a:¡
.....
....
a:¡
JAN 8 2001
~1f'H ~,- M1V f"1t:: ~~ ~!~,'¡
'li'\;'i&i ~ ,_ ~ '.if, '~-'''''';''¡¡"-~
la fête du
CANADA
Day
CANADA DAY YOUTH AWARD 2001
The Celebrate Canada Committee for Ontario is pleased to launch the Canada Day Youth Award 2000.
Enclosed is a nomination form that describes the purpose of the award and outlines the criteria that could be
useful in guiding your decision for nomination. The Canada Day Youth A ward consist of a rramed certificate
signed by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, and an engraved memento.
Anyone may submit a nomination form, however, self nominations will not be accepted. The deadline for
Youth Award submissions is Friday, March 30, 2001.
The Committee will meet in April to review the nominations, and nominators will be contacted as soon as
possible thereafter with the Committee's decision. It is important that the nominator be specific when
completing the Suggested Plans for Presentation Ceremony portion of the nomination form We encourage
his/her involvement in ensuring that the award is presented.
For further information and nomination forms, please contact the Celebrate Canada information line for
Ontario at (416) 973-1990 or 1-800-749-7061 or visit our web page on the Canada Place web site at
www c.n.lI.place gc ca/cprclontJont html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRIX JEUNESSE DE LA FÊTE DU CANADA 2001
Le Comité des célébrations du Canada pour I'Ontario est heureux d'annoncer Ie Prix Jeunesse de la Fête du
Canada 2001. Vous tronverez ci-joint Ie formulaire de la mise en nomination qui décrit la raison d'être du
prix et énonce les critères pouvant guider votre choix. Le Prix Jeunesse de la Fête du Canada prend la forme
d'un certificat encadré signé par la ministre du Pa1rimoine canadien et d'un souvenir gravé.
N'importe qui peut présenter une formule de mise en nomination, à condition de proposer quelqu'un d'autre.
La date limite de mise en nomination pour Ie Prix Jeunesse a été [¡xée au vendredi 30 mars 2001.
Le Comité se réunira en avril pour examiner les noms proposés et communiquera avec les auteurs des mises
en nomination Ie plus tôt possible après avoir pris sa décision. Ceux-ci doivent faire preuve de précision
lorsqu'ils remplissent la section Propositions concernant fa cérémonie de remise du prix de la formule de
mise en nomination. Nous les encourageons d'ailleurs à participer à la remise du prix.
Pour de plus amples renseignements ou pour obtenir des fonnules de mise en nomination, veuillez
communiquer avec la ligne info de Canada en fête pour I'Ontario au (416) 973-1990 ou au 1-800-749-7061,
ou visitez notre page web sur Ie site Internet de Place du Canada au
www.placeducanada.gc.ca/pccr/ ont/ ont.html
Canadã
74
lafêtedu
CANADA
Day
CHECK LIST FOR CANADA DAY YOUTH AWARD
PRESENTA nON CEREMONY
Please complete this checklist and submit it with your nomination form.
Under "Suggested Plans for Presentation Ceremony" have you included:
OA description of the event at which the Canada Day Youth Award will be presented, i.e.
Canada Day celebration, school function, Canadian Citizenship re-affirmation ceremony, other
community event.
o Date and time of event.
o Location of the event.
o The name or title of the Youth Award presenter, i.e. school representative, Member of
Parliament, community leader, group leader.
o Would you like to have a contact name for the Celebrate Canada Committee member in your
region? (please place a check mark in the box if the answer is "yes")
THE CANADA DAY YOUTH AWARD WILL BE SENT TO THE
NOMINATOR'S ADDRESS STATED ON THE NOMINATION
FORM.
Canadã
® Ontario
The Ontario Volunteer Service Awards
NOMINATION FORM
Nominators must certify nominations as outlined on the final page of this form.
Personal information on t'his form is collected under the authority of t'he Ministry of Citizenship and Culture Act, R.S.O.1990,
c.M.18, s.4 and will be used to determine eligibility and notify recipients of t'he Ontario Volunteer Service Awards. For further
information, please contact t'he Manager, Ontario Honours and Awards, 400 University Avenue, 2nd Floor, Toronto, ON M7 A 2R9,
(416) 314-7523.
(Please type or print clearly and complete in full)
NOMINATING GROUP or ORGANIZATION
Name
Address
Suite/Unit #
Postal Code
$TREErQRP.O.BOXNUMBER
City/fown
County
Telephone: ( )
Year group or organization formed
Number of volunteers in group or organization:
c:::J Senior Citizens (ages 65 years and over)
.
E-mail
Fax: ( )
c:::J Adults c:::J Youth (24 & under)
HEAD OF GROUP OR ORGANIZATION (CHAIR, PRESIDENT, ETC.)
D Mr. D Mrs. D Ms. First Name(s)
Title
Address
Last Name
Suite/Unit #
Postal Code
STREEfORP.Q. BOX NUMBER
City/fown
Telephone: ( )
E-mail:
CONTACT
D Mr. D Mrs. D Ms. First Name
Title
Last Name(s)
Brief description of objectives and activities of your group or organization
ar
'ears
ar
ears
ar
ears
n
ears
D Mr. D Mrs. D Ms. Details of volunteer service with nominating group or
First Name (s) organization, including items of special interest
Last Name
Residential Address
Apt.jUnit#
City(rown Postal Code .
Telephone ( ) TYPE OF AWARO
D Youth (24 & under) D 5 year D 10 year D 15 year
AGE CATEGORY D 20 year D 25 year D 30+ years D 50+ years
o Senior Citizen o Adult o Youth (give age _ ) Occupation
Number of consecutive years as a volunteer in the organization _ Preferred language of communication
D Mr. D Mrs. D Ms. Details of volunteer service with nominating group or
First Name(s) organization, including items of special interest
Last Name
Residential Address .
Apt.jUnit#
City(rown Postal Code
Telephone ( ) TYPE OF AWARO
AGE CATEGORY D Youth (24 & under) D 5 year D 10 year D 15 year
D 20 year D 25 year D 30+ years D 50+ years
o Senior Citizen o Adult o Youth (give age _) Occupation
Number of consecutive years as a volunteer in the organization _ Preferred language of communication
CERTIFICATION CLAUSE
Information for nominators
Before signing the certification below, please ensure that you have read the accompanying information sheet entitled the 2001 Ontario
Volunteer Service Awards and are satisfied the nominations you have made fit within the parameters of the award program as described
and all of the nominees are, in your opinion, deserving of the award.
Nomination Certification
I hereby certify that 1 have been a memher in good standing in the above-named group or organization and to the best of my knowledge
I certify that all of the information provided on this form is true and assert it is my belief that each of the nominees listed above is deserv-
ing of an Ontario Volunteer Service Award since he/she meets the requirements of the award.
Name (print)
ritle
Signature
Date
Completed forms must be received by March 2, 2001.
Please submit signed, original forms only.
SEND TO:
Ontario Honours and Awards
Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation
400 University Avenue, 2nd Floor, Toronto, ON M7A 2R9
Tel: (416) 314-7526 Fax: (416) 314-7743
.
,!j .~. ."i:
ø· ~
~\, i:J
~ g
~/""-..~
2001
,'/
-(@'~
i. ~
VOLUNTEER
ACTION
61-544 (12/00)
In1:erna1:lonal Year
01' Volunteers
Ontaricmsmakinq ac/ìjferenœ
VOLUNTEERS BEING NOMINATED
o Mr. 0 Mrs. 0 Ms. Details of volunteer service with nominating group or
First Name(s) organization, including items of special interest
Last Name
Residential Address
STFlEETORP.O.BOXNUMBER
Apt.jUnit#
City/fown Postal Code
Telephone ( ) TYPE OF AWARD
o Youth (24 & under) o 5 year o 10 year o 15 year
AGE CATEGORY o 20 year o 25 year o 30+ years o 50+ years
o Senior Citizen o Adult o Youth (give age _ ) Occupation
Number of consecutive years as a volunteer in the organization _ Preferred language of communication
o Mr. 0 Mrs. 0 Ms. Details of volunteer service with nominating group or
First Name(s) organization, including items of special interest
Last Name
Residential Address
STREET OR P. O. SOX NUMBER
Apt.jUnit#
City/fown Postal Code
Telephone ( ) TYPE OF AWARD
o Youth (24 & under) o 5 year D 10 year D 15 year
AGE CATEGORY o 20 year o 25 year D 30+ years D 50+ years
o Senior Citizen o Adult o Youth (give age _ ) Occupation
Number of consecutive years as a volunteer in the organization _ Preferred language of communication
o Mr. 0 Mrs. 0 Ms. Details of volunteer service with nominating group or
First Name(s) organization, including items of special interest
Last Name
Residential Address
STREET OR P. O. BOX NUMBER
Apt.jUnit#
City/fown Postal Code
Telephone ( ) TYPE OF AWARD
o Youth (24 & under) o 5 year D 10 year 015 year
AGE CATEGORY o 20 year o 25 year D 30+ years o 50+ years
o Senior Citizen o Adult o Youth (give age _) Occupation
Number of consecutive years as a volunteer in the organization ~ Preferred language of communication
o Mr. D Mrs. 0 Ms. Details of volunteer service with nominating group or
First Name(s) organization, including items of special interest
Last Name
Residential Address
STREET OR P. O. BOX NUMSER
Apt.jUnit#
City/fown Postal Code .
Telephone ( ) TYPE OF AWARD
o Youth (24 & under) o 5 year o 10 year 015 year
AGE CATEGORY o 20 year o 25 year D 30+ years o 50+ years
o Senior Citizen o Adult o Youth (give age _) Occupation
Number of consecutive years as a volunteer in the organization _ Preferred language of communication
® Ontario
The Ontario
Volunteer Service Awards
,'/
-(@\~
ij~
VOLUNTEER
ACTION
-
,Ii- ~I
0- --~
~\' iH
~ g
~/'..-..;;;-
200 1
International Year
01' Volunteers
Purpose
All across Ontario, from North to South,
East to West, people volunteer their time
and give of their talents, energy and
enthusiasm. Ontario's volunteers impact
all sectors including health, recreation,
sport, culture, arts, environment, educa-
tion and heritage. There is no aspect of
life in Ontario that has not been enriched
by the efforts of dedicated citizens who
are volunteers. All Ontarians benefit from
the millions of volunteers who help to
make our communities safe, caring and
prosperous. By submitting a nomination,
individuals and organizations can help
ensure that volunteers in Ontario receive
the recognition they deserve.
International Year of Volunteers
Ontario is particularly proud to recognize
volunteers in 2001, proclaimed as the
International Year of Volunteers by the
United Nations General Assembly. The
commemoration of the International Year
of Volunteers builds on and reinforces the
government's comprehensive plan to
enable and value volunteers. The govern-
ment of Ontario is pleased to participate
in this celebration as a way to raise
awareness about the vital contribution
volunteers have rnade to make Ontario
communities safe, caring and prosperous.
All Ontarians can make a difference.
Recognizing continuous service
The Ontario Volunteer Service Awards
are a way for the government to rec-
ognize volunteers for their undeniable
contributions. The awards are also a
way to thank volunteers for their con-
tinuous years of commitment and
dedicated service to a group. Youth
volunteers (under the age of 24) are
recognized for two or more years of
continuous service. Adults are recog-
nized for 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 and
new in 2001, 50 years of continuous
service.
Other forms of recognition
The government of Ontario offers
other programs that recognize volun-
teers for contributions beyond years
of continuous service. The
Outstanding Achievement Awards for
Voluntarism in Ontario are presented
to 20 individuals, groups and busi-
nesses that have made exceptional
contributions to their communities
and the province through voluntary
action.
The Ontario Medal for Young
Volunteers recognizes the outstanding
achievements of 10 young volunteers
between the ages of 15 and 24 who
have made a difference to their com-
munities.
Who is eligible?
The Ontario Volunteer Service Awards are
presented to volunteers who contribute
consecutive years of service to a group'
within Ontario, and whose work is char-
acterized by the following:
· Volunteer time given on an ongoing
and active basis to the same group for
which no payment has been received
· Membership alone is not a qualification
for recognition
· Services performed during the normal
course of professional or business
duties are not eligible for recognition.
Groups that have been in existence for a
Ontarians making a difference
minimum of five years may complete
a nomination. Each group may nomi-
nate up to six volunteers. Nominators
must attest to the accuracy of the
information provided for each volun-
teer by signing a Certification Clause
on the nomination form for this pro-
gram.
'For the purposes of this program
"group" is defined as: community, not-
for-profit, and non-profit organiza-
tions/associations; co-operatives;
boards; commissions; businesses; gov-
ernment ministries that directly recruit
volunteers; arts/educational/correction-
al institutions and schools; municipali-
ties; long term care facilities; hospitals.
How are the redpients selected?
The ministry relies on the judgement
of the head of group (Chair, President
etc.) to ensure the information pro-
vided is true and the nominees are
deserving of recognition in keeping
with the requirements of the award.
Nominations are reviewed and
acknowledged by letter.
When are the awards presented
Recipients are presented with stylized
trillium pins and personalized certifi-
cates at special ceremonies held
across the province in the spring. Pins
and certificates each correspond to
the length of service being recog-
nized. Recipients receive an invitation
to attend the ceremony with one
guest. Each organization making a
nomination is also invited to have two
representatives attend the ceremony.
When is the deadline?
Completed nomination forms will be
accepted no later than March 2,
2001.
For more infonnation...
Ontario Honours and Awards
Ministry of Citizenship,
Culture and Recreation
400 University Avenue, 2nd floor
Toronto, ON M7A 2R9
Tel: (416) 314-7526
Fax: (416) 314-7743
E-mail: ontariohonoursandawards
@mczcr.gov.on.ca
Or visit our Web site:
www.gov.on.ca/mczcr
Or contact the nearest regional
service office listed below:
ISBN 0-7778-9242-1 (Rev.)
D3563 12/00 35M
® Ontario
The Outstanding Achievement Awards
for Voluntarism in Ontario
,'/
-@)'~
itj~
VOLUNTEER
ACTION
.
Jj. ~I
g. ..~
~~, ,)~
~ g
~/"'..--...;;.-
2 0 0 1
International Vear
01' Voluntee..-s
Purpose
The personal commitment made by vol-
unteers all across Ontario is significant.
Whether it is by volunteering their time,
efforts, knowledge or resources, people
across Ontario are making valuable con-
tributions to the quality of life in their
communities and in our province. Among
the thousands of volunteers in Ontario,
there are those who make exceptional
contributions. The Outstanding Achieve-
ment Awards for Voluntarism in Ontario
recognize extraordinary leadership, inno-
vation and creativity. Each year, 20
awards are given to a select group of
individuals, organizations and businesses
that have made superlative contributions
to their communities and the province
through voluntary action.
The contributions of volunteers affect
many fields of endeavour. There is no
aspect of life in Ontario that has not been
enriched by the efforts of dedicated citi-
zens who are volunteers. The Outstand-
ing Achievement Awards for Voluntarism
in Ontario recognizes and highlights the
contributions of 20 recipients and serves
to inspire others by the positive examples
they provide.
International Year of Volunteers
Ontario is particularly proud to recognize
volunteers in 2001, proclaimed as the
International Year of Volunteers by the
United Nations General Assembly. The
commemoration of the International Year
of Volunteers builds on and reinforces the
government's comprehensive plan to
enable and value volunteers. The govern-
ment of Ontario is pleased to participate
in this celebration as a way to raise
awareness about the vital contribution
volunteers have made to make Ontario
communities safe, caring and prosperous.
All Ontarians can make a difference.
Other forms of recognition
The government of Ontario also offers
the Volunteer Service Awards to recognize
volunteers for their years of continuous
service to a group. Youth volunteers
(under the age of 24) are recognized for
two or more years of continuous service.
Adults are recognized for 5, 10, 15, 20,
25, 30 and new in 2001, 50 years of con-
tinuous service.
The Ontario Medal for Young Volunteers
recognizes the outstanding achievements
of 10 young volunteers between the ages
of 15 and 24 who have made a differ-
ence to their communities.
Who is eligible
The Outstanding Achievement Awards for
Voluntarism in Ontario are presented to
individuals, groups and businesses that
have made lasting and meaningful contri-
butions, or provided significant support
Ontarians making a difference
to the volunteer activities of: commu-
nity and not-far-profit organizations
or associations; co-operatives, boards;
commissions; businesses; government
ministries that directly recruit volun-
teers; art/educational/correctional
institutions and schools; municipali-
ties; long-term care facilities and hos-
pitals.
How are the recipients
selected?
A jury of seven to nine individuals
review the nominations and select 20
recipients. The jury is made up of
individuals from across Ontario and
represent a variety of disciplines.
JVhen are the awards
presented?
The Outstanding Achievement Awards
for Voluntarism in Ontario will be pre-
sented with the Volunteer Service
Awards at ceremonies held across the
province beginning in the spring. Invi-
tations are extended to each recipient
and two representatives from the
nominating group. Each recipient
may be accompanied at the ceremo-
ny by a select number of guests.
JVhen is the deadline for
nominations
Completed nomination forms for the
Outstanding Achievement Awards for
VOl4 1tarism in Ontario will be accept-
ed 1)0 later than March 2, 2001.
FOl"more information...
Ont¡¡rio Honours and Awards
MiOistry of Citizenship,
CUlture and Recreation
400 University Avenue, 2nd Floor
Torooto, ON M7A 2R9
Tel: (416) 314-7526
Fax: (416) 314-7743
E-mail:
ontariohonoursandawards
@mQcr.gov.on.ca
or Visit our Web site:
WWW.gov.on.ca/mczcr
or Contact the nearest regional service
office listed below:
Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation Field Offices
Dryden District Office
479 Government Road
P. O. Box 3000 .
Dryden, On P8N 3B3 '
Tel: (807) 223-8682
Toll-free: 1-800-525-8785
, Fàx: (807) 223-8502
Hamilton District Office ,
119 King Street W~t ' ' ,
14th Floor ., . ' '.
Hamilton,ON L8P 4Y7 .
,Tel: (905) 521-7244 .
Fax: (905) 521-7621 . .
, HuntsVille Distrièt Qffice . ,
207Jv1aiÌ1 SìreetWeSt ",'.' .
Huntsville" ON,P1 H 129
TeJ: (705) 789.4448
Fax: (705)789:9533 .
K,mora Distrièt.Qfflèè
81 o Róbértsòn sìrèet
. Kendra, GN P9N]\<8
Tol:.(807).468-24
. Toll-freé: 1~800'46
'Fax: (S-O . 68'27
Kb,gstori .," '.
< Òntario G rnmehfBuilding :;'
fr;;'~'
Ottawa District Office
530 Tremblay Road, 1 st Floor
Ottawa, ON K1 G 6B7 '
Tel: (613) 742'3360
Toll-free: 1-800-267-9340
Fax: (613) 742-5300
Peterborough District Office
300 Water Street
South Tower, 2nd Floor
Peterborough, ON K9 8M5
Tel: (705) 755-2624
Toll-free: 1-800-461-7629
Fax:. (705) 755-2631. '
Sault Ste. Marie District Office
'Roberta Bondar Place
70 Foster Drive, Suite iòo '
SaultSte. Marie,ON P6A 6V8
, 'Tel: (79,S) 945:5885 ' .
, .' Toll-free: 1-800-461-7284
. . Fax: (705)945-5931' . '
,.-\:~__-' ,:':,' ',,",--,' '_',_',,- .;'-''''''."',,: ::--~ -".:,,o.i__-'-','<' -: >: ","-/
-,' Sioux Loókout District Office
"~R~~~:n2í:èer' ,.'., " ,
Siòux Låòkou40N P8T 1A3
. , '. Tel: (807) 737-1018 .' ,....
'. TolI:free: 1~800-529;6619 "
"Fax: (807) 737-337'F' .
',st.càtlJarlÌ1-¡'s DistrlctOmce
, " 301 'St:Paul Stì-ee~9thFloor' '
;~~t~~t~ri9~:~~
,,' Tqll-freè:1-800:2
04039
K> <~
Kitchener District Office
30 Duke Street West
Suite 405 . . ,
Kitchener, ON N2H 3W5
. Tel: (519) 578-3600 .
Toll-free:J -800-265-2189
.Fax: (519) 578-1632
London District Office'
659 Exeter Road, 2nd Floor
London;ON, N6E 1 [3
Tel: (519) 873-4056
Toll-free: 1-800-265-4730
, Fax: (519) 873-4061' .
Markdafe District Office
'. 181 Toronto Street South
P. Ò.Bòx496 ",.' . .
. Markdale, ON NOC lHO
Tel: (519) 986:3219 ..,'
,T:oll-ffee: 1 '800-265-5520
,Fax: (519) 986-3014 "
Ívìidhùr~bi'strid: Office "
, . ursery Road,
NLOL·1XO
e,,5) '739-6696 '" .
Fax: (705) 739-669h , ,.'
.~oith~a~DiSirictqtfi~~
\~::,44¡':,tv1ç~¢own)~.\{ ,
'Nò 'BàQ~f~2.
"61:9563.'
;,"-;-'-",-"
<'-";-'.,
,~~----"
Sudbury District Office
Ontario Government Building
199 Larch Stree~ Suite 401
Sudbury, ON P3E 5P9
Tel: (705) 564-3035
Toll-free: 1-800-461-4004
Fax: (705) 564-3043 .
Thunder Bay District Office
435 James Street South
SUite 334 .
. ThUnder Bay, ON P7E 6E3
Tel: (807) 475-1683
Toll-free: 1-800-465-6861
Fa~: (807)475-1297 .
Timmins Òistrict Office' ,
Ontario Government Complex
Highway 10lEast .
P.O:.Box·3085.· ..
SoUth Porcupine, ON POKl1 HO· .
Tel: (705) 235-1550
. 'Toll-free: 1-800-305-4442., .
Fax: (705) 2?5: 15?3 . ..
. èelÌtral Areà bfficé: ' ...
400' Universitý Avenue .
,:SthFlóör' ,....... .
. Toronto,ON.M7A2R9.. ','.
: 'Jel: (4í6)3f4-iÙo: '. ~
.:~~~l . '~~~è.~" .
21:M
ISBN 0-7778-9241-3 (Rev.)
D3564 12/00 35M
® Ontario
The Outstanding Achievement Awards for
Voluntarism in Ontario
NOMINATION FORM
Personal information on t'his form is collected under the authority of t'he Ministry of Citizenship and Culture Act, R.S.0.1990,
c.M.18, sA and will be used to determine eligibility and notify reopients of t'he Outstanding Achievement Award for Voluntarism
in Ontario. For furt'her information, please contact t'he Manager, Ontario Honours and Awards, 400 University Avenue, 2nd Floor,
Toronto, ON M7A 2R9, (416) 314-7523
In addition to completing the form found on the reverse side of this page, on separate sheets
attach a detailed description of the achievement (500 - 1,000 words) in which you:
(a) Describe the achievement in detail, that is, what made this an outstanding achievement for your
nominee, indicating background factors and/or circumstances, the way in which it was carried
out, and the obstacles overcome;
(b) Indicate what encouragement and training of volunteers may have taken place;
(c) Provide examples of ongoing leadership and dedication;
(d) Indicate what resources were generated (human and/or financial);
(e) Indicate what has been learned from this achievement that might be applied elsewhere in the
volunteer sector;
(f) Provide written testimonials from two persons who are familiar with the value and impact of the
achievement; and also indicate:
(g) How long you have known the nominee;
(h) When the achievement was initiated and completed.
Additional Material (optional)
Provide any additional material to support this nomination
,(Le., publications, photographs, media stories, etc.).
Completed forms must be received by March 2, 200l.
Please submit signed, original forms only.
Send completed forms to:
Ontario Honours and Awards
Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation
400 University Avenue, 2nd Floor
Toronto, ON M7 A 2R9
Tel: (416) 314-7526
Fax: (416) 314-7743
Intern..:tional Year
of Volunteers
,'/
-@~
! ~~
VOLUNTEER
ACTION
.
,;j.~. .~:
~. ~
~l, ißJ
~ 9
..;;.....o-~~
200 1
61-543 (12/00)
® Ontario
The Ontario Medal
Youn
@
j@
v
w \/,
\\. ,;{
~., ;:¡.
\" If
~ b
~/^"'--.---.;;;.-
2 0 0 1
Ini:erna1:iona, Year
ot" VoIun1:eers
Purpose
The Ontario Medal for Young
Volunteers was created to recognize the
outstanding achievements of young
volunteers across the province of
Ontario. The personal commitment of
time and effort made by young
volunteers is a valuable contribution to
the quality of life in their communities
and in our province. The leaders of
tomorrow are among these many youth
volunteers.
By bestowing special distinction upon
these admirable youth, the Ontario
Medal for Young Volunteers emphasizes
the importance of volunteering in
building strong communities across our
province.
International Year of Volunteers
Ontario is particularly proud to
recognize volunteers in 2001,
proclaimed as the International Year of
Volunteers by the United Nations
General Assembly. The commemoration
of the International Year of Volunteers
builds on and reinforces the
government's comprehensive plan to
enable and value volunteers. The
government of Ontario is pleased to
participate in this celebration as a way
to raise awareness about the vital
contribution volunteers have made and
continue to make to Ontario commun-
ities safe, caring and prosperous. All
Ontarians can make a differenèe.
Other forms of recognition
The government of Ontario also offers
the Volunteer Service Awards to
recognize volunteers for their years of
continuous service to a group. Youth
volunteers (under the age of 24) are
recognized for two or more years of
continuous service. Adults are
recognized for 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30
and new in 2001, 50 years of
continuous service.
The Outstanding Achievement Awards
for Voluntarism in Ontario recognize
extraordinary leadership, innovation
and creativity. Each year, 20 awards are
given to a select group of individuals,
organizations and businesses that have
made superlative contributions to their
communities and the province through
voluntary action.
Who is eligible?
The Ontario Medal for Young
Volunteers is presented to 10 young
people who:
· Are between the ages of 15 and 24
years during the year 2001
· Reside in Ontario
· Contribute significant time and
service without pay to a charity, not-
for-profit organizations or an
individual
· Have made a sustained and
innovative contribution in the
community, demonstrating
leadership, initiative, perseverance,
.+.
Canadian
Heritage
Patrimoine
canadien
la fête du
CANADA
Day
CANADA DAY YOUTH AWARD
The Canada Day Youth Award is designed to recognize and reinforce the outstanding achievements and
contributions of young people to their communities and, by extension, to the betterment of Canada. Let us
salute and encourage our Canadian youth who work to make a difference in their communities.
You or your organization may wish to nominate for this award a young person who exemplifies the
qualities of citizenship that strengthen our social fabric and enrich our national life. Potential recipients
must be 18 years of age or younger and have made a truly exceptional contribution in any of a number of
areas (suggested minimum of 100 hours of services). The following criteria could be useful in guiding your
decision for nomination:
1) Community Participation:
involvement through an organization or an individual activity that has resulted in positive benefits
to another individual, a group or to the community at large (for example: coaching, tutoring,
assisting with activities for residents of a seniors' lodge, and working with children or home-bound
individuals);
2) Promotion of Canadian Values:
participation in activities that serve to broaden a sense of common national purpose and values and
foster national unity (respect, co-operation and equality between groups of people; literacy
awareness and advancement; the rémoval of barriers to disadvantaged people - such as physical,
attitudinal, social or economic barriers; and volunteerism);
3) Sustainable Development Initiatives:
involvement in the promotion of sustainable development activities and of greater awareness of
sustainable development principles - quality of life, integrated decision making, equity - (e.g.
organize "Buy Nothing Day"; host youth town halls or workshops on how to make sustainable
development a reality; initiate recycling programs; plant trees).
You are invited to submit a nomination for the current year, by completing and forwarding the attached
form to your provincial/territorial Celebrate Canada Committee (addresses enclosed). Self nominations will
not be accepted. Canada Day Youth Award submissions must be received no later than the last Friday in
March. You will be advised of the Celebrate Canada Committee's decision in writing.
ŒJ
0[:)
\-'-1; ,
'---"\.J
!("<~k
Canadã
1+1
Patrimoine
canadien
Canadian
Heritage
la fête du
CANADA
Day
GUIDE FOR GRANT APPLICATION
CRITERIA AND CONDITIONS FOR FUNDING SUPPORT FOR YOUR
"CELEBRATE CANADA!" ACTIVITY
1. "SEED MONEY" SUPPORT WILL BE CONSIDERED
FOR EVENTS TO TAKE PLACE DURING THE PERIOD
FROM JUNE 21 TO JULY 2 (including National Aboriginal
Dayan June 21, St. Jean Baptiste Dayan June 24 and
Canada Day) and is to be spent solely for "Celebrate
Canada!" celebrations as described in this application.
Funding cannot be guaranteed.
2. Limited amounts of "seed money" funds are to assist
with start-up costs of projects and are not intended as 100%
funding. Groups are encouraged to make their activities
increasingly self-supporting from year to year.
3. Only projects organized by groups will be considered.
Preference will be given to groups that are able to obtain
donations and support from other sources.
4. Events and celebrations must be publicly designated
as "Celebrate Canadal" activities and should be accessible
to the entire community. All verbal and written publicity
material for event(s) must mention that financial
assistance has been received from your provincial/
territorial Celebrate Canada Committee and the
Department of Canadian Heritage.
5. The orgallizing committee agrees to respect and apply
the spirit and provisions of the existing Canadian Human
. Rights Act and the Official Languages Act.
6. Groups must ensure that their events are covered
under the appropriate liability insurance.
7. A detailed and complete budget must be submitted
for each project. Applicants should be prepared to discuss
details of proposed projects and budgets if contacted by
the provincial! territorial Celebrate Canada Committee.
8. Beverages and food (except for a birthday cake),
capital costs (e.g. flagpoles, monuments, plaques) and
ªalaries of organizers are not eligible for support.
NOTE: Funding may be approved for food in lieu of
fireworks in the territories (Le. Nunavut, Northwest
Territories, Yukon).
9. Repeat applicants are asked to indicate both their
current name and the previous name of their group, if
applicable. Applications will be evaluated on the basis of
previously submitted evaluation forms. Failure to have
submitted evaluation forms in previous years may result
in rejection of a new application.
10. Applications will be considered only if accompanied
by a completed waiver (page 5) with all relevant
signatures (including a letter of authorization from
the local official with jurisdiction over fireworks, when
applicable).
11. Modest quantities of promotional items are available.
Should your group wish to obtain these materials only
(hand flags, posters, etc.), simply complete the
promotional material order form (page 6).
12. Applications must be submitted to your provincial!
territorial Celebrate Canada Committee (page 8) aª soon
as possible and MUST BE POSTMARKED NO LATER
THAN MARCH 31. Incorporated organizations must
provide a copy of the orgallization's letters patent and of
the Board of Directors' resolutions authorizing the
funding request. Consideration will not be given to late
submissions or incomplete forms.
13. In the case of approved applications, grant cheques
are normally issued and made available to organizing
committees ill early I mid-June.
14.. The applicant will assume responsibility for any
deficit incurred as a result of activities undertaken.
15. Funds not spent on "Celebrate Canada!" celebrations
are to be returned to the provincial/territorial Celebrate
Canada Committee. Cheques are to be made payable to
the Receiver General for Canada.
16. A detailed evaluation form, and a financial
statement, must be submitted to your provincial!
territorial Celebrate Canada Committee and MUST BE
POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN JULY 31.
17. The information provided in this application may be
used for program evaluation purposes. Details of your
project, including information about the individuals
mentioned in the application as being members of the
group, may be used in publicity releases.
Canadã
la fête du
CANADA
Day
Please find enclosed a Guide for Application for Celebrate Canada 2001 Activities. In order to
facilitate an effective and timely grant delivery process we ask that you observe the following
changes to the 2001 application process:
· THE DEADLINE FOR CELEBRATE CANADA 2001 APPLICATIONS IS
MARCH 31. 2001. APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED AFTER TillS DEADLINE
WILL NOT BE REVIEWED.
· Incomplete applications will not be processed. Please complete the attached check
list and return it with your applicatio~.
· As July 1, 2001 is a Sunday, events occurring on Monday July 2, 2001 are eligible
for funding.
Please note that you may also make requests for promotional material on page 6 of the
application. If you have any questions regarding the Celebrate Canada Application process please
do not hesitate to contact us at 1-800-749-7061 or (416) 973-1990.
We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your continued contribution to fostering a
sense of pride in being Canadian and wish you all the best for the 2001.
The Celebrate Canada Committee for Ontario
Canadã
la fête du
CANADA
Day
CHECK LIST FOR COMPLETING THE CELEBRATE
CANADA FUNDING APPLICATION
Before submitting your application for funding, please check the following boxes, and return this
checklist along with your completed application.
*PLEASE NOTE*
Incomplete and late applications will not be processed.
o Does your event take place on or between June 21 and July 2, 2001?
o Does the waiver on Page 5 have two different signatures on it?
o If you have a fireworks component to your event, is the bottom of the waiver on Page 5
completed?
o If you have a fireworks component to your event, have you submitted a written letter fTom
the fire chief, giving hislher permission to hold the fireworks (please note letter must
include date and location of event)?
o Has your group submitted a completed evaluation form for 2000?
n ...J...
\ ;:¡n~( I~
la fête du
CANADA
Day
CELEBRATE CANADA COMMITTEE FOR ONTARIO
2001 GRANT APPLICATIONS
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Eligible Items
Ineligible Items
·
Birthday Cakes.
·
Administration - i. e. photocopier,
fax, stamps, courier, phone etc.
· Entertainers Fees.
·
Contractor fees- i.e. marketing
agencies etc.
·
Fireworks.
·
Decorations.
·
Flowers / Tree planting.
·
Equipment rental
·
Permits / Licenses / Insurance.
·
Translation.
·
Salaries.
·
Printing to promote events - i.e..
flyers, brochures.
·
Balloons.
· Costumes.
· Prizes / Bursaries.
· Food - i.e. hotdogs, refteshments.
· Transportation - i. e. travel fees etc
· Capital Costs
· Rental of venues - halls, arenas
· Marketing - agencies
· Admission fee
~ ÒI.I
\ K1na a
6th Floor
400 University Avenue
Toronto ON M7A 2R9
Tel.: (416) 325-6200
Fax: (416) 325-6195
Ministère des Affaires civiques,
de la Culture et des Loisirs
Ministre
6e étage
400, avenue University
Toronto ON M7A 2R9
Tél. : (416) 325-6200
Télé.c.: (416) 325-6195
~
~~
Ontario
Ministry of Citizenship,
Culture and Recreation
Minister
~~~--
JAN 1 0 2001
December 2000
Dear Friends;
It is my pleasure to invite you to participate in Ontario's volunteer recognition programs for the year
2001. Designated by the United Nations General Assembly as the International of Volunteers (IYV),
2001 will be a yearlong, world-wide celebration of volunteerism. I am delighted that this commemora-
tion will build on and reinforce our plan to enable and recognize volunteers right here
in Ontario.
You will find enclosed information and nomination forms for three award programs that provide for an
opportunity to thank our volunteers and recognize them in a significant way. The programs are:
· The Ontario Volunteer Service Awards which recognize volunteers for continuous service with a
community group.
· The Outstanding Achievement Awards for Voluntarism in Ontario which recognize superlative
volunteer work by individuals, groups or businesses.
· The Ontario Medal for Young Volunteers which is presented to young volunteers between the ages
of 15 and 24 years in recognition of their outstanding achievements.
I ask you to carefully consider your volunteers with these award programs in mind. Our communities are
stronger, safer, more self-reliant and more vibrant as a result of volunteerism in Ontario. By participating
in our official award programs you can help ensure that volunteers in Ontario receive the recognition
they deserve.
During this International Year of Volunteers, my Ministry will prepare an IYV Calendar of Events. This
calendar will provide an exciting, regional and local picture of planned IYV events across Ontario. I am
enclosing an events form which I encourage you to fill out with your plans for recognizing volunteerism -
in 2001 and return by mail or fax as indicated on the form.
I look forward to recognizing this Province's volunteers in a noteworthy way this coming year.
Sincerely,
Helen Johns
Minister
,'/
-(@'~
i.1~
VOLUNTEER
ACTION
75
OntariW15 makil1qaalfferenœ
PLEASE RETURN THIS COMPLETED FORM TO:
. See reverse side for COMPLETE
General Guidelines ALL
and definitions of SECTIONS.
~]y\t EveÎ1tsn and/or Keep a copy
Activities. for your files.
. One event per
Please TYPE or PRINT form.
clearly.
IYV Ontario
Phone:
416-314-7536
400 University Avenue, 6th floor Fax: 416-314-7180
Toronto, Ontario M7A 2R9 Attention Maria Ariganello
E-mail: maria.ariganello@mczcr_9ov.on.ca
For Events Takina Place
December 31, 2000 - December 31,2001
N.S. _ Please ensure that YOu print this form on leqal size paper ( 8 1/2" X 14")
"Ontario's Heroes" -International Year of Volunteers Events and/or Activity Information Listings
Name of confirmed IYV Event or Activity (one event perform please): Category Code Dates (Beginning no earlier than December 31, 2000)
(see reverse) From 2000
To 2001
Location (Closest large rommunity within a radius of25 kIn)
Hours
Day of Week From To
,m ,m
pm pm
Directio!,!s to event from the location named above. Indicate name of building, street address,
access from highway or numbered road on road map, ete.
Maximum Capacity Anticipated
Attendance
Brief ~escription of I'N Event or Activity (maximum 60 words) List specific detaÎls such as awards PLEASE NOTE: The IYV Events or Activity
presentation,reœptJon, festival,conference,datesandtimesofSUb-events." PI ease indicate !fpreregistretion Listing Form is intended only for the col1ection of
is required and language{s} spol<eI1 information on:
PLEASE TYPE OR PR!NT CLEARLY TO ENSURE INFORMATION ON YOUR EVENT IS ACCURATE, !YV NOT FOR PROFIT EVENTS OR ACTIVITIES as
ONTARIO 1$ NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ILLEGIBLE ENTRIES. defined on the reverse.
If you are planning an rYV Event or Activity to
mark the International Year of Volunteers
piease proviáe details of how this event or actiVity
matches the definition of an iYV Event or Activity found
on the reverse.
Access and services for persons with disabilities
Ye' No Ye, No
Wheelchair access 0 0 Audio receivers for the hearing impaired 0 0
Wheelchair washrooms 0 0
Contact information to be published for further information
Phone NumberlBox Office ( ) Hours answered
Phone Location (city/town)
Name to be published (if necessary) Organization Web Site
Name of Organization
Age Category Admission Prices
l,theundersigned,certifythattheaboveisanIYVeventandthatadvanceregis1rationisnotrequired./f
possible. pJeaseattach abus/ness card. . Adults $
Contact Person (print) Ser1Íors(ovar_years} $
Title
Students (ages)_ $
Mailing Address of Organization Cityfrown Posta! Code $
Children (ages)_
Daytime phone number Family - $
Fax Number Emaîl
.. Signature of contact person (above) Date
Any personal information collected under this form is collected under the authority ofs. 4. of the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture Act, R..S.O
1990, Chapter M.18 as amended.
~
~
2
® Ontario
Ministry of Citizenship,
Culture and Recreation
IYV 2001 - "Ontario's Heroes"
IYV ACTIVITIES and EVENTS LISTING FORM
The following must apply to your attraction or event for listing in "Ontario's Heroes".
.. Definition of an Activity and/or Event for the Purposes of IYV Ontario:
IYV Ontario activity and/or event is:
Ontario-based, not-for.profit, events, or activities whose primary purpose is the recognition, celebration andlor promotion
of volunteers and volunteering.
Examples of activities and/or events include:
· Celebration and Recognition events
· Volunteer Awards ceremonies
· Volunteer Fairs! Trade Shows
· Award Luncheons/Dinners
· Fundraising Events
· Training and workshops for volunteers
· Special art exhibits
To qualify for inclusion in "Ontario's Heroes":
.. Definition of a qualifying SpeciallYV Event or Activity:
An Event must:
Take place in the Province of Ontario
Be a not-for-profitventure
Involve and attract an audience on a provincial or local level
Increase awareness and understanding of volunteering, Le. educate audiences about Ontario's proud history of volunteerisrn
in a positive way.
+ Celebrate volunteerinn in Ontario.
General Guidelines
Events published must be of considerable interest to a
large number of residents
Events must be open to the public withoutpre-registration
(indicate single show prices for a series,,)
Indicate cost if any.
Complete aU sections of the form,
. Use this form for ALL IYV EVENTS.
... Please note that we DO NOT list
certain types of events, including:
annual openings of seasonal attractions,
permanent collections, meetings,
open houses, reunions, anniversaries,
m~§lls, l;>ea1lD' p~geants, t3shion
shows, dances, parties, board or card games,
bingo, film (except film festivals), sing-alongs,
fireworks, children's recitals, school concerts,
garage sales, sidewalk sales, church and
hospital bazaars, political events, religious
celebrations - although some of these may be
included when they are part of a categorized
event.
... Please Note:
The Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation is not responsible for errors, omissions or misrepresentations contained in any Event
Listing
..
1010
1040
CategOl)' Codes
Arts & Culture (performing arts, museums, heritage, other)
Sport & Recreation (!ocal sport competitions, fitness, social
& service club, other)
Education (primary, secondary, higher education, literacy/
language, adult continuing, other)
Health (hospitals, health services, nursing homes, mental
health, suicide prevention, victims of crime, first aid training)
Socia! Services (children,youth programs, seniors, persons
with disabilities, other)
Community Emergency Support (volunteer fire department,
other)
Environment (natural, wildfire and animal resource,
conservation, protection, other)
Community, public safety, neighbourhood organiiations
Heritage events (walking tours, tourist sites), History in Action
1140
1170
1180
1200
1210
1220
1230
1250
Employment and Training Gob training and employment,
vocationaVguidance
Business and professional associations
Voluntary & Phi!antropic Sector (volunteer centres, foundations,
other)
International Aid (disaster/emergency prevention)
Faith Groups
Francophone
Philanthropy (Private and Foundations, other)
Aboriginal (First Nations, Friendship Centres, On Reserve)
Other
1260
1300
1310
1340
1360
1370
1560
0000
PLEASE SEE REVERSE
1
~
PLEASE RETURN THIS COMPLETED FORM TO:
IYV Ontario
Phone:
416-314-7536
400 University Avenue, 6th floor Fax: 416-314-7180
Toronto, Ontario M7A 2R9 Attention Maria Ariganello
E-mail: maria.ariganello@rnczcr.gov..on.ca
For Events Takina Place
December 31, 2000 - December 31 , 2001
. See reverse side for COMPLETE
General Guidelines ALL
and definitions of SECTIONS
"IYV Events" and/or Keep a copy
Activities. for your files
. One event per
Please TYPE or PRINT fonn
clearly.
N.S. _ Please ensure that you print this form on leqal size paper ( 8 1/2" X 14")
"Ontario's Heroes" -International Year of Volunteers Events and/or Activity Information Listings
Name of confirmed IYV Event or Activity (orle evellt per form pJease): Category Code Dates (Beginning no earlier than December 31, 2000)
(see reverse) From 2000
To 2001
Location (Closest large community within a radÎus of 2S kin)
Hours
Day of Week From To
am am
pm pm
Directiofls to event from the location named above, Indicate name of building, street address,
access from highway or numbered road on road map, etc.
Maximum Capacity Anticipated
Attendance
Brief Ç:escription of IYV Event or Activity (maximum 60 words) list specific details such as awards PLEASE NOTE: The IYV Events or Activity
presentation,reception,festivaLconference,datesandtimesofSUb-everlts. Please indîcate ifpreregistration Listing Form is intended only for the collection of
isrequiredarldlarlguage{s}spokerl information on:
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT CLEARLY TO ENSURE INFORI'IIATION ON YOUR EVENT IS ACCURATE, !'(II NOT FOR PROFIT EVENTS OR ACTIVITIES as
ONTARIO IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR IllEGIBLE ENTRIES. defined on the reverse
If you are planning an IYV Event or Activity to
mark the International Year of Volunteers
pfease provide details of how this event or activity
matr;hes the definition of an IYV Event or A(;fivity found
on the reverse.
Access and selVices for persons with disabilities
y" No Ye, No
Wheelchair access 0 0 Audio receivers for the hearing impaired 0 0
Wheelchair washrooms 0 0
Contact information to be published for further information
Phone Number/Box Office ( ) Hours answered
Phone Location (city/town)
Name to be published (if necessary) Organization Web Site
Name of Organization
Age Category Admission Prices
I, the undersigned, certify that the above is an rN event and that advance regIstration is not required" If
possible, please "ttach a businesscarc1. Adults $
Contact Person (print) Seniors (over_years) $
Title
Studerrts(ages)_ $
Mailing Address of Organization Cityrrown Posta! Code $
ChiIdren(ages)_
Daytime phone number Family - $
Fax Number Email
.. Signature of contact person (above) Date
Any personal infonnation col/ected under this form is collected under the authority ofs. 4 of the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture Act, R.S"O.
1990, Chapter M.18 as amended.
~
2
® Ontario
Mini$tl'yofCitizel\$hip..
Culture and Recreatlon
IYV 2001 - "Ontario's Heroes"
IYV ACTIVITIES and EVENTS LISTING FORM
The following must apply to your attraction or event for listing in "Ontario's Heroes".
... Definition of an Activity and/or Event for the Purposes of IYV Ontario:
IYV Ontario activity and/or event is:
Ontario-based, not-for-proflt. events, or activities whose primary purpose is the recognition, celebration and/or promotion
of volunteers and volunteering
Examples of activities and/or events include:
· Celebration and Recognition events
· Volunteer Awards ceremonies
· Volunteer Fairs! Trade Shows
· Award Luncheons/Dinners
· Fundraising Events
· Training and workshops for volunteers
· Special art exhibits
To qualify for inclusion in "Ontario's Heroes":
... Definition of a qualifying SpeciallYV Event or Activity:
An Event must:
Take place in the Province of Ontario
Be a not-for-profit venture
Involve and attract an audience on a provincial or local level
Increase awareness and understanding of volunteering, Le. educate audiences about Ontario's proud history of volunteerism
in a positive way.
. Celebrate volunteerin" in Ontario.
General Guidelines
Events published must be of considerable interest to a
large number of residents
Events must be aDen to the DubHe without Dre-reqistration
(indicate single show prices for a series,,)· ~
Indicate cost if any.
Complete all sections of the form
. Use this form for ALL IYV EVENTS.
... Please note that we QQ1!Q! list
certaintypes of events, including:
annual openings of seasonal attractions,
permanent conections, meetings,
open houses, reunions, anniversaries,
mea,ls, beauty p'ageants, fashion
shows, dances, parties, board or card games,
bingo, film (except film festivals), sing-alongs,
fireworks, children's recitals, school concerts.
garage sales, sidewalk sales, church and
hospital bazaars, political events, religious
celebrations - although some of these may be
included when they are part of a categorized
event.
... Please Note:
The Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation is not responsible for errors, omissions or misrepresentations contained in any Event
Listing
..
1010
1040
1140
1170
Category Codes
Arts & Culture (performing arts, museums, heritage, other)
Sport & Recreation (local sport competitions, fitness, social
& service c!ub, other)
Education (primary, secondary, higher education, literacy/
language, adult continuing, other)
Health (hospitals, health services, nursing homes, mental
health, suicide prevention, victims of crime, first aid training)
Social Services (chiidren,youth programs, seniors, persons
with disabHities, other)
Community Emergency Support (volunteer fire department,
other)
Environment (natural, wildfire and animal resource.
conservation, protection, other)
Community, public safety, neighbourhood organizations
Heritage events (walking tours, tourist sites), History in Action
1180
1200
1210
1220
1230
1250
Employment and TrainingUob training and employment,
vocational/guidance
Business and professional associations
Voluntary & Philantropic Sector (vo!unteer centres, foundations,
other)
International Aid (disaster/emergency prevention)
faith Groups
Francophone
Philanthropy (Private and Foundations, other)
Aboriginal (First Nations, Friendship Centres, On Reserve)
Other
1260
1300
1310
1340
1360
1370
1560
0000
PLEASE SEE REVERSE
..
1
'i.,¡.
"
st.
Thomas-Elgin. p~~~'C Art
.orme!:J:9>'''? /'"
/' '.?:~~'.~-ß_c:'·'Þ:>~'ij'/fr~-\\:-~
ART Q'/A·L LERoy
St.Tli6iitá;~Eígin
t'-J~''/'l.:::}V
6,:;":/].4'2/
«_.s.r?~
',/
Centre
DEC ;¡.O 2~Q
Tuesday, December 19, 2000
Warden McPhail & Members of County Council
Elgin County Council
450 Sunset Drive
St. Thomas, Ontario
N5R 5V1
Dear Warden McPhail & Members of County Council;
On behalf of the Board of Directors for the St. Thomas-Elgin Public Art Centre
(STEPAC), I am writing to request that one member of Elgin County Council be
appointed to represent Elgin County on STEPAC's Board of Directors for the upcoming
year 2001/02.
As a substantial supporter of STEPAC, maintaining an open bridge of
communication is beneficial for you and STEPAC. This idea is working well with the St.
Thomas City Council by which two members of City Council have been representatives
of St. Thomas on STEP AC's Board of Directors for the year 2000/01.
I am certain that this idea will work well for our relationship as well.
I thank you for your time and consideration with regards to this request, and I
look forward to hearing from you in the near future. If you have any questions, please
call me at 631-4040 at your convenience.
Sincerely,
~'~~
.
Lori Chamberlain
STEPAC Executive Director
76
301 Talbot Street, St. Thomas, Ontario N5P 185 Tel/Fax (519) 631-4040
JAN-15-01 07:53 AM COMFORT INN ST. THOMAS
15196338294
P.131
St. Thomas-Elgin Tourist Association
Elgin County
M~mbers of Council
Members of Council:
Th~ board of the ETA has discussed further appointies of the County.
We ask you to appoint Perry Clutterbuck as further representitive of the
County.
As tbird person 'W would like to see -a. member ofibe Ontario Farmers
As~ociation.
Thank you very much for your understanding.
J!úJ~
Carl-Wi:1heirn Bienefeld
President
Jan 15/01
77
CORRÊšfibNDENCE - Januarv 23rd. 2001
Items for Information - (Consent Aaenda)
1. OPAC Communique, "OPAC Welcomes Special Advisor to the Minister of Finance
(ATTACHED)
2. Honourable Ernie Hardeman, Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, with
copy of correspondence in regard to the Council's resolution in support of the position
paper from the Farm Animal Coalition of Elgin. (ATTACHED)
3. 2001 ROMAlOGRA Combined Conferences, Preliminary Program, Conference
Registration and Accommodation Registration Information. (ATTACHED)
4. P.J. Leack, City Clerk, City of St. Thomas, with the City's appointments to the 9-1-1
Steering Committee/Elgin County Emergency Measures Committee and the Dispute
Resolution Committee. (ATTACHED)
5. Premier Michael D. Harris, acknowledging: 1) Council's resolution calling for the
reinstatement of the special circumstances fund; and 2) Council's resolution
concerning privatization of correction services in Ontario.
6. Honourable Tony Clement, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, with the formal
requirements for the Municipal Performance Measurements Program. (ATTACHED)
7. Federation of Canadian Municipalities with: 1) Conference Registration Information
for the Sustainable Communities National Conference February 8-10. (Other details
available in Administration Services) and 2) Call for Resolutions for Consideration By
The FCM National Board of Directors, March 2001 or FCM Annual Conference, June
2001. (ATTACHED)
8. Letters of thank you for funding received from the County:
1) Rodney-Aldborough Agricultural Society (ATTACHED)
2) 4-H Association (ATTACHED)
3) Fanshawe College (ATTACHED)
4) Quad County Support Services (ATTACHED)
9. Neil T. McKerrell, Executive Director, Ministry of the Solicitor General, announcing
"National Emergency Preparedness Week" from May 7-13,2001. (ATTACHED)
10. Honourable Elizabeth Witmer, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care,
acknowledging Council's resolution concerning start-up funding for the transfer of
land ambulance services to municipalities. (ATTACHED)
11. AMO Member Communication ALERT: 1) Toward a New Municipal Act; 2) Two
More Bills Pass Legislature and Review of OPAC Announced (ATTACHED)
~
78
12. Karen Haslam, Mayor, City of Stratford, with registration forms and delegate
information to the "OSUM 2001" Conference in the City of Stratford, May 2_5th, 2001.
(ATTACHED)
13. Dr. Terry Francis, with copy of correspondence to the Municipality of Central Elgin
concerning negotiations regarding the SunsetlLyndale waterline. (ATTACHED)
14. David Stewart, County of Renfrew, with the AMO Directors Report, November 2000.
(ATTACHED)
15. Honourable Ernie Eves, Minister of Finance, acknowledging Council's resolution
concerning the possible sale of the Ontario Clean Water Agency) (ATTACHED)
16. Honourable Tony Clement, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, congratulating
the Warden and Members of Council on their election to County Council and outlining
some of the challenges to come over the next three years. (ATTACHED)
17. Premier Michael D. Harris, congratulating Warden McPhail and members of Council
on their election to County Council. (ATTACHED)
18. Harry Hoover, Manager, Elgin General Hospital Ambulance Service, thanking Council
for the retirement gift presented to him at his retirement reception. (ATTACHED)
19. Honourable James M. Flaherty, Attorney General, Minister Responsible for Native
Affairs, with an update on the POA transfer initiative. (ATTACHED)
20. Honourable Dan Newman, Minister of the Environment, acknowledging Council's
support for the renewal of the Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great
Lakes Basin Ecosystem. (ATTACHED)
21. Ontario News Release Communique and Backgrounder: 1) $300 Million Superbuild
Investment to Renew Ontario's Community Sport, Culture and Tourism Facilities; 2)
Superbuild Sports, Culture and Tourism Partnerships (SCTP) Initiative. (ATTACHED)
22. Association of Municipalities of Ontario, with registration for "Councillor Training"
Challenges for the 2001-2003 Term. (ATTACHED)
23.
Terry A. Cunningham, Program Coordinator, Ontario Pharmacists' Association,
requesting Council proclaim the week of March 5-11, 2001 as "Pharmacy Awareness
Week". (ATTAqHED)
J*/
d-~.7
,;¿r.
d- \.p.
Mayor P. Ostojic, City of St. Thomas - re: thank you for County's assistance with the recent
fire at 200 Chestnut Street. (ATTACHED)
Mayor P. Ostojic, City of St.Thomas - City/County continued cooperation
(ATTACHED)
AMO Member Communication ALERT and NEWS RELEASE - AMO Makes Another
Petition for Transportation and Transit Funding (ATTACHED)
. 79
Please circulate to: Linda B. Veger; Mark G_ McDonald
Sandra Heffren
Expedence
and technology
you c~n tl"'U$:t
c
. T
communique
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
OP AC Welcomes Special Advisor to the Minister of Finance
Pickering, Ontario, December 13,2000 - The Ontario Property Assessment Corporation
(OP AC) 31mounced today they are 100Icing forward to working together with Marcel Beaubien,
M.P.P. for Lawbton-Kent-Middlesex, a special advisor appointed by Finanec Minister El11ie
Eves_
Mr. Beaubien will be conducting a review of OP AC that focuses on the board structure of
OP AC, the interface betw-een OP AC and the provincial government and the Regulation which
dcfines property classifications. The Chairman ofOPAC's Board of Directors, Emil Kolb,
a.greed that tbe timing ofthis review is appropriate. "It's been almost three years since OPAC
was created,"said Kolb "and we've just sl1ccessfully concluded our first province-wide
reassessment. It's a good time for an obj eotive review to make sure we're still meeting the
expectations of MunicipaJities and of the Province."
OP AC was creatcd in December, 1997 as one of a number of transfers betw-een the municipal
and provincial levels of government. OP AC is a municipal, not for profit corporation. All
municipalities in Ontario are members ofOPAC, OPAC employs over 1500 staff who value
over 4 million properties and conduct the Province's triennial Munioipal enumeration.
"1 look forward to working with Mr. Beaubien on his review," said Kolb, "and on behalf of all
our members, I can assure him of OP AC' s wholehearted co-operation and assistance."
- 30-
Contact:
Michael Jacoby
Ontario Property Assessrnel1t Corporation
(905) 837-6287
or
Elizabeth 01ton
Ontario Property Assessme11t Corporation
(905) 837-6945
, SO
ItThis. is.:¡. paid announcement and views :md CDmmcllts expl'es:s:cd herein :Ire not n~sßrily endorsed by AMC1"O"
Minister of Agriculture,
Food and Rural Affairs
~
Ontario
Ministre de l'Agriculture,
de l'Alimentation
et des Affaires rurales
Queen's Park, Ontario
M5S 183
. BOV 3 0 2000
Mr. Steve Peters, MPP
Elgin-Middlesex -London
542 Talbot Street
St. Thomas, Ontario
N5P IC4
DEC 4 '2000
Dear Mr. Peters:
Thank you for your October 3, 2000 letter with the enclosed position paper from the Farm
Animal Coalition of Elgin and the resolution passed by the County of Elgin in support of that
paper. All input is appreciated and will be reviewed as we move forward in the development
of legislation for agricultural operations in Ontario.
The Farm Animal Coalition of Elgin's position paper is very comprehensive. I appreciate the
time and effort that is required to develop such a response, and note that a copy of the paper
has already been sent to ministry staff. I assure you that every submission is being given
serious consideration.
Once again, thank you for forwarding this information to my attention.
Minister
.
8'
2001 ROMAlOGRA COMBINED CONFERENCES
February 25th - 28th
Royal York Hotel, Toronto
Shaping the Municipal Landscape
Strategies for Success
Preliminary Program
(Subject to Change)
Sundav. February 25th
3:00 p.m. Keynote Speaker: David Johnson, Chair, Ontario Municipal Board
(invited)
5:00 p.m. Welcome Opening Reception
Mondav. February 26th
9:00 a.m. Keynote Speaker: Hon. Tony Clement, Minister of Municipal Affairs and
Housing
10:00 a.m. Ministers' Open Forum (invited)
Hon. Tony Clement, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Hon. Ernie Eves, Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance
Hon. Chris Hodgson, Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet
Hon. Timothy Hudak, Minister of Northern Development and Mines
Hon. Cameron Jackson, Minister of Tourism
Hon. David Newman, Minister of the Environment
Hon. AI Palladini, Minister of Economic Development and Trade
Hon. John C. Snobelen, Minister of Natural Resources
Hon. David Tsubouchi, Solicitor General
Hon. Jim Wilson, Minister of Energy, Science and Technology
Hon. Elizabeth Witmer, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care
1 :30 p.m. Four Concurrent Workshops
3:00 p.m. Report of the ROMA Nominating Committee
Report of the OGRA Nominating Committee
ROMA and OGRA Resolutions Debate
.. .lover
82
Tuesdav. February 27th
Page 2 of 2001 ROMAlOGRA Combined
Conferences Prelîminary Program
8:00 a.m. Continental Breakfast
9:00 a.m. Keynote Speaker: Hon. David Turnbull, Minister of Transportation
10:30 a.m. Four Concurrent Workshops
12:00 noon OGRA Awards Luncheon
Elections for ROMA Executive Committee and OGRA Board of Directors
(if required)
2:00 p.m. Speaker: Hon. Ernie Hardeman, Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural
Affairs
2:30 p.m. Four Concurrent Workshops
7:00 p.m. Banquet and Entertainment
The True Country Show featuring the True Country Band - DETOUR & Guests, and
THE QUEENS OF COUNTRY MUSIC. Relive an unforgettable era of vintage country
music - Patsy Cline, Tammy Wynnette, Loretta Lynn, Hank Williams, and much
more. This traditional country music production, blended with a touch of 'new belt
buckle country', features several of southwestern Ontario's top 'small town' female
country vocalists and their special tribute to some of country music's greatest
legends.
Wednesday. February 28th
8:00 a.m.
Continental Breakfast
8:30 a.m.
Question Box - Delegate Questions to the Experts
Panel Chair: Michael J. Smither, Publisher and Editor, Municipal World,
and Honorary Life Member of ROMA (invited)
Expert Panel to be Confirmed
10:00 a.m. Closing Keynote Speaker: W.O. (Rusty) Russell, Q.C., of the law firm
Russell, Christie, Miller, Koughan, Winnitoy in Orillia
Topic: Swimming with the Sharks
11 :00 a.m. Remarks by ROMA Chair-Elect
Remarks by OGRA President-Elect
Adjournment of the Combined Conferences
,
8~
.
2001 ROMA/OGRA
COMBINED CONFERENCES REGI5TI
Royal York Hotel, Toronto'I,
RETURN TO: February 25 - 28, 2(
ROMA/OGRA COMBINED COHÆREHCES COORDINATOR
Unit #2, 530 Otto Road
Mississauga, ON L5T ZL5
(905) 795-2555
NOTE: Member fees refer to ROMA and/or 0<3
I
PRE-REGISTRATION FEES ON-SITE REGISTRATION FUNCTIONS NOT INCLUDED IN THE REGISTRJ
I
Delegate (member) $300 Delegate (member) $330 Banquet Ticket $60
Delegate (non-member) $375 Delegate (non-member) $415 Awards Luncheon $40
Companion (member) $75 Companion (member) $75
Companion (non-member) $100 Companion (non-member) $100
REFUND POLICY
Full refunds of pre-registration fees ONLY will be issued to January 31. 2001. Refunds of 75% will be issued from February
-
I ";c L.f.,' r. " . '
PLEASE MAKE A COpy FOR YOUR R\
,
Name of Contact:
Mailing Address:
Telephone No. Fax No.:
cc i?:~ŒÒ1 ROMAlOGRA COMBINED CONFERENCES
~~\;/ :Ù~' Sej
FEBRUARY 25 to 28, 2001
DEC 1 3 2000
ELGiN
SCHEDULE OF HOTEL RATES
CROWNE PLAZA
225 Front Street West
416-597-1400
1-800-227-6963
Single Bedroom
Double Bedroom
- $179
- $179
ROYAL YORK HOTEL
100 Front Street West
416-368-2511
1-800-441-1414
Single Bedroom
Double Bedroom
Single Pacific Premier
Double Pacific Premier
- $139 Small Suite
- $155 Medium Suite
- $209 Large Suite
- $225
- $499
- $599
- $759 & up
SHERATON CENTRE
123 Queen Street West Single Bedroom - $135
416-361-1000 Double Bedroom - $135
1-800-325-3535
STRATHCONA HOTEL
60 York Street Single Bedroom - $105
416-363-3321 Double Bedroom - $105
1-800-268-8304
(Note: All rates are subject to PST and GST, if applicable)
PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 7, 2001, ALL RESERVATIONS MUST BE MADE USING THE
OFFICIAL HOUSING FORM. AFTER THAT DATE, PLEASE CONTACT THE
HOTELS DIRECTLY FOR CANCELLATIONS AND CHANGES.
Information over. . .
85
2001 ROMAlOGRA COMBINED CONFERENCES
ACCOMMODATION INSTRUCTIONS AND IMPORTANT INFORMATION
1. Reservations must be received before February 7, 2001. After this date, all
conference room blocks will be released, and any requests for room reservations
must be negotiated with hotels directly.
2. No telephone reservations will be accepted. Reservations will be processed only
if received on the official Housing Bureau form, or a photocopy thereof. One form
must be completed for each room requested.
3. Acknowledgements will be mailed or faxed by the Housing Bureau as indicated
on the official housing form. Please allow at least 10 days for receipt of this
acknowledgement.
4. A deposit of $150 per room, payable to ROMAlOGRA Housing Bureau, must
accompany each written request. Payments acceptable include cheque, bank
draft and money order. In lieu of deposit, credit card information is acceptable.
Please note that a credit card number will act only as a room guarantee - there
will be no charge to the card unless the delegate cancels within 72 hours of
arrival.
5. Hotel reservations are made on a first come first served basis. Please mail or
fax form early.
6. Send only one form if sharing with a colleague. Multiples cause duplication and
possible double charging.
7. For your own records, please keep a photocopy of your original housing form.
8. Prior to February 7,2001, all changes must be made in written form only. Phone
calls will not be accepted. After this date, modifications can be made with the
hotel directly.
9. If cancelling prior to February 7, 2001, you must notify the Housing Bureau by
mail or fax at (416) 203-8477. Phone the hotel directly if you are cancelling after
February 7,2001 to avoid billing. You must cancel 72 hours before expected
date of arrival.
10. If requesting reservations after February 7,2001, you should contact the hotel(s)
directly. You may wish to use the services of Accommodation Toronto at 1-800-
363-1990 or 416-203-2500, which has information on current room availability in
Metro Toronto. Convention rates cannot be guaranteed after February 7th.
Rates over ...
86
2001 ROMA/OGRA COMBINED CONFERENCES
February 25th to 28th
Royal York Hotel, Toronto
Name of Person Requesting Room:
Surname
Given Name
Name of Municipality/Company/Organization
Street Address or P.O. Box Number
City/Town, etc..
Postal Code
( )
Telephone (include Area Code)
{
Fax
Name of Contact Person
( )
Telephone
Arrival Date
Departure Date
Room Type:
Single (1 person, 1 bed)
Double (2 people, 1 bed)
Twin (2 people, 2 beds)
Suite (size)
1 or 2 bedrooms
Hotel Choice. Please number 3 choices
Royal York Hotel
Crowne Plaza
Sheraton Hotel
Strathcona Hotel
Smoking
Non-Smoking
Sharing Room With
I am enclosing a deposit cheque in the amount of $
Payable to ROMAlOGRA Housing Bureau ($150 per room minimum)
OR
I am enclosing credit card infonnnation
Visa
Master Card
American Express
#
Expiry Date
Signature
- I would like my housing bureau acknowledgement sent to me by fax
87
mail
-
2001 ROMA/OGRA COMBINED CONFERENCES
CONFERENCE HOTELS
TN
UEEN ST.
u.i
:;::
~
...
¡Q
w
>
...
z
:;:)
CITY HALL.
~ Sheraton t¡;
æ Centre ~
o aI
>-
~
w
1:1
Z
o
>-
~
III
~
CC
...
~
W
o
U
~
...
III
KING ST.
.
Crowne
Plaza
Hotel Station St.
FRONT ST.
GJJ.R.OIIV£R. £XPR.£SSWJJ.Y
88
ONTARIO
GOOD ROADS
ASSOCIATION
530 OTTO ÁOAD, UNIT 2
MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO
L5T 2L5
TELEPHONE 905 795 - 2555
FAX 905 795 - 2660
~óØrÞ-:~
ONTARIO GOOD ROADS ASSOCIATION
LONG SERVICE AWARDS RECIPIENTS
NAME YEARS MUNICIPALlTY/ORGANIZA TION
Max McKelvey 43 Townships of Anson, Hindon and Minden
Ronald L. Coleman 39 Township of Stanley
Elwood Carr 38 Township of Hamilton
David Allison 37 City of Quinte West
Wayne Cooke 35 County of Northumberland
William H. MacDonald 34 Town of Huntsville
Harold O. Towns 33 Township of Hamilton
Russell Woods 32 Town of New Liskeard
Clarence Drury 31 Township of Adjala-Tosorontio
Glen Mullen 31 Township of Seguin
Ralph S. Noel 30 City of Oshawa
Kenneth A. Telfer 30 Township of Southwold
As of December 1, 2000 we have received the above recipients for a long service award. The
award will be presented by the Hon. David Turnbull, Minister of Transportation at the Awards
Luncheon on February 27th during the Annual Conference.
If you require any further forms please contact Theone at 905-795-2555 or e-mail
theone(â)oQra.orQ
89
2001 ROMAlOGRA COMBINED CONFERENCES
PUBLIC WORKS & MUNICIPAL SERVICES SHOW
February 25 - 27, 2001
Royal York Hotel, Toronto
Conference delegates will have the opportunity to meet with representatives from the
following firms to discuss and see the newest in products and services.
AGO Industries inc.
Amaco Equipment
Armtec Limited
Ashwarren Internationai Inc.
Association of Ontario Road Supervisors
Atlantic Industries Ltd.
Basic Technologies
Bulk-Store Structures Inc.
Canadian Council of Independent Lab.
Centennial Concrete Pipe & Products Inc.
Con Cast Pipe
Cover-All Building Systems
Domm Construction
Dow Chemical
Environment Canada
EPCOR
ESRI
Force America
General Chemical Canada Ltd.
H.I.P. Hot-In-Place Recycling
IMOS
Innovative Municipal Products Inc.
Jagger Hims Limited
Jardine OME Insur.ance Brokers
Joe Johnson Equipment Inc.
John Emery Geotechnical Engineering
Joint Pipelines of Ontario
KMK Consultants Ltd.
Krown Corp - Krown Rust Control
Landmark Builders Ltd.
Lavis Contracting Co. Ltd.
Linetech Design & Mfg. Ltd. & Flex-O-Lite
Maccaferri Canada Ltd.
McAsphalt Industries Limited
Miller Paving Limited
MSO Construction
Municipal Health & Safety Association
Municipal World
MuniSoft
Ontario Clean Water Agency
Ontario Concrete Pipe Association
Ontario Realty Corporation
Ontario Traffic Conference
Owl-Lite Rentals Sales & Manufacturers
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited
Reinforced Earth Company Ltd.
Roadmark Engineering Limited
Ronen House
Roto-MiII Services Ltd.
Seeley & Arnill
Sifto Canada Inc.
Sodrox Environmental
Stantec Consulting Management Systems
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co.
Summum Signs
Superior Road Products
T errafrx
The Jones Consulting Group
Totten Sims Hubicki Associates (1997) Limited
Trackless Vehicles Ltd.
Unilock
Unique Paving Materials Corporation
Viking-Cives Ltd.
World Weathervvatch
90
ROMA/OGRA COMBINED CONFERENCES
February 25 to 28,2001
ROYAL YORK HOTEL, TORONTO
COMPANIONS' PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS
Sunday, February 25th
OPENING RECEPTION
Come and renew acquaintances and meet new faces.
Monday, February 26th
"Mystery at the High Tea"
Come for an afternoon of mystery and English High Tea at the Royal
York Hotel. The mood is set as you enter the Imperial Room and enjoy
the Royal York blend of tea and pastries. As you mingle, you will meet
some colourful characters. The plot thickens when someone you've
just met dies or a body is discovered! A detective leads the
'I investigation. The suspects are spread throughout the room, sitting
right at the tables with you. So you get to participate and see if you
can solve... WHODUNIT!?!
COMPANIONS' HOSPITALITY ROOM
Meet old friends and new acquaintances in the companions' hospitality room! This room is reserved
for card games, pin exchanges or a friendly chat. In addition, information will be available on local
attractions and places to shop. Plan your own excursion!
... over
91
Tuesday, February 27th
Choose from the following options (options subject to change):
~<; CAA WORKSHOP
(> Do you travel alone? Do you know how to change a flat tire? CM will give you
some tips on how to deal with minor problems with your vehicle.
GOLFING TIPS AND TECHNIQUES
Are you a wannabe ''Tiger Woods"? Paul Enright, Head Teaching Professional
from the Royal Woodbine Golf Club will host this session. Beginners and Pro's will
receive tips and advice that will improve their golfing skills. This session is a must
if you are an avid golfer.
"YOUR DAY IN COURT"
His worship Bob Leggate, Justice of the Peace, Ontario Court of Justice will
provide information on "Your Day in Court". This session will give you information
on the background of the Court system and guide you through the sequence of
events as they would occur from offence to completion of a trial.
GARDENING TIPS
ROYAL YORK TOURS
Plant em', Weed em' and Reep what you sow. TV personality, Frank Ferragine of
Bradford Greenhouses will provide tips on starting seeds, spring garden preparation,
and a sneak preview of materials and equipment for 2001. Questions are welcome
so bring in any concerns you have regarding your garden. With Frank's help, you
can have that beautiful garden you always wanted.
This tour will take you through the heart of the Royal York Hotel. The tour will
include the convention floor kitchens, housing rooms, the Royal Suite (if available),
laundry department and garbage/recycling.
The registration fee is $75. Tickets for the awards luncheon and banquet on Tuesday are available at
additional costs.
Plan now to attend the ROMAlOGRA Combined Conferences in February 2001
Marlha Dion
Chair, 2001 Companions' Program Committee
.
92
Peter J. Leack, M.P.A.
City Clerk
Office of the Clerk
P O. Box 520, City Hall
St. Thomas, Ontario N5P 3V7
Telephone: (519) 631-1680 Ext.l00
Fax: (519) 633-9019
DEC 18 2000
Corporation ofthe City of St. Thomas
December 14th, 2000
MrS. Sandra 1. Heffren, Deputy Clerk
County of Elgin
450 Sunset Drive
St. Thomas, Ontario
N5R 5VI
Re: Appointments - 9-1-1 Steerilll!: Committee/Elgin County Emergencv Measures Comm.
Dear Mrs. Heffren:
Please be advised that the Council of the Corporation of the City of St. Thomas has appointed the
following to the 9-1-1 Steering CommitteelElgin County Emergency Measures Committee for
the year 2001:
Alderman Marie Turvey RR. #6, St. Thomas, N5P 3Tl
Mr. Peter J. Leack, City Clerk
Mr. Roy Lyons, Fire Chief
631-0936 Fax: 631-2778
631-1680 Ext. 120
631-0210
Sincerely,
.--:::::;
P. J. Leack
City Clerk
/mlv
93
Peter J. Leack, M.P.A.
Ci1y Clerk
,---.
(f~~.
~,;;;7\,\'~
_._.'~'~"" ----./--;0:. ~
\:, '-, ~-'Th-'':!' i,:'!
r-\..-j/_~I'
~C7~~:""" _-
,17 15.,¿,\·._ '.....
. -~'<:r< 'tt'J\
'. >\'?'--<-~ in--- I
CYI~ ~"."+?<" [,
'-!Â' " ",' .<
\, --;,~,,),-;;:'-.,'i
è \. (æ;:'-;"~:: '-.::;'1 j
, . 'CØ4' ,-P,_
-.... \~~I) -.y~'----.Y'
G~" /~
~~~
~r"rH"OUGHPI<
Office of the Clerk
P. O. Box 520, Ci1y Hall
St Thomas, Ontario N5P 3V7
Telephone: (519) 631-1680 Ext.100
Fax: (519) 633-9019
-
Corporation ofthe City of St. Thomas
DEC 18 2000
COUNTY OF ELGiN
t; ~~" '''"¡'''~~rni\T~~ W' ~'=R~·ff.r::~~
¡t\RJr~1~¡~t~û ~ r,J"t ~ ~1J~ vf.:~ ;;'~~~?i..~
December 13th, 2000
Mrs. Sandra J. Heffren, Deputy Clerk
County of Elgin
450 Sunset Drive
St. Thomas, Ontario
N5R 5Vl
Re: Appointments - Dispute Resolution Committee
Dear Mrs. Heffren:
Please be advised that the Council of the Corporation of the City of St. Thomas has appointed the
following to the Dispute Resolution Committee for the term of Council (2001 - 2003):
Mayor Peter Ostojic
Alderman Ray Parks
Alderman Marie Turvey
21 Daugharty Drive, N5R 4W4
9 McGregor Court, N5P 4H7
R.R. #6, St. Thomas, N5P 3T1
637-3056
633-5832
631-0936
Fax: 637-3072
Fax: 633-9227
Fax: 631-2778
Sincerely,
P. J. Leack
City Clerk
¡mlv
94
The Premier
of Ontario
Le Premier ministre
de 'Ontario
I~
~.~
~.....,.
Ontario
Legislative Building
Queen's Park
Toronto, Ontario
M7A1A1
Hôtel du gouvernement
Queen's Park
Toronto (Ontario)
M7A1A1
December 13, 2000
DEC 18 2000
Mrs. Sandra J. HeffJ-en
Deputy Clerk
County of Elgin
450 Sunset Drive
St. Thomas, Ontario
N5R 5VI
Dear Mrs. Heffren:
Thank you for your letter informing me of council's resolution calling for the reinstatement of
the special circumstances fund. I appreciate your keeping me informed of council's activities.
I have sent a copy of your correspondence to the Honourable Ernie Eves, Minister of Finance,
for his information. Be assured that he will give this matter his careful consideration.
Again, thank you for writing.
Sincerely,
Michael D. Harris, MPP
c: The Honourable Ernie Eves
@
The Premier
of Ontario
Le Premier ministre
de 1'0ntario
ltÆ
~mæDI'"
Ontario
Legislative Building
Queen's Park
Toronto, Ontario
M7A 1A1
Hôtel du gouvernement
Queen's Park
Toronto (Ontario)
M7A1A1
~
"""
January 8, 2001
JAN J!. J!. 20m
Mrs. Sandra J. Heffren
Deputy County Clerk
County of Elgin
450 Sunset Drive
St. Thomas, Ontario
N5R 5Vl
Dear Mrs. Heffren:
Thank you for your letter informing me of council's resolution regarding the privatization of
correctional services in Ontario.
I have noted the views of council on this matter and have taken the liberty of forwarding a
copy of your motion to the Honourable Nonn Sterling, Minister of Correctional Services.
Again, thank you for making me aware of council's position on this matter.
Sincerely,
Michael D. Harris, MPP
c: The Honourable Nonn Sterling
@
Ministry of
Municipal Affairs
an~ Housing
Office of the Minister
777 Bay Street
Toronto ON M5G 2E5
Tel: (416) 585-7000
www.mah.gov.OD.ca
December 8, 2000
Heads of Council
Dear Heads of Council:
Ministère des
Affaires municipales
et du Logement
Bureau du ministre
l~
~V~
~-~
Ontario
777 rue Bay
Toronto ON M5G 2E5
Tel: (416) 585-7000
www.mah.gov.OD.ca
DEC 18 200D
Further to my letter dated Octóber 3, 2000, I am writing to advise you of the formal
requirements for the Municipal Performance Measurement Program.
When I introduced this program, I described it as cùtting-edge, the first of its kind in
North America and one that will likely become a model for other jurisdictions. This
program is also a part of the province's effort to balance greater municipal authority with
better accountability - something I have spoken about a great deal and a probable feature
in a new Municipal Act.
Many municipal leaders have welcomed this program. They have said the principles it
puts forward are ones they support and, in fact, already practise to some extent. I
appreciate this feedback and hope it continues. Your input is integral to further refining
the measures and to developing new ones for subsequent years. With your feedback, this
program will work to its full potential for the benefit of our constituents.
In terms of formal obligations, municipalities are required to provide the ministry with
information on the efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery in nine core service
areas, pursuant to Section 83.1 of the Municipal Act. Attached is a schedule setting out
the requirements for submitting data to the province with a chart describing the measures
for which municipalities are required to collect data. .
You will soon receive a comprehensive handbook, detailed definitions and other
information materials to help you implement this program. For additional support,
ministry staff will hold regionally based training workshops early in the new year.
In the meantime, should you have questions, please feel free to contact the ministry's
Municipal Support Services Branch at (416) 585-7296.
Attachment
95
MUNICIPAL PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT
Made under Section 83.1 of the Municipal Act
Schedule dated 8 December 2000
PROVISION OF DESIGNATED MUNICIPAL INFORMATION
1. (1) A municipality shall in respect of each municipal fiscal year provide to the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Housing (the "Minister") the performance measurement information
designated in the attached chart (the "chart"). The chart forms part of this Schedule.
(2) The information provided by a municipality under subsection (1) shall include performance
measurement information for any planning board, police services board, public utility
commission or transit commission of the municipality.
(3) This section does not include any requirement for an entity described in clause (b), (c), Cd)
or (e) of subsection 83.1(1) of the Municipal Act to provide performance measurement
infonnation directly to the Minister.
2. A municipality shall provide the information required by section 1 to the Minister not later
than four months after the last day of the fiscal year to which the information relates.
3. A municipality shall provide the information required by section 1 by reporting that
infonnation in those schedules or lines in the municipality's financial information return for the
relevant municipal fiscal year that correspond to the service or function perfonnance
measurement categories designated in the chart.
4. A planning board, police services board, public utility commission or transit commission of
a municipality shall make available for review by the municipality any performance
measurement information designated in the chart related to services or functions supplied in
respect of that municipality by the board or commission in a fiscal year.
APPLICATION
5. If a municipality does not supply a service or function at any time in a fiscal year, section 1
does not include any requirement for the municipality to provide information related to that
service or function designated in the chart for the fiscal year.
6. Despite anything in this Schedule, ouly a municipality designated as a delivery agent under
the Ontario Works Act. 1997 is required to provide information to the Minister with respect to
items 34 and 35 listed in the chart.
7. In this Schedule, "supply" means supply pursuant to a statute, bylaw or resolution or an
arrangement or agreement with any person or municipality, and "supplied" has a corresponding
meaning.
I
96
MUNICIPAL PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT INFORMATION
REPORTING CATEGORIES
Garbage (Solid Waste Management)
1. Operating costs for waste collection per ton or per household.
2. Operating costs for waste disposal per ton or per household.
3. Operating costs for recycling per ton or per household.
A municipality providing information under items 1,2 or 3 shall provide the information on a per
household basis only if the information is not available on a per ton basis.
4. Test results for solid waste disposal sites.
5. Number of complaints concerning the collection of garbage and recycled materials per
ton collected or per 1,000 households.
6. Percentage of residential solid waste diverted for recycling and tons of solid waste
recycled.
7. Percentage of industrial, commercial and institutional solid waste div~rted for recycling
and tons of solid waste recycled.'
Sewage
8. Operating costs for collection of sewage and stormwater per kilometre of sewer line.
9. Operating costs for treatment and disposal of sewage and stormwater per cubic metre
treated.
10. Number of sewer-main backups per kilometre of sewer line.
II. Test results for sewage treatment operations.
12. Number of hours when untreated or partially treated sewage was released into a lake or
natural water course.
Water
13. Operating costs for water treatment per million litres of water treated.
14. Operating costs for water distribution per kilometre of distribution pipe.
2
97
15. Percentage of water produced that is not billed.
16. Test results for water treatment and distribution systems.
17. Number of breaks in water mains per kilometre of water main pipe.
18. Number of days when a boil-water advisory issued by the Medical Officer of Health and
applicable to a municipal water supply was in effect. .
Transportation
19. Operating costs for paved roads per lane kilometre.
20. Percentage of paved lane kilometres rated adequate.
21. Operating costs for unpaved roads per lane kilometre.
22. Operating costs for winter control maintenance of roadways per lane kilometre.
23. Percentage of winter-event responses that meet or exceed municipal road maintenance
standards. .
24. Number of conventional transit passenger trips per person in the service area.
25. Operating costs for conventional transit per regular service passenger trip.
Fire
26. Operating costs for fire services per $1,000 of assessment.
27. Total dollar losses due to structural fires, averaged over three years, per $1,000 of
assessment.
Police
28. Operating costs for police services per $1,000 of assessment.
29. Percentage of cases cleared for the following Statistics Canada categories: violent crimes;
property crimes; other Criminal Code crimes ( excluding traffic); Criminal Code traffic;
drugs; èrimes under other federal statutes. ..
Local Government
30_ Operating costs for municipal administration as a percentage of total municipal operating
costs.
3
98
31. Operating costs for members of council per capita and as a percentage of total municipal
operating costs.
Land~Use Planning
32. Number and percentage of new lots approved that are located in settlement areas.
33. Percentage of designated agricultural land preserved.
Social Services
34. Percentage of persons receiving Ontario Works assistance that participated in
welfare- to-work activities.
35. Percentage change in the number of people receiving social assistance.
A municipality providing infonnation under items 34 and 35 shall provide it in respect of the
geographic area designated for that municipality as a delivery agent under the Ontario Works
Act. 1997.
~~
4
Federation of ~
Canadian Mwiicipallties
FédératÎon canadienrie ~
des mwiicipalirés
November 27; 2000
~ .
Ele:ct~dand Appointed A/iunicipå/Officials.: Take: Note
~ Plan Now to Attel'1c1 FCM's First Ännual
SustainableCómn'\unitiesConference and· Trade Show ~
Ottawa. Ontario, Februarv S.:. 1 0.20Ö1
Help build:a better quality of life through sustainable community
development by attending the Federatiol) of Canadian Municipalities' (FCM) First
Annual Sustainable Communities Conference and Trade Show. Find out how
your community can benefit from FCM:s Green Municipal Funds. Leam from
,world leaders in sustainabilîty. Retool, rethink and reinvest ~ with hands-on
workshops. Network with your peers and meet senior federal officials who Can
help your municipality. implement sustainable ~trátegies. .
From seminars ànd workshops to plenary sessions and a trade show with
. leading environmental firms, everyone with a stake in the'municipàl sector should
attend Canada's most important conference on sustainability. Space. is limited,
so please rÈ!Vièw the attachèd Preliminary .program and Registfatiòn
Information and send the required forms to FCM before January 19, 2001
Members of FCM's Partners for Climate Protection Program participate at no
charge. The fee for' all other delegates is only $195.
I look forward to meeting you in Ottawa.
Yours sincerely, .
¿;?~4_~ .
~
Councillor John V. Hachey
~ Chair, FCM Standing
Committee on
~ Environmental Issues
~:"":"..,~->. 'C":;.:""',~..,'>. é'":;'--'è' "" -:-", 'J _,',. ...." :c. :;.,:~..
';O~"i <',:;;;,
C~"'C-~- iib:iiÈJ-j}!
DEe
2000
MissiolLStateiiieD,_t: "'-. . ,'-- -'--':. '. . . _ : "
Thf Fedtrilti.onof~nadÍfln_~unicÍjJd!ities is/heTld~o:1Jß1t1iJìce of
mu~ì[ipalgõvêrnmen~s,_: dedicttJedto iÌnpr~~gtþ~ qUI11ir:af!ife
in all(:01fimunitieibypronif¡ting.-štrong,- efféqrir¿e-and accpjmtab~
municip~lgovq'nment.
'Inoncéd~'mÚsion ,'. " " _ . .' :
EiPédér.tltioncanndjenne .ri4',in'1nicipàlitfrist Uvot-!l'!dotUle_
rksgo~venzemints m~njcipauX. __Sonpza[id4t tsfiM-Contribui à
{'amélioratiJJhdeì4quaji~ck vie:d4ns wUUsles_c~:mmÚrial!t4:a*
p':01Jlou1!~ir un g~~lfèrræmt?!1tmun!~Palfort e.fficdce ei respo~abfe'
COUIlci1lór)oallne;Monaghan/
KitirPat,BritishCoÌurnbìä
President
. - Préšidënte
Çouncillor Jack Layton
TorontO, Ontario
Fì~tVice Prei;idtnt
: Pr~mie~ _vicè 'président
AldërniahJplìn Sdiffial
Calgary, Alberta'
Secürtd Vice:Prèsiclent
Dè{¡x¡èrÙe ~œ' prei;id~n~
.
]iÆaireYv'ésDuœarme
Hull (q:ébec) : :
Third Vice Presidé~t
Troisième vice présid~nt,
tv.rayotSariLSynatd.,
IYfaiyst?~n,Nëwfoimdland
and Labrador
PastPÚsidënt
;Présiden( so1;taiit
, )aníe~W :Knighi:
ChiefExécuéiye9ffìcer
Chëf-deladirection
2~4rùeèIâr~~6eStteet , ,
(Ùtiwa,.'qritari6Ï<Ç1N '5P3
'6' (613)241-5221~
Q! (613) 241-7440
fédern-clo.n@fcm;ca
Websitasite;' wëb ::WìvwJcm,ca'
Policywd Public, ~aiiS., '
~J>_olitiques eraffaires_ publiqh~.
Q! (613) 244-2250
polio/@fcI!Í:'(:3,
SuStainãbleCommunitiei;
a:ridE~vji6~me?tal Policy:
.. Collectiyités viable:; et
poIiti~ues emriroimementales
Q! (6Ù)244-15i5
tominuhitie,s@fcm;'i.a
''',' "
Ç~rp9rat:e: I)~velopinent
Dbe1dppement co~poratif
Q! (613)241-2126'
c01:porate@fcDl'ci:
IiÌt~rnitÍoriai Offi~~
BÌlreaÌlintematioIial
'Q! (613)241-7117
-intematìon;il@fC1:ÇL.ai
~(\
~..
Registration details
You may register online at www.fcm.ca.
OR RETURN THIS REGISTRATION FORM
BY FAX OR MAIL NO LATER THAN
January 19, 2001
Inscription
Vous pouvez vous inscrire en ligne à
l'adresse www.fcm.ca. OU RETOURNER
CE FORMULAIRE PAR TÉLÉCOPIEUR au PAR LA
POSTE AVANT Ie 19 janvier 2001
FAX BACK TO I PAR TÉLÉCOPIEUR AU : 613-241-1515
Participant
information
Coordonnées de
délégué( e)
Veuillez remplir un formulaire
unique pour chaque délégué(e).
Please fill out a separate form
for each participant.
o Dr. / D'
OMr./M.
o Mrs. / Mm.
o M.s. / MlIe
Name / Nom
Title / Titre
Organization / Organisme
Address / Adresse
City, Province/Territory, Postal Code / Ville, province/territoire, code postaL
Telephone / Téléphone
Fax / T élécopieur
E-mail / Courriel
Method of payment
Please make cheque payable to
the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities
Paiement
Veuiltez faire votre chèque au nom
de la Fédération canadienne des
municipatités
o Cheque I Chèque 0 Visa
o Amex
o Mastercard
Card # I N° de carte
Expiry Date I Date d'expiration
Name I Nom
Signature
Send to I Envoyer à :
FCM, 24, rue Clarence Street, Ottawa ON K1 N 5P3
General Information
Registration Feès:
. PCP Member Municipal Governments
Others·
i,:... ......·"c:'.:·,·(f:.......>':<:····::::..: .?:.::'.....:.,
Regjst¡ati~ñ iñ~l~des two buffet lunches.
FREE
$195
,...,.....__.,.....".....:.'.....,.......,.",;.._..._. __ .. .0. ..,
To assist you in arranging accommodation, hotel
room blocks have been rese! ~"U '" (he following
hotels. Please book directly with the hotel by
January·12,.20.o1to secure these preferred rates:
Westin Íiotel (1~8.o.o.937.8461) $175
Sheraton Hate (1 ~8.o.o.489.8333) $145
Crowne Plaza Hotel (1.8.0.0.227.6963) $129
Lord Elgin Hotel (1.8.0.0.267.4298) $105
--'-':','.;:,',:'::--,.,' ;;:i::;-'-;
Renseignements utiles
Frais d'inscription :
Représentants des gouvernements
municipaux membres du PPC
Autres
GRATUIT
195 $
L';nscrÏption vous donne droit à deux repas de midi.
Des groupes de chambres d'hôtel ont été réservés
à l'intention des délégués. Veuillez contacter
directement votre hôtel préferé avant le 12 janvier,
2001 pour profiter des tarifs réduits.
Hôtel Westin (1.800.937.8461)
Hôtel Sheraton (1.800.489.8333)
Hôtel Crowne Plaza (1.800.227.6963)
Hôtel Lord Elgin (1.80.0.267.4298)
.
100
175 $
145 $
129 $
1.05 $
~.,'~:::.f ~~':::d5 MEMBERS' ADVISORY
Munici~lìes mUDicipa.lités
December 19, 2000
PLEASE BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF COUNCIL
CALL FOR RESOLUTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE
FCM NATIONAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS, MARCH 2001
OR
FCM ANNUAL CONFERENCE, JUNE 2001
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) invites members to submit
resolutions on subjects of national municipal interest for debate either at the
March 7-10, 2001 meeting of the National Board of Directors, or at the FCM Annual
Conference in Banff, Alberta, May 31-June 3.
FCM will take a stand only on issues that are clearly of national municipal
interest and which fall within the jurisdiction of the federal govemment.
Indirect municipal issues and local/regional issues will not be supported by
major research and lobbying activity, unless otherwise directed by the Annual
Conference or by FCM's National Board of Directors.
Resolutions should meet the enclosed guidelines and must be received by FCM
no later than midnight on January 29, 2001. Please indicate whether you wish your
resolutions be considered at the March meeting of the National Board of Directors or
the FCM Annual Conference.
If possible, an electronic copy of your resolutions would be appreciated. Please
forward resolutions to: darsenault@fcm.ca; Tel: (613) 241-5221 ext. 240; fax: (613)
241-7440 or mail to Denis Arsenault, Federation of Canadian Municipalities, 24
Clarence Street, Ottawa, Ontario, K1 N 5P3.
FCM looks forward to hearing from its members.
Joseph P. Dion
Director
Policy and Public Affairs
101
GUIDELINES FOR PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTIONS TO FCM
1. It is by way of resolutions that :MUnicipal Members bring their concerns to FCM for consideration at. the Annual Conference, held
:in June of each year, a at. meetings of the National Board of Directors, held ínSeptember, December and Marcb.
2 Resolutions may be submitted by any municipality cr provincial/territorial tDllnicipal association which is a member in good
standing of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.
3. All resolutims enda'sed at the Annual Conference or at the Naticna1 Board of Directors and which require action from the
Government of Canada shall be subnrittedto the appropriatet1Ùnister, department or agency for response.
4. II: is therefore important that resolutims be carefully worded so that FCM is direded to take the apprqniate awm and that the
proper message is cmveyed
5 FCM does not wish to receive resolutions which pit me municipality against another.
6. Members submitting resolutims regarding Commmrty Safety and Crime Preventiœ matters are advised to fows on the "principlell
oftbe issue being addressed and avoid attempts to re-word the criminal code.
7. A national vocabulary shadd be used at all times when drafting resolutions. Local references may dttrad :from the national
significance of resolutions.
CONSTRUCTION OF RESOLUTIONS
8. All membŒs are urged to observe the following gµ.idelines when preparing resolutions foc submissien to FCM
a) FCM will take a stand only on issues which are clearly of national nmnicipal ioterem and which fall within the
jurisdiaion of the federal government, the provincial and territorial govenunent.s ading at the intaprovincial level.
Indirect municipal issues and 10caVregional issues will nd. be supported by major research and lobbying activity, unless
otherwise dired.ed by the Annual ConfŒence or by FCM National Board of Directors.
b) The descriptive clauses (WHEREAS.,_) should clearly and briefly set out the reasms fer the resolution If the sponsor
believes that the rationaJe cannot be explained in a few preliminary clauses, the problem should be more fully stated in
supporting documentation.
c) The OpŒative Clause (BE IT RESOLVED...) must set out its intent clearly and briefly, stating a specific proposal for
action to be taken by FCM (i.e., BE IT RESOLVED that FCM urgd'endccse/petition.) GenŒalization should be
avoided FurthŒ, the resolution must clearly include a municipal thrust (ie., how doesocwill the intent of the
resolutim affect. nmwcipal governments?).
d) Background information must be submitted with the resolution 'When a resolution is nd. se1f~explanatcry and when
adequate information is not received, FCM staff may return the resolution to the sponsor with a request for additional
informatim or clarificmion
e) Proof of endasement by the sponsoring council must accompany the resolution.
PLEASE NOTE: Resolutions that do not cOß1)ly with the foregoing guidelines will be returned to the sponsoring
m.micipalitylmunicipal association for revision/rewriting orland receipt of adequate information in justification and
support ofthe intent of the resolution.
CATEGORIZATION OF RESOLUTIONS
Category A:
Category ¡¡,
Cat.gory C,
Category D:
National municipal issues
Loca1/regional municipal issues
Issues nd. within municipaJjurisdiction
MattŒS dealt wjfu by FCM in the previous three years and in accordance with
FCM policy
MattŒS dealt with by FCM in the previous three years and NOT in accordance
with FCM policy
Cat.gory &
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
The Exeœtive Committee is responSIble for receiving and taking action on all resolutions in accordance whh the above ~ed
guidelines. Resolutions which full within the mandate of an FCM Standing Committee will be reviewed by that committee for the
pwpose of categorizing them and presenting recommendations to the Executive Committee and the Naticnal Board of Directors orland
the Annual Conference, in accordance with FCM's guidelines. The Standing Committee will select suitable resolutions for inclusion in
a Consent Agenda.
TBE DEADIJNE FOR SUBMISSION OF RESOLUTIONS TO EITHER THE MARCH 2001 NATIONAL BOARD OF
DIRECrORS MEETING OR THE FCM ANNUAL CONFERENCE IS JANUARY 29. 2001.
102
RODNEY-ALDBOROUGH AGRICUL rURAL SOCIETY
Box 130
Rodney, Ontario NOL 2CO
December 19, 2000
DEe 21 2000
Warden McPhail & Councillors
County of Elgin,
450 Sunset Drive,
St. Thomas, Ontario,
N5R 5Vl
Members of Elgin County Council:
The Directors of the Rodney/Aldborough Agricultural Society wish
to extend to you a very great "thank you" for your support in the
amount of $3,000.00 received this day.
This year, we thought we had put together a wonderful Fair, and
we did. However, between rain and lack of local support, we
are beginning to find ourselves concerned re our finances. This
is very sad, as the Directors work so very hard all year long to
bring our Fair to fruition, and then see our finances not just
where they should be. However, the Board are all fighters, and
once again are planning for the year 2001 Fair.
Members of Council, I wish personally to say "thank you" for all
your assistance over the years. I am retiring as Secretary on
December 31st after eleven years. I am leaving with an excellent
feeling, as Nancy McGregor of West Lorne is filling my position.
Nancy will be great to work with, and you will get along just fine.
Our Annual Meeting is January 23rd, 2001 and Nancy will have
copies of our financial statement to you immediately following same.
Merry Christmas to One and All::
Sincerely,
~ÛI'
Shirley VOji~
Secretary
103
F"l
'"A
FANSHAWE
COLLEGE
Community
Driven".
Student Focused
1460 Oxford Street. East
P.O. Box 7005
London, Ontario
N5Y5R6
Tel: (519) 452-4430
JamesN"Allan Campus
Ireland Road, Box 10
Simcoe, Ontario
N3Y 4K8
Tel: (519) 426-8260
Fax: (519) 428·3112
St. Thomas/Elgin Campus
120 Bill Martyn Parkway
St Thomas, Ontario
N5R 6A7
Tel: (519) 633-2030
Fax: (519) 633-0043
Woodstock Campus
369 Finkle Street
Woodstock. Ontario
N4V 1A3
Tel: (519) 421-0144
Fax: (519) 539-3870
StrathroyCentre
475 Caradoc Street, South
Strathroy, Ontario
N7G 2R1
Tel: (519) 246-1412
Fax: (519) 246-1414
Tillsonburg Centre
90 Ti!lson Avenue
Tillsonburg, Ontario
N4G 3A 1
Tel: (519) 842-9000
Fax: (519) 842-4727
JAN 2 20m
Gt"'·i>"'P~"1...
~ ~~h,_¡ p¿ t ~í
¡::i r.;i~'
,=,-U¡(š\i
SERV1CES
December 20, 2000
Mr. Mark McDonald
County of Elgin
450 Sunset Drive
St. Thomas, ON N5R 5Vl
Dear Mr. McDonald:
Thank you for sending the final installment of the pledge to the Phase I expansion
of Fanshawe College's St. Thomas/Elgin campus from The County of Elgin. Your
official charitable donation receipt for $20,000.00 is enclosed.
As you know, the Phase II expansion is well underway. The campus is expanding
to meet the needs of the St. Thomas/Elgin community. This growth wouldn't be
possible without community support. Your commitment to Fanshawe College is
valued.
Sincerely,
r~
Julie Plancke
Development Officer
105
~ ~:~~O:~~OO~W::~M~::~es
Telephone 519-693-4812
fox 519-693-7055
~-'
~,
December 20, 2000
JAN 2 2001
Warden Duncan McPhail
County of Elgin
450 Sunset Drive
St. Thomas, Ontario
N5R 5VI
Dear Warden Duncan McPhail and Council Members:
On behalf of our consumers, Board of Directors and myself, please
allow me to express to you and county council our sincere
appreciation for your grant of $2000.00
Your grant will assist our Association to continue to provide
supports to those individuals who reside in our service area. It
will also help to maintain our satellite offices in Dutton and
West Lorne. As you and county council are aware of, resources
are at a premium and if our Association is to continue to support
individuals at their present levels of care other funding sources
will need to be accessed. Our major funding source the Ministry
of Community and Social Services is unable to provide all the
resources to meet the needs of our consumers.
Enclosed is a receipt for your records. Thank you for your
continued support of our Association.
Sincerely,
~~
William Shurish
Execúfive Director
AOMINISTRATION OffiCES
195 Wellington St
Wordsville, Ontario
NOl2NO
(519) 693-4812
RESOURCE CENTER
205 Victoria Street
Wardsville, Ontario
NDl2NO
(519) 693-4478
COMMUNI1Y EMPLOYMENT OPTIONS
191 Queen Street
Wordsville, Ontario
NOl2NO
(519)693-4929
RESIOENT~l SERVICES
265 Moin Sireet #3
Gler1coe, Ontario
NOl1MO
(519) 287-2306
(519) 287-5905 (fox)
106
Ministry of the
Solicitor General
Ministère du
Solliciteur général
® Ontario
Emergency Measures Ontario
25 Grosvenor Street
19th floor
Toronto, ON M7 A 1Y6
Mesures d'urgence Ontario
25, rue Grosvenor
1ge étage
Toronto (ON) M7A 1Y6
Office of the
Executive Director
Bureau du
directeur général
File ReferenceJRéférence:
(416) 314-3723
(416) 314-3758
652.70.71
JAN 220m
TelephonelTéléphone:
FacsimilefTélécopieur:
December 20, 2000
Dear Head of Council:
As you may be aware, National Emergency Preparedness Week is held each year during the fIrst week
in May, and this year will be held from May 7 -13, 2001. The theme for Emergency Preparedness
Week 2001 is Reducing the Risk: Toward Safer Communities in the 21't Century.
During Emergency Preparedness Week, communities participate in nation-wide activities aimed at
increasing awareness of emergency preparedness. Emergency Measures Ontario is working with
Emergency Preparedness Canada to develop public education materials to assist you in carrying out
your EP week events. A package of materials and suggestions for promoting Emergency
Preparedness Week 2001 will sent to you in late January/early February 2001.
Public awareness and education are essential components of Emergency Management at the
community level. I hope that your community will participate in Emergency Preparedness Week
2001, and in doing so, help raise the level of emergency preparedness throughout the Province of
Ontario.
If you require additional information, please contact Christine T. Kowalyk, Emergency Management
Information Coordinator at (416) 314-8623, or the EMO Area Officer assigned to assist your
community, as per the attached list.
Sincerely,
~d
Neil T. McKerrell
Executive Director
(CTKlcb)
107
EMERGENCY MEASURES ONTARIO
AREA OFFICERS
Randy Reid Manager, Community Programs Tel (416) 314-8608 Cities ofT oronto and Hamilton-
Area Officer Fax (416) 314-3758 Wentworth. Regions of Durham,
Central Area Pager (416) 232-5607 York, Halton, Peel and Niagara.
Emergency Measures Ontario
25 Grosvenor Street, 19th Floor Cell (416) 560-4798
Toronto, ON M7A 1Y6 '. Randv.R.Reid@ius.oov.on.ca
Area Officer Tel (613) 530-4531 City of Ottawa. Counties of
TBA Southeastern Area Fax (613) 530-4566 Frontenac; Haliburton; Hastings;
Emergency Measures Ontario Pager Lanark; Leeds & Grenville;
South Cottage, 14 Gable Lane Cell Lennox & Addington;
Contact R.. Reid, Kingston, ON K7M 9A7 Northumberland; Peterborough;
Manager, Prince Edward; Prescott &
Community Russell; Renfrew; Stormont,
Programs Dundas & Glengarry and Victoria
Steve Beatty Area Officers Tel (519) 679-7055 Waterloo Region, Chatham-Kent
Southwestern Area Fax (519) 675-7691 Municipality, Towns of Haldimand
Gerry Richer Emergency Measures Ontario Steve.Beattvúùius. ¡zov .on.ca & Norfolk. Counties of Brant,
80 Dundas Street Pager 1-888-300-6336 Bruce, Dufferin, Elgin, Essex,
Unit L, Suite 1-068 Cell (519) 859-6333 Grey, Huron, Lambton,
London, ON N6A 6A8 Gerry .Richer@ius.gov.on.ca Middlesex, Oxford, Perth, Simcoe
Pager 1-888-749-0141 and Wellington
Cell (519) 852-1149
Area Officer Tel (807) 473-3191 KenDra,
Gary Kerton Northwestern Area Fax (807) 473-3199 Rainy River, and
Emergency Measures Ontario Pager 1-888-300-6340 Thunder Bay Districts
640 Mountdale Avenue Cell (807) 476-7877
Thunder Bay, ON P7E 6G8 Garv.Kerton(â)ius. Q:Qv.on.ca
Area Officer Tel (705) 564-4474 City of Greater Sudbury. Algoma,
Suzanne Bernier Northeastern Area Fax (705) 564-4555 Cochrane, Manitoulin, Muskoka,
Emergency Measures Ontario Pager 1-888-311-9737 Nipissing, Parry Sound and
3767 Highway 69S, Suite 6 Cell (705) 691-2744 Timiskaming Districts
Sudbury, ON P3G 1 E4 Suzanne.8ernier@ius.oov.on.ca
Our general e-mail addressis:ius.2:.psd.emo(cV.jus.2:0Y.on.ca
P:\HARRISONlAreaOfficers4.doc
Updated December 19, 2000
108
Ministry of Health
and Long-Term Care
. Ministère de la Santé
et des Soins de longue durée
dfficé of the Minister
Bureau du ministre
ltj
Ontario
10th" Floor, Hepburn Block
80 Grosvenor Street
Toronto ON M7 A 2C4
Tel (416) 327-4300
Fax (416) 326-1571
10e étage, édifice Hepburn
80, rue Grosvenor
Toronto ON M7A 2C4
Tél (416) 327-4300
Téléc (416) 326-1571
D~Æ 2 0 2000
JAN 2 2001
Mrs. Sandra J.. Heffren
Deputy County Clerk
County of Elgin
450 Sunset Drive
St. Thomas ON N5R 5V1
ELGIN
SER1J10ES
Ou Ref: ZOO-13452
Dear Mrs. Heffren:
Thank yOu for your letter of November 29, 2000, forwarding
council's resolution requesting the Ministry of Health ånd
Long-Term Care t·o pr()vide one-time, start-up funding får 100
per cent of the cost. of the transfer of land ambulance
services to municipalities.
In March 1999, the Minister of Finance annóunced that the
province would assume half of the approved cost of land
ambulance service. Prior to this anríouncement, municipalities
were required to fund the full cost of land ambulance service.
For the year 2000 the ministry has established the funding and
grant-level for municipalities a$ the amouht that wa$ billed
in 1999. Mr. Brad Clark, my parliàmentarya$Si$tant, ha$
recently announced government approval of a funding template
that e$tabli$he$ a ba$eline for the mini$try's $hare of the
approved cost$ of providing land ambulance services. Mini$try
staff will con$ult with each upper tier municipality and
designated delivery agent $hortly to establi$h a ba$i$·for
sharing the CO$t of land ambulance service$ for 2001.
Again, thank you for bringing thi$ matter to my attention.
Sincerely,
109
cc: Hon. Michael D. Harris, Premier
Hon. Ernie Eves,Minister of Finance
Steve Peters, MPP
1671-01 (Q9j06)
753.G-4E¡S8
12/21/BB 23:11:B3 EST; ASSOCIATION OF?-)
1 519 &33 7&&1 CLERK-Elgin Co
Page BB2
DEC-21-00 THU 04:25 PM AMO
FAX NO, 416 971 6191
p, 01
Mem,ber Communication
£~. Association of
. Municip~lities
tt of Ontarro
AIE!rt:
393 University Avenuê, Suite 1701
Toronfc, ON MSG 1 E6
Tel: (416) 971-9656' rax: (416) 971-6191
emall: amo@.amo.municom.com
To the attention of the CAO, Clerk or Head of Council
For Immediate Action
December 21, 2000 - Alert· 00/046
Toward a New Municipal Act
Issue: St3tuS update on Minister Clement's commitment to renew consultations
Background:
At the AMO Annual Conference, the Minister committed to a renewed and relevant joint relationship, which he
termed a "New Deal - a New Deal which can take municipalities confidently into 21" century governance,
accountability and service delivery." He committed to talk with municipalities and other stakeholders about
removing barriers, improving the Act, and how to move forward and deal with issues that were not resolved in
previous consultations.
Status:
The Minister has held a meeting with AMO and municipal representatives to discuss expectations and the
desirable outcomes for this New Deal and a new Act. He also hosted a meeting that involved the municipal
representatives and those of the business sector. AMO had asked for a joint meeting and the Minister saw the
merit in this. It was very beneficial to understanding perspectives and issues related to the Act, and the corollary
concern of the sustainability of the income redistribution programs on the property tax base.
From AMO's perspective, any New Deal requires a vision, a vision which focuses on three values - trust/respect,
accountability and predictability, A new Municipal Act can set a valuable framework, reassuring our common
electorate that governments are working together, and helping to renew respectful, good government. Legislative
objectives that advance these values, include, among other matters, the articulation of the purpose and role of
municipal government; clear municipal authority for municipal services through natural persons powers; removal
of "how to" and limitation provisions where there is clear municipal authority; provincial-municipal consultation
process and notice on matters that impact municipal government services and financing.
Status:
Since our meeting with the Minister in November, two follow-up consultation activities have been initiated by the
Minister.
i) Deputy Fenn is co-chairing a Technical Advisory Group with senior municipal and provincial staff
representatives. This Group has met twice and is lookin9 at different ways to achieve clear authority on
those services which are clearly municipal and how to deal with those services which are shared.
ii) Review of three technic.ai issues - user fees, licensing and municipal share corporations by three
working groups that involved municipal practitioners and business sector representatives. This facilitated
work program will result in a summary report to the Minister, which we understand will be shared with
AMO and the Technical Advisory Group.
AMO will continue to keep its members informed on the progress toward a new Municipal Act.
110
For more information contact: Pat Vanini, Director of Policy and Government Relations at (416) 971-9856 Ext. 316
OR omail p.YNJini(â)amo.l)}lI'J)çom.com
12/12/BB 23:24:59 EST; ASSOCIATION OF?-)
DEC-12-00 TUE 05:12 PM AMO
1 519 &33 76&1 CLERK-Elgin Co
Page BH2
Member Communication
FAX NO, 416 871 6181
/ I~(
p, 01
~:::'U""c:t\IVII"'"
Municipalities
of Ontario
AI~rt
393 UnlvBTEityAvenuB, Suite 1701
TDronto. ON M5G 1 E6
Tel: (416) 971-9B56 -lax: (416) 971~191
ømall: amo@omD.munlcom.com
To the immediate attention of the Clerk and Council
December 12, 2000 - Alert - 00/044
Two More Bills Pass Legislature and Review of OPAC Announced
. BìII128, the Social Housing Reform Act
Bill 128, the Social Housing Reform Act passed 3" Reading today and will receive Royal Assent shortly. There
were over 200 amendments to the Bill passed at Committee,
Regulations implementing the Bill are divided into two segments. The first segment of regulations specifically
deal with the Ontario Housing Corporation housing units and will be issued in the very near future. AMO will
notify members when these re9ulations are issued. The second segment ofthe regulations will address the non-
profit housing programs and are expected in the spring of summer of 2001. It is also anticipated that Orders
In Council to create the Local Housing Corporations and the transfer orders will be completed shortly and the
Ministry will similarly be notifying the Consolidated Service Managers.
AMO will continue to bring municipal social housing concerns forward to the Province. AMO has continually
reminded the Province that social housing should not be funded by the property tax base; municipalities do not
have the financial capacity to meet the demand for affordable housing; municipalities are facing significant
financial risk as a result of Bill 128, including, capital repairs, human resource issues, portfolio assessment,
projects in difficulty, etc. and need the Province to work with us to ensure those risks to property tax payers are
mitigated.
To keep members informed, AMO along with OMSSA hosted a joint workshop focused on financial, human
resources, and governance issues relating to the Bill. Over 40 municipai representatives attended and heard
presentations from various experts,
. BílI140, ConÜnued Protection for Property Taxpayers Act, 2000
This Bill continues the 5% increase a year on capped property classes (multi-residential. commercial and
industrial) and introduces new tax policy and tools. (See AMO Alert 00/042, dated November 24, 2000)
Bill 140, introduced late November, received Third Reading on December 4, with Royal Assent the same day.
The Bill was not sent to Standing Committee for review. With its passage, the Ministries of Finance and
Municipal Affairs and Housin9 have established a Technical and Administrative Panel to begin consultation on
the regulatory and other support needs in order to facilitate implementation. AMO's expectation is that the
regulatory framework and the other support tools should be in place quickly so that municipal financial work is
facilitated and that the problems of delayed tax billin9 experienced with Bill 79, the original capping bill, are not
repeated. AMO will be lookin9 for assurances from the Minister that every effort will be made and that should
delays result, provincial financial assistance be forthcoming.
. Ontario Property Assessment Corporation Review Announced Today
Finance Minister Eves has appointed Marcel Beaubien, M.P.P. for Lambton-Kent-Middlesex, as a special
advisor to undertake a review of OPAC's operational structure, including Board composition, the working
relationship between OPAC and the province as well as a comprehensive review of the regulation defining
property classifications. The review, to be concluded by March 31, 2001 will involve public focus groups and
submissions from various associations representing property taxpayers and municipalities. AMO will seek the
interest of the various municipal staff associations in coordinating a submission. For information on the review
and how to make a submission, see www.qov.on.ca/FiN/hmoaqe¡.html
For more Information contact: Pal Vanin!, Director of Policy and Government Relations at ex\. 316 1 1 1
Transmission problems; 416-971-9856
CITY of
STRATFORD
Qffiæ ofth£ Mayor
Her Worship Karen Haslam
City Hall, P.O. Box 818
Stratford, Ontario N5A 6W1
(519) 271-0250 Ext. 234
Fax: (519) 271-2783
www.city.stratford.on.ca
CounâJlors:
Roger Black
Jim Chapryk
Keith Culliton
Nick Giannakopoulos
Charlene Gordon
MikeJoma
Frank Mark
Dan Mathieson
Kathryn Rae
Cheryl Ruby
DEC 21 2000
December 15, 2000.
To All Elected and Appointed Officials:
On behalf of the members of Stratford City Council and the OSUM
2001 Conference Planning Committee, it is with pleasure that I extend to
you a cordial invitation to attend the "OSUM 2001" Conference in the
City Stratford, scheduled from May 2nd to May 5th.
We have enjoyed hosting this conference in previous years and
trust we will have an opportunity to have you with us once again.
Our conference will be an action-packed event and we will
endeavour to provide you with all of the up-to-date information necessary
to meet the many issues and challenges of our times. I'm certain you will
find the speakers and discussions very informative and motivating, and we
welcome any suggestions you may have to ensure the 2001 Conference is
one that you will remember for many years to come. We trust that the
registration forms and information we have provided will be of assistance
to you.
We look forward to meeting you next year in the festival City- our
warm hospitality awaits you!
Sincerely,
.[(aren Haslam, Mayor
KH/lw
112
"Community Excellence with Worldwide Impact"
,
ORGANIZA nON OF SMALL URBAN MUNICIPALITIES
48TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE - MA Y 2,3,4 & 5, 2001
City of STRA TFORD, ONTARIO.
Judy Purcell, Conference Administrator Ted Blowes, Conference Director
39 Willow Street, Stratford, Ontario. N5A 3B3 Phone: (City Hall) 519-271-0250 x241
Phone: (Res.) 519-273-0568 Phone: (Res.) 519-393-5877
e-mail: judy55@netcom.ca Fax: (Res.) 519-393-5218
1. Main Conference Centre is the Victorian Inn on the Park.
2. Friday luncheon will be at the sparkling new Arden Park Hotel, just a short walk up the street
3. All standard rooms (single or double), are $85.00 a night, plus tax at all three hotels. These rates
run from Tuesday, May 1st through Saturday, May 5th. *Please see registration form.
4. The First Annual City of Stratford - OSUM Golf Tournament (with major sponsors and many
prizes) will be held on Wednesday, May 2nd from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. One price of $75.00 will
include a buffet breakfast, a cart, 18 holes of golf, prize table, hot lunch and transportation to and
from The Victorian Inn. *For those participating, watch for a further mailing regarding golf details.
5. The Trade Show will be expanded to include the Horticultural Trades.
6. Stratford, together with its partner, the Town of St Marys, were recently named as the National
Winners in the Canadian Classics Category of the Communities in Bloom Program and Stratford
was the World Champion in the Nations in Bloom Competition in the 10 - 50,000 category in
1997 in Madrid, Spain.
7. Many new gardens, flowerbeds and parks have been added to Stratford's already large inventory
- you won't want to miss these new additions since the last OSUM Conference in 1997.
8. Please complete the attached Registration Form and remember, it is up to you to make your own
accommodation arrangements.
9. If you have any suggestions on what the City of Stratford can do to make next year's Conference
the best ever, please contact us and give us your ideas.
*For Conference information, please contact The
Conference Director of OSUM 2001 Stratford
Ted Blowes at:
City Hall:
His Residence:
FAX: (Res.)
1-519-271-0250, ext. 241
1-519-393-5877 .
1-519-393-5218
- or - The Conference Administrator of
OSUM 2001 Stratford Judy Purcell
at:
Her residence: 1-519-273-0568
e-mail: iudv55@netcom.ca
~~-
~""g-~-~.
A
¡;
l~",
~-f'1,_ mTI _ - -!,.
10SUMt
113
PROUD OF THE PRESENT - PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE
- We ask that YOU print all information -
Please make photocopies as reauired
--------------------------------------------------
m~'1t-·~
'''~''''''=~..4_'''.>~
First Name
Surname
POSITION
MAILING ADDRESS
MUNICIPALITY
Street
Municipality
Postal Code
TEL. (Office) (
E-MAIL ADDRESS
)
FAX (
)
~~
,J-~~
First Name
Surname
GOLF - WEDNESDAY, MAY 2ND
"Please advise as soon as possible.
YES
NO
NUMBER
--------------------------------------------------------- .-
-: Please complete and return pages 1 and 2 to Judy Purcell at the address on the
Delegate Information Sheet. "Contact Judv also for further information:
...... .... see over for page 2
11 4
........ page 2
[t'4ìšfiãtraìf&~~~~-~
De~:
After March 31st - $255.00
After March 31st - $125.00
After March 31st - $150.00
After March 31st - $ 50.00
Full Conference -
$235.00
$125.00
$150.00
$ 50.00
One Day Only -
One Day + Banquet -
Banquet Only -
~'öái1l(lf§:
Full Conference -
$215.00
$ 50.00
After March 31st - $235.00
Banquet Only -
After March 31st - $ 50.00
GS~;&"UiiÐfë : R106930514
,;.,,,,,,,,...~,,,,",,,;;;,,,,,,,,,¡.,.Im~m-'~~,,,,,,,,,,.
~~: A $25.00 charge will be levied for all cancellation~.
Also:
.!:___. ~Iease advise of the number of tickets required for the performance of £~
gl.l!\'ìlJ at The Stratford Shakespearean Festival Theatre on Thursday evening, May 3ra;
at a special low price of $40.00, tax included.
Number of tickets required: Total amount:
full amount with your registration fee.
**Please enclose the
'f~re-mïtfã~: (Includes all registration fees and Festival tickets) : $
**Foraccommodations, ~
Victorian Inn on the Park-1-800-741-2135 Arden Park Hotel-1-877-788-8818
Festival Inn -1-800-463-3581
**For all other accommodations, please contact TOURISM STRATFORD
at 1-800-561-5WAN (7926)
115
COMPANION'S PROGRAM - PRELIMINARY
OSUM 2001 - MAY 2 - 5. 2001
THURSDAY, MAY 3, 2001
8:00 a.m.
Breakfast with the delegates
9:15 a.m.
Board bus for St. Marys
10:00 a.m.
Guided walk along the Grand Trunk Trail or
free time for shopping in St. Marys
12:00 noon
Luncheon with entertainment
1 :30 p.m. - 3:30 p.m.
Guided tour of the Canadian Baseball Hall
of Fame or the St. Mary's Museum
3:30 p.m.
Board bus for return trip to hotels
8:00 p.m.
Sound of Music at the Stratford
Shakespearean Festival Theatre.
FRIDAY, MAY 4.2001
8:00 a.m.
Breakfast with the delegates
9:15 a.m.
Board Bus for Northwestern Secondary
School
9:30 a.m. - 11 :00 a.m.
Guided tour of the Hydroponics Lab and
new Greenhouse facilities - a part of the
Horticulture Department
11 :00 a.m. - 11:45 a.m.
Bus tour of the City
12:00 Noon
Lunch at the Arden Park Hotel with
entertainment
1 :30 p.m. - 2:30 p.m.
Presentation by local business owners from
Anything Grows - a unique Gardening
Store
2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Free time for shopping in Stratford
Reception and Banquet featuring a 50's -
60's dance
6:30 p.m.
....please see over
116
-2-
··Please note: If a companion would rather golf on either Thursday or
Friday, or on both days, please contact Judy Purcell at 1-519-273-0568 or
e-mail: judy55@netcom.ca
1 J 7
Mayor David Rock,
Mayor of Municipality of Central Elgin,
450 Sunset Drive,
St. Thomas, ON
N5R 5Vl
Tuesday December 19, 2000
Mayor Rock:
City Council decided at the meeting of December 18, 2000 to continue on with the
negotiations regarding the SunsetILyndale water line. Alderman Sharon Crosby asked
that there be Council representation ITom the City of St. Thomas, the Municipality of
Central Elgin and the County of Elgin in attendance at these negotiations. The County of
Elgin and the Municipality of Central Elgin have to formally ask the City of Sf. Thomas
to attend these meetings. Alderman Tom Johnston, Chairman of Public Works and
Engineering, will be in a1íendance as the representative for the City of St. Thomas.
Please advise me as soon as possible, in writing, as to whether or not it will be
yourself or another member of Council for Municipality of Central Elgin who will be
requesting permission to attend these negotiations. If it is not yourself who will be
attending these meetings, please provide me with the name of the Council member who
will be representing the interests of the residents of Central Elgin at these important
negotiations.
I look forward to your prompt reply in this matter.
Sincerely,
~~
Dr. TenyFrancis,MD.C.C.F.P.
347 Sunset Drive,
Sf. Thomas, ON
N5R 3C6
Cc: Mayor Peter Ostojic, City of St. Thomas
Alderman Tom Johnston, Chairman of Public Works and Engineering
Councilman for the Municipality of Central Elgin
Mark McDonald, Chief Administrative Officer for County of Elgin
118
AMO DIRECTORS REPORT
DECEMBER, 2000
I participated in the following AMO meetings:
December II, 2000 AMO Executive
December 7,2000 Land Ambulance Implementation
Steering Committee Sub-committee on standards
December 18, 2000 Land Ambulance Implementation Steering Committee
Items Dealt with at AMO Executive included:
I) New Members of AMO Board of Directors - County Caucus
Rae-Anne Briscoe - Councillor County of Renfrew and Mayor Township of Admaston-
Bromley.
Scott Wilson- CAO, County of Wellington
2) Nutrient Management a new proposed Farm Operations Act is being worked by
OMAFRA.
3) Walkerton Inquiry brings home the importance to Municipalities of risk management,
performance analysis.
4) New Municipal Act MMAH has formed a Technical Advisory Committee (T AC) with
Pat Moyle and David O'Brien as co-chairs. Meetings have been held on user fees,
licencing and municipal share corporations.
Items Dealt with at the Land Ambulance Implementation steering Committee and Sub
Committee meeting were:
5) The New Funding Template is being used to prepare budgets - approval of budgets is
expected by January 31, 2001.
Training Costs including Municipally required training will be shared SO/50.
6) Standards sub committee has completed funding template discussions and is working on
standards for response time. Current '96 response time standard has different
interpretations as to area of application which will have to be settled. Proposed that
MOH meet 100% of capital costs over 18-24 month period to meet '96 standards.
7) Freedom ofInformationlinvestigation sub committee will address these problems and
propose protocols to resolve them.
119
(;0
9 INTERNATIONAL DRIVE
PEMBROKE, ONTARIO
K8A 6W5
(613) 735-7288
FAX: (613) 735-2081
OFFICE OF THE
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER/CLERK
December 15, 2000
Wardens and County Councils
Dear Warden & Councillors:
The attached report on AMO activities covering the Executive, County Caucus and Board of
Directors meetings on November 23 and 24, 2000 may be of interest to you.
Items of particular interest may be:
· New Municipal Act concerns AMO in that the government may try to use it to push
privatization of municipal operations.
· Small water systems regulations are proposed by the province and AMO has commented.
These regulations would have wide spread impact including municipal facilities,
campgrounds, resorts, restaurants, etc. which are not on large municipal water systems.
· The transfer by the federal government of the responsibilities for railroad safety costs and
liability could have costly impacts on lower tier municipalities, counties and regions with
railway crossings on municipal roads. This item needs clarification and possibly some
lobbying as soon as possible.
I regret to inform you that this will be my last report as AMO County Caucus chairperson; I was
not successful in my bid as Reeve of the amalgamated Township of Whitewater Region and will
be moving on to other activities. I have thoroughly enjoyed my time as County AMO
representative and I thank all of you for -your past support.
I extend best wishes to all for the holiday season and I look forward to occasions to meet the
many friends I have made over the years in municipal politics.
Yours truly,
þ~~
David J. Stewart
120
AMO DIRECTORS REPORT
NOVEMBER 2000
I participated in the following AMO meetings in November - November 16th the Land
Ambulance Implementation Steering committee's sub committee on funding and standards met -
November 23rd the AMO Executive met in the morning and the County Caucus met in the
afternoon - November 24th the AMO Board of Directors met.
Items dealt with by the Executive meeting included:
I. New Municipal Act
- AMO reps and the ministry met in early November and also included business reps for part of
the meeting. A concern of AMO was that the province might use the new act to mandate
privatization in municipal operations. AMO doesn't support this development. Minister is
concerned about where provincial responsibilities end and municipal begins; wants to end
overlap.
AMO wants to be sure it can accept and work with the Municipal Act, AMO must be involved in
its development of special items such as report cards (performance measures etc.).
2. LSRlCRF meetings were held during the past months and the following points Were presented
by AMO - CRF doesn't address financial needs etc. .
- formula complicates UTM/L TM relations
- no incentive for savings
- piecemeal annual adjustments are disconcerting and difficult to track
- Provincial standards distract from "say for pay" and municipal delivery
It was agreed there is no substainability in present format and AMO supports a freeze of2000
situation into the future.
Municipality of Atikokan has developed a template for Municipal/Provincial funding
relationships for historical data from 1970 to present with comparisons of annual changes. This
is being given to Al'v10 and \viII be distributed to alllTIUnicipalities.
3. II positions on the AMO Board of Directors are vacant due to elections, death and not
contesting a municipal seat.
Discussions held on method of replacement through process outlined in AMO constitution. All
positions will be filled by the new year.
The County Caucus meeting items of concern were:
4. Small Water Systems are particularly relevant in rural areas and apply to most businesses or
commercial operations as well as schools, some senior and Long Term Care homes and other
facilities. Concern was expressed about testing requirements and the need to have these based on
risk as well as shortage of qualified technical staff and most importantly costs and the need for
financial assistance.
121
5. The transfer (downloading) bv the Federal Government to the municipalities of railroad safety
costs, liabilities and responsibilities. (the memo on this topic is included.)
6. Nutrient Management Regulation concerns were that legislation may overreact and affect
small farms adversely cost wise. It is recognized there is definitely a need for control offactory
fann operations. A recent court decision gives municipalities right to control number of animal
units and amount of land owned for factory farms.
7 Report Cards - Comparisons must be made to true comparitors..
- There must be municipal input to formulation of performance measures..
The Board of Directors meeting discussed the following:
8. AMO Bud"et for 200 I is a balanced budget with no fee increase. The Ass'n has cut staff
complement from 20 to 15 over the past several years and are using contracts working
partnerships and volunteers to provide full service. The Ass'n has established a "stability
reserve" of 50% of the annual operating budget
9. Walkerton Inquiry
AMO has been involved through its official standing and has conducted a funding campaign to
finance costs. A reply is requested even if funds are not available.
10. Roads Maintenance standards have completed 3rd and final round of Consultation and OGRA
has asked AMO to join them in meetings with Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Transportation
to urge them to move forward with the standards in the fonn of a regulation under the Municipal
Act The'se standards will provide a defense for municipalities in cases of liabilities and lawsuits.
II. Social Housin" cases oflocal problems should be presented to AMO to use to strengthen
their discussions with the ministry. AMO has prepared a response to Bill 128 the Social Housing
Reform Act.
Nutrient management regulations under the Fann Operations Act are expected shortly.
12. A Small Watenvorks Discussion paper was released in August by the government AMO
convened a working group and commented with 10 principles for dealing with this problem.
13 Driving practices on Ontario Highwavs are a concern of Minister Turnbull and he has
established the Ontario Advisory Group on Safe Driving including representatives from a broad
range of interest groups. Past President Michael Power represented AMO and previewed a
confidential report including 8 recommendations with increased penalties.
122
14. Bill 140 is the renewal of Tax Capping. It extends 5% capping until Current Value
assessment is reached. Frozen assessment listing is no longer needed as calculations will be
made on previous year's annual adjusted taxes. The administrative workload will still be
considerable and there is a real possibility of delayed tax billings in 2001. "Hard Caps" will mean
any increased levys in municipalities above the provincial tax ratio will not be able to levy on the
capped classes but must put full load of increased levy on uncapped classes, i.e. residential.
The tenant protection component of Bill 79 is still there and is an extra unjustified responsibility
for municipalities.
15. A Proposed Ontario Privacv act by the Ontario Ministry of Consumer and Commercial
Relations has been given to AMO for comment. This will be dealt with shortly.
123
MEMO
£~
:J
--
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
AMOBoard of Directors
Pat Vanini, Director of Policy and Government Relations
New Municipal Act
November 13, 2000
Issue:
Status and Outcome of November Meeting with Minister Clement
Background:
At the AMO Conference, Minister Clement announced his intention to re-new consultations on
a new Municipal Act. A meeting between AMO and the Minister as well as a session that
brought the business sector to the table was held on November 9. In the past, the various
groups were not brought together to discuss their interests and issues and possible solutions.
The purpose of this meeting was to see if there was enough common perspective to proceed.
Minister Clement agreed that a new Municipal Act was to be the foundation of the WOW and
it was his opinion that it was "elemental to the success of the Common Sense Revolution."
He also recognised that there are related issues, including property taxation and income
redistribution programs and sustainability of the LSRlCRF relationship. He committed to
ensuring that AMO had the appropriate access to other Ministers to discuss these matters.
At the end of provincial-municipal discussion, there was some common ground on the
following:
· Greater recognition of municipal government
· Appropriate authority and accountability balance
· Clear identification of where provincial authority begins and ends and municipal government
begins when there are shared interests/responsibilities
· Streamlining of practices and procedures
· Layman understanding (simple and piain language).
Ideas on how these could be achieved were also discussed; including matters that may be
outside a new Act that could limit municipal government in its defined authority, including
labour matters_
The meeting with representatives of the business sector was more focused on the concerns
that they have raised (fees, licencing, municipal share corporations) but there was also
discussion on income redistribution programs, the role of provincial standards/regulations and
public interests as expressed in local communities_ While municipalities have had more
authority through Bill 26, in practice they have been restrained in the use of these new tools
and in two instances where this is not the case, the Province did act.
.../2
124
- 2-
At the end of the day-long discussion, the Minister stated that he would rather not have the
overarching regulatory authority if we could define accountability processes, which would be
similarto other legislative approaches, such as Development Charges. He was also clear with
the business sector that a new Municipal Act must give municipalities authority and
accountability and that he is serious about this reform. He did not identify any "deal breakers"
at this time and if he can get consensus after further work is done, he would like to see the Act
as part of the spring legislative agenda.
/:
~'
Next steps:
Two follow-up consultations will occur.
1. Deputy Fenn will be setting up a Technical Advisory Group (AMO and senior municipal staff
representatives). The Group will work on the framework ideas that were discussed and see
what the draft act could look like as a result of a different approach. This includes seeing
what happens when you separate the spheres of jurisdiction into those which are clear
municipal authority (e.g., highways, utilities, waste, parks, rec., etc.) and those where there
is a shared provincial municipal interest (e.g., health, safety and well-being of people). The
former group of spheres would be the exclusive domain of municipalities, attached to some
taxpayer accountability process, and for those shared spheres, to identify what is the
appropriate approach or level of prescriptiveness. It was recognized that within these
shared spheres that there may be parts that are municipal and that mini-spheres could be
developed that remain fully municipal. Terms of reference are to be prepared quickly and
work would be done over next 30 days to see what this would look like. At that time, we
would evaluate whether it met our needs.
C,
........::/
2. Review of three technical issues - user fees, licensing and municipal share corporations.
The Ministry has developed some options for these and there needs to be some detailed
work on these in light of the COílcems that had been shared. A summary report is due by
the end of the year.
AMO Action: AMO will ensure that there is continuity between the November 9th discussion
and these two activities.
Prep.aredby:
Apprcyedby:
?at VaninÎ, Direcc{" of Policy and Government Relaticrts
Pal Vanini. Oìrec::.or of Policy ;¡ l'Id Government Relations
N:\Usef\POLICY'IMUNACï\2CCO prccess\t1ovemoer OOard memo.wpd
125
MEMO
£~:
> ~I
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
AMO Board of Directors
Pat Vanini, Director of Policy and Government Relations
Federal Railway Safety Regulations
November 14, 2000
Issue:
Transport Canada Proposal to transfer railway safety costs, liabilities and
responsibilities to municipalities.
Background:
The Federal government is pursuing the downloading of its responsibility for railway safety to
municipalities through changes to Railway Right of Way Access Control and Grade Crossing
regulations. For sometime the Federal government has been shifting this res'ponsibility (i.e.
inspection and maintenance requirements) from Transport Canada to railway companies. At
the urging of the Railways, it is now proposing to require that municipalities share in the
responsibility for railway safety. Transport Canada's role would be to continue to set standards
and conduct indirect audits.
The Federal government feels that there are safety hazards in communities. People, including
children, are able to access the right of ways of rail lines, and many grade crossings need to
be upgraded, better maintained and have better sight lines. Numerous deaths have been
( attributed to these safety failings.
Federal officials, including members of the Canadian Transportation Agency (CT A), believe that
many of the problems are due to municipal decisions regarding urbanized development along
railway tracks, and therefore, municipalities should have partial legal and financial responsibility
for managing the safety issues. The CTA, which is äFederal quasijiJdicial body, has assigned
costs to municipalities, for safety mitigation measures over the last few years.
The proposed regulations would extend this responsibility requiring municipalities to ensure
that grade crossing are appropriate and maintained. Barriers, like fences, to railway right of
ways and measures, like signage, would have to be adequate, monitored and maintained. The
direct cost and potential liabilities borne by municipalities could increase dramatically. Safety
assessments woul,! also have to be conducted by railways and municipalities jointly, so at this
time it is difficult to assess the costs.
Funding issues need to be dealt with as well. Federal funding for crossing safety improvements
is limited to $7.5 million per year nationally. At that level of funding, it would take 400 years to
upgrade the 15,400 public crossings in Canada that do not have automated waming devices,
according to FCM. No Federal funding is available for right of way access control. The ability
of municipalities to receive funding from developers (i.e. through development charges) in
Ontario needs to be clarified as well as impact on property taxes to retrofit in the built
environment, including nural areas.
Whistling bans will also be further regulated. There are proposed stringent and costly
requirements that would have to be met before municipalities could pass anti-whistling by-laws.
126
.../2
- 2 -
ïhe government's consultation process has been lacking. FE!'deral agencies and the Railways
have been sending several representatives to consultation meetings. AMO only became aware
of this federal initiative after a call from ïransport Canada. AMO did attend a consultation;: .
session held in ïoronto last month. It is clear that Federal decision makers do not understand
the role of municipalities, or the different municipal structures in each province. For example,
Federal officials were unaware of the role of the OMS in the development process, or that there
were unorganized territories in Ontario.
It is expected that the regulation on Right of Access will be gazetted in December. At that time,
there will be another opportunity to comment. It is expected that the Grade Crossing
Regulation will follow in the Spring. ïhe government is discussing a consultation session for
municipalities in January on grade crossings with FCM.
ACTION:
ïhat AMO write the Federal Ministerofïransportation regarding municipal concerns about the
proposed railway regulations. ïhat AMO urge FCM to make this a priority issue for their
advocacy efforts.
Prepared by: Jeff Fisher, Senior Policy Advisor
Approved by: Pat Vanini, Director of Policy and Government Relations
fP'
.~~~;.-
N:\User\POLlCy\Transportaticn\rai/way safety.wpd
¿>1:J!rv/
;... p v7.,-v--'
//;!t.~ ¿- ?)'~__6....... 4C~C-/ /~ -<!/'C¿d/~ /~7 /fL,,<
~"k ;V'4-~""¿",,--~Z; _ .-ff¿~ ~/ ,-:;> (~/'7
r?_k ~¿~;._ ¿...-< G'~J
CX7'~--/ ¡;:., ~/? ~ "
I ~ .~ J ~~ ~--f Æ' ~::~..::;; ':;4--->~ / ã/"c'
C~ < .:¿ç -...e.xE~ r""'-- l/~~ é''---I
. ., rO ;<--
u- ~~
-7 -.- (
I~""-'" £J. i-""
/.) e ,f~ v
I C/"~
127
Ministry of Finance
Office of the Minister
Frost Building South
7 Queen's Park Cres
Toronto ON M7A 1Y7
Tel (416) 325-0400
Fax (416) 325-0374
Ministère des Finances
Bureau du ministre
Édifice Frost sud
7 Queen's Park Cres
Toronto ON M7A 1Y7
T él (416) 325-0400
Téléc (416) 325-0374
I~l
[ti'~
"I &g l"
Ontario
December 14, 2000
Mrs. Sandra Heffren
Deputy Clerk
County of Elgin
450 Sunset Drive
St. Thomas ON N5R 5Vl
DEC 22 2000
Dear Mrs. Heffren:
Thank you for your letter and Council's resolution forwarded to
me by Premier Michael Harris about the possible sale of the
Ontario Clean Water Agency (OCWA).
This government constantly reviews its services and operations to
ensure they are being run in an efficient manner and in a way
that is consistent with taxpayers' priorities. Just like many
other government services and agencies, OCWA was reviewed in
1998, however, OCWA is not currently under review.
OCWA remains a provincial agency which competes in the
marketplace for service contracts to operate municipally owned
water and sewer treatment systems.
I appreciate having this matter brought to my personal attention.
Yours sincerely,
s ~-~~ ç
~ -
Ernie Eves, Q.C.
Minister of Finance
~
c: The Honourable Michael D. Harris
The Honourable Dan Newman
Minister of the Environment
The Honourable Tony Clement
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Mr. Steve Peters, MPP
Elgin-Middlesex-Eondon
128
@
~ Mini~tr¥_ ot
Municipa(Affa-irs
and- Hºu~ing
, ~ Office of)he Mjri¡sìer .
?77 ~ay ~,treet
Toronto ON M5G 2E5
Tel: (416) 585-7000
Minist~re,-(l~ _ . c
Aff_aires _municip_ales'
iat du- Log~r:n,értt
Bureau du'ministre
i rm<f
[tV~
. '1m¡¡¡mP'-
Ontario
777 rue-Bay"
Toro~to ON M5G 2E5
Tèl:(4t6}585-iooo
www.i1í.ah:gov:on.ca
December 20, 2000 .
-wWw:mah.g~v.on.ca ,
rf~l!=,fr~
!2,ìß1 ~~
Warden Duncan McPhail·
The County of Elgin
450 Sunset Drive
St.:Thomas ON N5R 5Vl
JÁN2 2001
"fJ' "'.'>':'1r: -j "'1M
',_~J,)t~'ii\J t -y lh' t:~~ äìl
'.:"~ç~:.\ ~ ~~\j1.t~~niÞ;TtV~ ,_SE-~~~O!S
,- -,
. -.- -
, , ._.-.
· .
Dear Warden McPhail and members of Council:
-, - '.-' - - -:.' - . '-'-'. -', :': .', ,: c- .,-- " -'. '_ - .:' .
- " - ,- ' ," ~ .' .' - ,,; " - - . .
, . . , " " -
; , '- '. . -- " -- -' -
Please· accept my sincere congrat~lations on your new màndate to serve the peòple of .
your community. Asyo1Ì and your council prepare for the term ahead, I would like to . ..
. extend to YOn my best wishes, along with some thoughts about the challenges we wilUa.ce
together over the next three years. .
At the top .of my agenda· for the immediate future is a new, stronger relationship b~tween .
municipalities, and the provincial government. Tfiegoal is municipalities that are better'
positioned to deliver the safe, high quality, high value services Ontarians want. Atthe
.heart of this new municipal~provincial relationship will be greater authority for
municipalities, balanced with greater accountability to taxpayers.
- - - ' .
A key part of that new relaH6nship is oùr continued work on a new MunicipalAct. As
. ' , " , - - - . -- - .
'we near tfie close of the consultation phase, I mvite. you to bring forth any additional.
· comments or suggestions you may want considered.. We contiriueto seek a conseIÌsus on
· some unresolved issues and I am confident that we will be able to bring forward
. , - ' " " - . . - '-' , '
legislation soon; . .
. - - ". -, .
, .' -
, .' ' ,. - . . - .
'.' , - '. . "'. '-' - '
Greater acèountability will also be assured through the MruÍicipal Performance
Measurement progra.m, which I announced in October. That 'program requires .
m~cipaliiiès to report annually to their .taxpayers on how they performed in nine core
ServIce areas.
. .
/2
129
'.
'. .
The Premier
of Ontario
Le Premier ministre
de l'Ontario
ltÆ
~.Iimm!I"
Ontario
Legislative Building
Queen's Park
Toronto, Ontario
M7A 1A1
Hôte[ du gouvernement
Queen's Park
Toronto (Ontario)
M7A1A1
December 20,2000
"'!IN 2 2001
Mr. Duncan McPhail
Warden
The County of Elgin
450 Sunset Drive
Street Thomas, Ontario
N5R 5Vl
ç:¡ 1'.::1"
¡;,' uud\'J
Dear Mr. McPhail:
As your new term begins, I am pleased to congratulate you and your council colleagues on
your victory in the municipal elections.
Serving as the people's representative is truly an honour and a privilege. The role, as you
know, also carries with it enormous responsibility. And so, I would like to offer you and
members of council my personal wishes for great success in serving your community and our
province well.
Congratulations once again, and all the best.
Sincerely,
Michael D. Harris, MPP
1 31
@
Attorney General and
Minister Responsible for Natlva Affairs
The Hon. James M. Flaherty
~
Procuraur général at
Mlnlstra dalégué aux affalras autochtones
L'hon. James M. Flaherty
.",
OntariO
Ministry of the Attorney General
11th Floor
720 aay Street
Toronto ON M5G 2K1
Telephone: (416) 326-4000
Facsimile: (416) 326-4016
Ministère du Procureur généraJ
118 étage
720. rue aay
Toronto ON M5G 2K1
Téléphone: (416) 326-4000
Télécopieur: (416) 326-4016
,.IAN 9 2001
Our Reference #: MOO-09309
December 27,2000
Dear Heads of Council:
I am writing to update you on the continued successful implementation of the Provincial Offences Act
(POA) transfer initiative. The attached map indicates that 97 per cent of the court service areas in the
province are now managed by municipal partners, or have scheduled implementation dates. Municipal
partners currently manage more than 50 per cent of the POA caseload.
The POA planning processes and transfers were first tested with our seven demonstration sites: the City
of North Bay, the Town ofCaledon, the City of Brampton, the City ofMississauga, the Regional
Municipality of York, the City of Barrie and the District Municipality of Muskoka. In addition to
carrying out their new responsibilities, these municipal partners have ably mentored other municipalities
to prepare for their transfers. I am very pleased to note that these demonstration sites, as well as five
other areas, have operated successfully under municipal management for more than a year.
I last wrote to you on August 8, 2000. Since that time, POA responsibilities have been taken over by the
following municipal partners:
8 the City of Thunder Bay for the Thunder Bay court service area (August 21,2000);
8 the Town of Lindsay for the Lindsay court service area (September 18, 2000);
8 the Town of Fort Frances for the Fort Frances court serVice area (September 25,2000);
8 the County of Renfrew for the Pembroke court service area (October 2,2000);
8 the City of Peter borough for the Peterborough court service area (October 10,2000);
8 the City of Kenora for the Kenora court service area (October 23, 2000);
8 the City of Brant ford for the Brantford court service area (October 30, 2000);
8 the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville for the Brockville court service area (November 6,
2000);
8 the County of Northumberland for the Cobourg court service area (November 20, 2000);
8 the Town of Perth for the Perth court service area (November 27,2000);
8 the Regional Municipality of Durham for the Oshawa court service area (December 4, 2000);
and
8 the Town of Hailey bury for the Haileybury court service area (December 11,2000).
...2
133
-2-
The ministry's final quarterly date for receipt of submissions from municipalities interested in assuming
responsibilities for POA functions was September 15,2000. Submissions were received from the
following sites, representing 87 municipalities:
· the City of Dryden, representing the Dryden court service area;
· the County of Grey and the County of Bruce, representing the Owen Sound and Walkerton
court service areas;
· the City of London, representing the London court service area;
· the City of Sault Ste. Marie, representing the Sault Ste. Marie court service area;
· the Regional Municipality of Sudbury, representing the Sudbury court service area; and
· the City of Windsor, representing the Windsor court service area.
The ministry has completed its formal review of these submissions and implementation planning is now
proceeding. Other submissions approved since my last progress report were received from:
· the County of Northumberland, representing the Cobourg court service area;
· the County of Elgin, representing the St. Thomas court service area; and
· . the United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, representing the Cornwall,
Alexandria and Morrisburg court service areas.
The County of Huron recently submitted its letter of intent for the Goderich court service area. This
submission is currently under review.
I would like to acknowledge the efforts undertaken by so many municipalities across Ontario to work
cooperatively to obtain the necessary intermunicipal agreements on cost, revenue and responsibility
sharing arrangements within the court service areas.
A number of you, after consultation with the project team, have agreed to transfer dates that
occur prior to March 31, 2001. I would like to reiterate the importance of effecting the transfers
on the dates scheduled. Ministry staff are available and dedicated to assist you until March 31,
2001. Should you fail to meet your scheduled transfer date, ministry staff will have no other
choice but to commence negotiations with neighbouring municipal partners who are already
carrying out POA responsibilities for their court service area. The municipal partner who carries
out this important justice work in your court service area would also receive the net POA
revenues associated with taking on these responsibilities. I would also like to note that the
Ministry of Finance's one-time payment to those municipalities whose annual POA net revenues
are lower than the 1998 Community Reinvestment Fund Allocation, requires that your transfer
must be completed by March 31, 2001.
.
134
...3
.
-3-
Finally, I would like to thank those municipal partners who have been participating in consultations
relating to the ministry's ongoing responsibilities for post-transfer POA issues. Your advice and
continuing participation in consultations will strengthen the justice partnership we have established.
Sincerel ,
WI.
James M. Flaherty
Attorney General
Minister Responsible for Native Affairs
Attachment
c: CAOs/Clerks
Sandra Tychsen, Director, POA Transfer Project
135
CountyolOxtord
County 01 Per1h
Town 01 Cochrane
City of KingstQl1.,
City 01 Timmins
Untied Counties 01
Prescott & Russell
Munidpalltyof
Chatham· Kent
City of Guelph
City 01 Elliot lake, Town 01
Blind River, Townships 01
Sheddon & North Shore
Town 01 Gore Bay
COUnty of Hastings
City of Thunder Bay
Town of Undsay
Town of For1 Frances
County 01 Renfrew
City crt Peterborough
CllyofKenora
City of Brantlord
U. C. of Leeds & Grenville
Nor1humber1and COUnty
Town of Perth
A. M. of Durham
Town of Halleybury
Gore Bay
Belleville
Thunder Bav
Lindsay
Fort Frances
Pembroke
Petelborough
Kenora
Brantlord
Brockville
Cobourg
Perth
'Oshawa
Hallaybury
Guelph
ElliofLake
ChalharTllKent
11
23
18
27
"
32
11
·
2
,.
"
10
9
26
9
·
10
2
10
1
1
11
8
7
5
19
4
19
7
8
9
7
12
6
·
9
June 12/00
June 19/00
Aug 21100
Sept 18100
Sepl25/00
Oct. 2/00
Oct. 10100
Oct. 23/00
Oct. 30100
Nov. 6100
Nov. 20100
Nov. 27/00
Dec. 4foo
Dec.1t/OO
May 29/00
June5JOO
Feb. 28fOO
Mar.13'OO
Mar. 20100
Mar. 27/00
Apr. 3100
May1fOO
May 8/00
Transfer
Date
Mãr.f519¡r
Mar.29199
Jun28199
Jul 12/99
Jul.26/99
Aug. 9199
Aug.30199
Sap.27/99
Oct.25199
Nov. 1199
Nov.15199
Nov.22/99
Nov.29199
Feb. 7100
Feb. 14100
Chalham-Kenl
Chatham
Wellington
Guelph
Fronlenac lIormont, Dundas
, Kingston & Glengarry
MorTisbufTJ
Leeds & Grenville
Brockvi/le
MOX & Addington
Napanoo
Northumberland
Coboo",
Metro Toronto Toronto
rampton -
issall(Ja
)n Milton I I Transfers Completed
?url~I"~';II"
urlington
orth Hamilton ~ Scheduled for Transfer
llagara Region
St. Calharines
NIagara Region I I Submissions made; not
Niagara Falls scheduled
D - Demonstration Site
Notes:
. Court service area name for each upper
tier municipality or territorial district
appear In Italics
NlplsslngDlslrlct
North Bay
Cochrane District
Timmins
MunIcipal Court
Partner Service Area
ëijyol Nortf¡-šãy ---- Nôr1h Bar-
Town 01 Caledòn (Dullerin) Orangeville'
City 01 Btampton Brampton·
York Region Newmarket'
City 01 Mississauga Mississauga'
County of Prince Edward Picton
City 01 Barrie Barrie'
City 01 Barrie Orillia'
District of Muskoka Bracebridge'
Lennox & Addington Napanee
Town 01 Parry Sound Parry Sound
Town of Espanola Espanola
County of lambton Sarnia
A,M. HamillOOfWenlwor1h HamlJlon
A.M. 01 Water100 Kitchenerl
Cambridge
Woodstock
Stratford
Cochrane
Kingston
Timmins
L'Orign!!!
Sudbury District
Espanola
R. M. 0' Sudbury
SUdtw'Y
Timiskaming
DIstrict
Haileybury
~
Maps NOT to Scale
Over 50% of POA case load
has been transferred from the province to
the municipal sector.
Victoria/Haliburton
Lindsay
Northern Ontario
See Inset
Hastings
Belfevilie
Renfrew
Pembroke
Stormont, Dundas
& Glengarry
Cornwall
Stormont, Dundas
" Glengarry ~
, Alexandna
District 01
Thunder Bay
ThUnder
Bay
.
--.--.------
. Over 95% of court areas are managed by
municipal partners or are scheduled for
transfer.
2000
Nì)
..~
Northern
Ontario
December 11,
PO A Transfer
Status as of
IYJil)lstry.
of the
Environment
Ministère
de
'Environnement
ltÆ
~
Ontario
JAM I 1 2001
Minister
Ministre
135 St. Clair Avenue West
Suite 100
Toronto ON M4V 1 P5
~~ene.gov.on.ca
135; avenue St. Clair ouest
Bureau·100
Toronto ON M4V 1 P5
www.ene.gov.on.ca
JAN 0>8 2001
File Number 70419
Mrs. Sandra J. Heffren
DeputyClerk
County of Elgin
450 Sunset Drive
St. Thomas, Ontario N5R 5Vl
Dear Mrs. Heffren:
Thank yon for your letter ofNovemqer 29,2000 in support of the request made by the Long
PointRegion Conservation Authority regarding tlrerenewal of the Canáda-Ontario Agreement
Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem (CO A).
Let me asSure you that this goveI111lletit is cOmmitted to the protection of the Great LakeS
eCOSystem. While the Great Lakes, are cleaner than they have been in decades, Ontario
recognizes that more work needs to be done by all levels of government.
The province has entered into negoti,ltions with the federal gO"ernment for the purpose of
renewing the COA.. I cannot stress enough that the expiry oftheCOA does not mean that our
work to protect the lakes has stopped. This agreement lapsed once in the past under a previous
government for a I5-month þeriod, and yet work did not cease.
Partnership is the key to protecting and conserving the Great Lakes. Continued cooperation
between governments, industry, communities and environmentalgroups will ensure that futÙ1'e
genératiOlís contiIÍueto enjoy the benefits of this valuable resource. .
Th;mk you, again, for your support for this resolution, and for your interest in the protection of
the Ore,\! Lakes ecosystem. . .
Sincerely,
IJI1h Î1~~.
Dan Ne\Vll1an
Minister
c:
Mr- Steve Peters, MPP
. Elgin-MidcllesexcLondon
137
(i)
Q761G (07/99)
. .
10P% Recycled Chlorine. Free" Made in Canada
News Release
Communiqué
® Ontario
SuperBuild
SuperCroissance
Ministry of Citizenship,
Culture and Recreation
Ministère des Affaires civiques,
de la Culture et des Loisirs
Ministry of Touñsm
Ministère du Tourisme
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 15, 2000
(Version française disponihle)
$300 MILLION SUPERBUILD INVESTMENT TO RENEW ONTARIO'S COMMUNITY
SPORT, CULTURE AND TOURISM FACILITIES
TORONTO - Renewing Ontario's community sport, recreation, culture and tourism facilities is a key
priority of Super Build's new Sports, Culture and Tourism Partnerships (SCTP) initiative, Minister of
Citizenship, Culture and Recreation Helen Johns and Minister of Tourism Cam Jackson announced today.
"Local needs demand local solutions," said Johns. "We are confident that communities will work
together to determine their greatest needs. Whether it's a new roof for the arena, a ramp at the local
library or a tourist attraction to promote local economic development, we look forward to entering into
partnerships to make these priorities a reality."
This SuperBuild initiative was originally announced by Finance Minister Ernie Eves in the 2000 Budget
and will renew, improve and expand existing community facilities, such as arenas, theatres and
community centres. It will also support new construction in areas that are in need of such facilities, and
will invest in major cultural and tourist attractions owned by provincial agencies or not-for-profit
organizations.
"Ontario's cultural and tourism industries bring hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars to
the provincial economy," said Jackson. "Today's consumers are looking for world-class products and
experiences. Capital investment in our infrastructure ensures we can meet these standards."
...2/
¢
138
nun.nIN4j ON'l'jU.U~ S.ir[~i'~Jߣ
ilÂ'i'IR I:AVENUi ni~ I. ON1AIUO
-2-
"Our $20-biIlion SuperBuild strategy to build for Ontario's future recognizes that sport, culture and
tourism facilities are a cornerstone of strong communities," Eves said. "Through this investment, we are
strengthening local and regional economies, and also promoting innovation and the greater use of public-
private partnerships to ensure that the people of Ontario have the facilities they need at an affordable
cost."
All applications will be evaluated through a competitive process. The deadline for submitting letters of
intent is February 2, 2001.
Information on the SCTP initiative and application process is available on the SuperBuild Web site at
httD:!/www.superbuild.gov.on.ca or call toll-free, 1-866-219-5001.
- 30-
Media Contacts:
Aynsley Wintrip
Ministry of Finance
(416) 325-9566
Brooke DeLong
Ministry of Tourism
(416) 327-4365
Jonathan Leigh
Ministry of Citizenship, Culture
and Recreation
(416) 325-0837
139
)nrn,nU~G ÖN'¡'iUnO' s jT[n'lJln~
I~il'IU I;A'''ENIR J>Æ I,ION'i'1UUO
Backgrounder
Fiche d'information
® Ontario
SuperBui!d
SuperCroissance
Ministry of Citizenship,
Culture and Recreation
Ministère des Affaires civiques,
de la Culture et des Loisirs
Ministry of Tourism
Ministère du Tourisme
SUPERBUILD SPORTS, CULTURE AND TOURISM
PARTNERSHIPS (SCTP) INITIATIVE
The Government of Ontario is investing $300 million over five years in a new initiative to renew,
improve and expand local sport, recreation, culture and tourism facilities across the province. The
initiative will also invest in major cultural and tourist attractions owned by provincial agencies and not-
for-profit organizations. The Sports, Culture and Tourism Partnerships (SCTP) initiative is one of
three new inftastructure programs announced in the 2000 Ontario Budget, as part of the province's
$20-billion SuperBuild strategy to build for Ontario's future.
SCTP recognizes the important contribution that sport, culture and tourism facilities make to Ontario's
economic prosperity and high standard of living. It supports local and regional economic development
that will strengthen communities, and encourages strategic investment in major cultural and tourism
attractions that contribute hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars to the provincial
economy. SCTP promotes innovation and the greater use of public-private partnerships to ensure that
Ontario taxpayers and their families have the facilities they need at an affordable cost.
Putting public health and safety first
Ontarians must have confidence that sport, recreation, culture and tourism facilities in their community
and across the province offer safe and healthy environments and that they are accessible to everyone.
Round 1 of SCTP helps achieve this goal by putting a priority on projects that address public health
and safety. Potential projects might include bringing a facility into compliance with building and fire
codes, or safety and environmental standards; increasing the safety of participants, spectators and
audiences; and installation of ramps, railings, elevator or vehicle access to enhance accessibility for
persons with disabilities.
If a community determines that it has no outstanding health and safety projects, they are still eligible to
apply for investment under SCTP for new, expansion or renovation projects.
Municipalities applying to the SCTP initiative must provide assurance (in the form of a council
resolution) that they are in compliance or in the process of coming into compliance with the new
Drinking Water Protection Regulation (DWPR). The application should include a copy of the
Consolidated Certificate of Approval ITom the Ministry of Environment.
140
1
Communities working together
SCTP encourages communities to work together to identifY and develop projects that will bring the
greatest benefits to their residents.
Applications for projects to improve the quality and condition oflocal or regional community facilities
can be proposed under SCTP's municipal stream, which is open to municipalities, local services
boards, First Nations and not-for-profit or private organizations with municipal endorsement. The
appropriate local authority must pass a resolution indicating the project is their community's highest
sports, culture and tourism infTastructure priority. Each eligible applicant can submit or endorse one
application per investment round.
Applications for projects to improve the quality and market position of Ontario's major cultural and
tourism agencies and attractions can be submitted through SCTP's provincial stream, which is open
to major cultural and tourism agencies and attractions owned by the province or a not-for-profit
organization. Each eligible applicant is limited to one application per investment round.
A competitive application process
All SCTP project proposals will be evaluated through a competitive, criteria-based process that
emphasizes benefits to the community, good value for money, innovative partnerships and the ability to
attract investment rrom other sources. Other evaluation criteria will include whether the project
demonstrates new or better ways of providing inrrastructure, enhances quality service, access and use,
or increases revenue generation or self-reliance; the amount contributed by private or other public
sector partners; and the quality of the business case.
As a first step in the application process, potential applicants are invited to submit a letter of intent,
providing a brief description of the project, how it meets SCTP's objectives, the total estimated cost
of the project, and potential partner contributions. The letter of intent should be accompanied by the
resolution rrom the appropriate local authority confirming that the proposed project is the community's
highest sport, culture and tourism infrastructure priority. The deadline for submitting a completed
letter of intent is February 2. 2001.
Once letters ofintent have been received and evaluated, eligible applicants will be contacted to submit
a project application that will require a detailed business case. The deadline for submitting a
completed application is March 31. 200 I.
Further Information
Further information on the SCTP initiative, application process and the Program Criteria and
Application Guidebook is available on the SuperBuild Web site at http://www.superbuild.gov.on.ca or
call toll-rree, 1-866-219-5001.
1 41
2
M
.,..
co
N
....
....
....
'"
....
N
....
....
....
'"
^
r
",.
""
o
z:
o
-
E-<
<:C
-
U
o
C/J
C/J
<:C
E-<
C/J
...
~i
=
; l ~~'""'.~""""'.""
~r
:'!õ;1
OR Phone:
(377) 426·6527' 330
(Gwen Rideoul)
,
HOW TO REGISTER
.
- ¡;¡":i
~~-,
"""'~
.
OR)!ailIO:
393 lDJ!.'ersì¡y A\-¡:~., He. 1701
TORO~ìO, OD\2rÍû )i5G 1E6
c::>
:c
<r::
AùTI!O= S!G:'i,ITURE
Please m;:Jke ChEqUes payable to
t~rocjíltion or ~t'J.."ÜdpaHäes o~ On[ario
?~)me"1 b}' ;:¡ \lSA 0 Maslert:<!rd
Caro'F. ___~.
r..'xpicy DaJe: __/__
.....D10unt $
CJ,ulliX
m..-¡;nt::!lD :a da.ta b:L'>e OD
m~dp::1 ffi:illas¡:.ment
www.ommí.on.ca
\idmiaj~er a pmfession::Ü devclo~æenl program aud provide recogrJiian
and caœerderetoproeol by II"eaJì.S oílbeleg:illy reœgllired, (oar h.'\:-el
Certified MUJljd?¡J] ~1anager (c..\L\f) d~jgJ!aßon
I:mwcipilly -focm.ed mau::Gemen¡ orienfed
p¡o~'i~e mSI-et!:ocdœ,
w.,Jning.Sêmil1atS
c
U
"
,~
Þ>
-
...
I
'"
'"
...
-"
U
....
UJ
UJ
I"-
M
M
UJ
'"
....
U")
....
A cheque [or S is enclosed.
(GSf RegiSf¡lIUOD liumhtr RI067329HO)
R<'..giSlralion cannot be processed un1e.s.s :!.(',COmp:lnÎed "ilh
proper paymenl A'10 ,',ill confirm your space(.s) upon receipt
of rc.gistration and full pa;.menL
Management Institute
mmf ¡s Ii £lOu-profit corporarion. ~1ished br OfitJriO'S mUJ'je,i¡l"al i!....%Od-
a~!)m ,\iL\ support (rum ,he GO\'emmeal of Or.l:1rio, <I~djcated 10:
c:5
:z:
:x:
<r::
u...
\DDR!:§
-
=
=
-
r--
m
=1
-
""
te5wclù.ng and develDpmg inlorroed pu!iC}' posiífUf\S aD W!ttefS
ufiUfcresl10 mlllUd¡y,ililies
actU1.g 3S a œf\lra1 resource centre
manö.ge:nelll.aJld polity
N
'"
'"
OJ
Þ>
"
....
c.:
-
c::>
promote eu«r.",e rebtiomhips v.it1i f'JuC".o1tíos:1l ;n;!titu!io;l5 æ1d
encûuraze an unders!Mdi.1g oflo!:ill gm'eG1meot
tr.lÚÚl1g ~d fGu('~tion m
10
FA.'
£EMh'W\ LOCXI10X
DHO~E
cm
:\H)~'ICJPALriì'
('
A!ID D.>JE CHOSE.~
PROVo
NAME
Councillor Training:
ChaIlenges for the 2001-2003 Term
Registration Form
'\
"lropron:lg rue ffiwageme¡;1 skills of ir.dMdu.als ~1Toug ¡ ed::l:lli.io;¡.I.rÚniog,
<Ll1d re.~earci1lhus sl.rrngtheaing the quilify of muillcíplli 3dmilù=-S~:ilion ,.
Objccth"es:
POSW. CODE
Ontario Municipa
^-\10 also ptoi'ides a. range ofÎJUJova¡jYe 2nd benefictal: services to
mlli:1.Ídpa1iti~, either cl.irec\ly or through its daugbleJ com~'any,
Ù){'.a! AUlbori~' Ser.ites.
www.amo.on.ca
offering a \Mei)' of cmúereaces wd olher eum:ationaJ programs
further !.be ur.derstanding of municipal iSHI~
.&1-;-.,";j "I~~
~ '~·i¡¡"""Y-
}% iI~""'J¡"<f.f?"
IJ}
for
The Association of of Ontario
TLie ASSO-d;Hioß of ~luuicipalilÎe:s (if Ontario (AMO) is:a lohmlaIy non-prc£I
org.anmtion. The As..<.odWOD ~ to promote, support.and enhance strong
3I.1d effeclì\'C rnuroidpcl ga>emmer.1 bf-
i\.S members. ß1.Ïor h~'i"ili of gm"emmenl,
consu1lÎfi3 VliL~
illJd l.'1epublic
Municipalities
irúormrtioD on JilIJIJ.icîpz
l.~emedì2.
Councillor Training
""
.....
""
M
.....
.....
.....
""
....
N
.....
....
.....
""
^
I
"..
....
c::I
z:
c::I
-
....
a:
-
'-'
c::I
'"
'"
a:
....
'"
""
:>::
<r:
=
~
~
"'"
L.L.
~
=
I
<'J
~
I
:z
<r:
...,
C)
:>::
<r:
C-or-duel of :\leefulgs -Iegcl reqillremen:s
· By-b.\Y5 and ResolalioDS
· ConlliCI of Inreresl- oulliaes ~Jæ essence of c..t>n1liC{ of inler~l;
pote.ntW 3l'e35 of rontlict
· freedom. of Inform:II.i(1il - müædpaliiy's
requlI:emenlS of council
· 'l)'Pes or 12-w
· Rot.::> of the Councillor
,. Official. pl30s - impact on decision making
«.
Zoning B)--U\-"-S - role 10 developing:md aQpiymg by-bws
En."ironmenW Ccmcems - impact of pl~1JlIl1Jlg process,
0051 and public in'iolremcm
obligations,
There will be no on--sHe regist....-..a.tions. Re-gisJ:ra.tions must be recei\'ed
z( 1e;!5 t\"'-Q weeks prior to !he tble oflhe sem1nar..
REG:STER EARLY AS SPACE IS LíMITED
"
'-'
"
.~
.!:1
""
I
'"
""
""
,...,
'-'
.....
'"
'"
I'-
M
M
'"
'"
.....
en
.....
· Anuuill Budge! Proœss - the councillor's rote
· Sources of MlJ.CècipaJ. Rc\'enue - business [a.x base,
grant SU1Jcro.re, Ir.msfer pa~1TIE'.nts
· Financial ~lanagemenl Teclutique:$ - fiJ]a..'lc1-d repor1$,
mrosl1rcmenl of performance
Reqnests for refunds must he recej\"ed in wriliog 2nd :Ille?.st 7 dafS
prior 10 the semmür. AdmIaistralh'e fee for re.PJJJds Îj $53.50
(¡50.00 + $3.50 CST.)
provincial
t.~:1:)'--sI
$J98/"""on (indud<=> $] Z.95 CST) (fee
AMO Ser.;Œ' - details 10 be con1Ìm>ed)
'"
=
~
<0
~
r-
oo
<0
~
""
c:5
:z
:x:
<r:
L.L.
to llw publir.
Public In\'Uh'em~l1t - wod-ang \\ith community groups,
mpro\ing communit}o' iDteroct.ioIJ¡ media rebtions
The Repr<=>enL,"\'e Role-
· Roles - meaJlÌ ]g and iIDplir.atinn
· Municipal Sfroctures - O\'enicw o[ Lower and upper lier
responsibilities and mromlnee ~)'5lems
CoundlJStaff Relationship - deBning s\:ltf roles/funr.tion,
methods. eosurlDg clfeCll\'e teamwork
responsibilities
-.,;,',1 h'{ti....
8:30a.m. .......
8:45 a.m. .......
9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m_
Lt~GJ1 and refresbm€llt
Refresbmems
.1.\10 IfIlrodur.Uoll
Workshop
breaks included
North Bay
Fort France5
Cornwall
Dryden
Kingston
London
Sault Ste. Marie
Chatham
Thunder Bay
Pet"rborough
Ow"n Sound
Grav"nhurst
8arrie
February 3
Februa r¡ 9
Februar¡ 9
February 10
February 10
10
indude 'Zccess
10 other
January 27
January 27
February 2
February 2
February 3
Jan uary 20
January 26
January 26
f'I')
"'"
~
M
""
""
OJ
'"
'"
""
<'J
=
a.:
.!
... pro,'jde 3 complete o\'er<;'jew of:l councillor's
and responsibilities
· proride guiding insight and "'l'eríenœd obsen'ations
on pertomting dtese duties
... prmide specific references in relation to !be myriad of
re:.-ulling from prminr.iaI municipal re-illigomeol
10 effecti,-e funr.tion
Englehart
February
6
id,ntify
tools and suppo"s crurial
roles
Chilllges
All parlicipan~ recell'e 3 binder of m;¡terial5 commJssioocd sper.ifical-
Iy for this program, including a workbook and delailed referenœ
nOles. Tbe m:lleriaJs are cross-referenced ",ith rhe AMO/GO\'enunenl
of Ool:1rio pubUr.aUon "Ù)<:aI Servir"" Realignme1!t: A Users Guide"
:md O~IW's "You & Your local GoverruMur', 41h edition.
:\11 ses.siot1S are conducted b~' two murlicipaUy cxpctienced faciliI31oI'$
and:I1'f designed to encourage parûcip:rnl imeractìoß.The mi.x of
new and retuming counciilors pro\:ides mclul and reali~J bas-ed group
discussioJ1.'), ensuring 2I\ im-aluable networking opportu.rLit}:
Sudbury
Ancaster
Ottawa
LOCATIONS & DATES
Eac.h location is limited to 48 registrants
Kitchener
Pembroke
Orangeville
January
January
January
January
January
January
9
9
12
12
13
13
7:ntario
Pharmacists'
/lssociation
JAN 4 2001
CO' ."", ,~- -, n'"
. i¡\':; T "tj.o ¡"'i'''~;~
u_,"", ,-,0 ___Md.
SERVK:!:S
January 2, 2001
Clerk's Office
The County of Elgin
450 Sunset Drive
St. Thomas, ON
N5R 5V1
Re: Proclamation Request
Dear Sir or Madam:
On behalf of the pharmacists in the County of Elgin, the Ontario Pharmacists' Association
would like to apply for a proclamation that the week of March 5 - 11, 2001 be proclaimed
Pharmacy Awareness Week.
This year's theme for Pharmacy Awareness Week (PAW) is uPharmacists Care - No
Matter Where". During PAW, pharmacists throughout the province (including in your city)
will highlight for patients the many ways pharmacists can help them enjoy better health
every day by taking advantage of initiatives such as the Smoking Cessation Program, and
the Seniors' Safe Medication Use presentations.
Pharmacists have a wealth of information to share, and make a positive contribution to the
health and well being of your constituents every day. As the most accessible health care
provider, pharmacists consistently provide valuable services, saving the health care system
valuable resources. We know you will want to support them in their continuing endeavours.
We hope you will support PAW 2001 by proclaiming the week of March 5 - 11, 2000
Pharmacy Awareness Week in your city.
Please contact me at (416) 441-0788, ext. 4266 with further directions or questions.
Yours very truly,
Ontario Pharmacists' Association
0/ ~1Lt /151-------
Terry A. Cunningham
Program Coordinator
23 Lesmill Road, Suite 301
Don Mills, Ontario M3B 3P6
TeL (416) 441-0788
Fax (416) 441-0791
www.opatoday.com
/4+
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. Box 520 - City Hall
51. Thomas, Ontario N5P 3V7
Telephone: (519) 631-1680 Ex!. 131
Fax: (519) 633-9019
Corporation of the City of St. Thomas JAN 17 2001
I!'"..,.¡~..,
~~J~ ¡~¡ ~ ':{
'" f!1"
::-~ "'.1'~
b""" .~
January 11, 2001
Warden D. McPhail and Members of County Council
450 Sunset Drive
St. Thomas, ()~
N5R 5Vl
Dear Warden McPhail:
Re: 200 Chestnut Street
This letter is to extend sincere appreciation on behalf of City Council, the citizens of St. Thomas,
St. Thomas Fire Department and the family of the late Captain D. Redman for the invaluable
assistance provided by the County and each of the area municipalities in assisting the City to deal
with this tragedy. Your prompt offer of assistance and availability of equipment and manpower
from Malahide, Central Elgin, Southwold and West Elgin in particular was critical during our time
of need.
The physical assista:lce that was provided in assisting wit.'l clearing of the arena property and the
adjacent streets for the parade and ceremony made it possible to properly stage this event.
The City of St. Thomas is indebted to the County and each ofthe area municipalities for your
generosity and thoughtfulness.
Yours truly,
~,~
Peter OstOjiJ
Mayor
..
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P,O. Box 520 - City Hall
SI. Thomas, Ontario N5P 3V7
Telephone: (519) 631-1680 Ex!. 131
Fax: (519) 633-9019
Corporation of the City of St. Thomas JAN 17 2001
January 15,2001
Warden D. McPhail & Members of Elgin County Council
450 Sunset Drive
St. Thomas, ON
N5R 5VI
Dear Warden McPhail:
This letter is to request to appear as a deputation before your January 23, 200 I meeting of
County CounciL I will be accompanied by the City Administrator, Mr. R. Main.
I have several reason for appearing and would appreciate having approximately 10 minutes of
your time.
First and foremost, I would like to personally extend the appreciation of the City of St. Thomas
and in particularly the St. Thomas Fire Department for the invaluable assistance provided during
our recent tragedy. Secondly, as the new Mayor I would like to reaffirm and outline the spirit of
cooperation that I would like to foster and enhance between our two municipalities. Thirdly, I
would like to extend an invitation on behalf of City Council to meet and discuss various matters of
mutual concern and interest.
I fully recognize the need for our two municipalities to keep each other apprized on the various
agenda topics and as a result would like to discuss ways and means of which we can enhance our
relationship.
YÖfu's truly,
1111 lli~
pY;;. ostoA
Mayor
B1/16/B1 23:26:B6 EST; ASSOCIATION OF?-)
1 519 633 7661 CLERH-EIgin Co
Page BB2
JAN-16-01 rUE 04:58 PM
AMO
FAX N~ 416 971 6191
/ [¥(
p, 01/03
" ASSOCIé:ilIUn Ut
: Municipalities
of Ontario
. .
Memb_e! Communicatiof)
AI~r1:
393 Un"-,,iI)' Avonun, SuÏlO 1701
Ton>nbJ, ON M5G I E6
Tol: (416) 971-9856' fox: (418) 971-6191
8mlilll: amoOamo.mun!com,com
To the immediate attention of the Clerk and Council
Please ensure that copies of this are distributed to a/l Members of Council
January 16, 2001
Alert·01/001
AMO Makes Another Petition for Transportation and Transit Funding
Issue:
Solutions for Ontario Municipal Infrastructure Deficit
Background:
AMO's President, Ann MUlvale, called on the Province to commit funding to help with the capital cost
to improve municipal roads and transit transportation systems across Ontario. A copy of the Press
Release is attached,
It is becoming difficult to count the number of times the growing infrastructure deficit has been raised
by AMO in submissions to both orders of government, provincial and federal, through pre-budget
consultations, standing committee hearings, reports and government to government discussions.
Municipal leaders throughout the province, representing large and small communities in both southern
and northern Ontario have added their voices. And we have been joined by groups within the business
communities, the service sector and tho environmental sector have made similar pleas.
The President, in a letter to Minister Clement, indicated that the time for action was past and that
commitment for roads and transit are needed now. "Crumbling roads and bridges throughout Ontario
sends the wrong message indicating that Ontario is not looking to the future. The attractiveness of our
province for business is lessened when we cannot build the infrastructure to support," said Mulvale.
Action:
We encourage each member to share with their M.P. and M.P.P., the nature and scope oftheircapital
needs for roads and bridges and transit systems, We need to demonstrate that the infrastructure
deficit cannot be solved solely through the property tax base. It is clear that all orders of government
must work cooperatively to find a solution to our transportation deficit. Without this, notwithstanding
an the best practices and partnerships, a lasting solution will not be found.
ThIs In{ormation Is avaílablo through AMO's subscription based MUNICOM network at www.municom.com.
For more Information contact (416) 971-9856: Pat Vanini, Director of Policy and Govemment Relations at ext. 316
Transmission probloms:
416-971-9856
B1/1G/B1 23:2G:52 EST; ASSO~IATIO" OF?->
1 519 G33 7GG1 ~LERR-EIgiTI ~o
Page BB3
JAN-16-01 rUE 04:59 PM AMD
FAX NO, 416 971 6191
P. 02/03
Media Communication
. -
/
~ ~--\ Association of
ç:.-. '1\ i Municipalities
, ·'t"r· of Ontario
News Release
393 UnNsratty Ava. Sultø 1701
Toronto. ON M5G 1 EO
1e1: (418) 971-9856' fox: (418) 97HI191
emlili1: amoCamo,munlcom.com
For immediate release
NWS - 01f02
AMO Makes Another Petition for Transportation and Transit Funding
Toronto, Ont., January 16,2001 - AMO President, Ann Mulvale has called on the province to
commit funding to help with the capital cost to improve Ontario's road and transit transportation
systems. "AMO has long advocated that all three orders of government must work cooperatively
to find a solution that sees meaningful, long-term financial investment. Without this,
notwithstanding all the best practices and partnerships, a lasting solution to the enormous need will
not be found," said Mulvale.
Organizations within the business, community, the service sector and more increasingly the
environmental sector, as well as individual constituents have voiced similar messages. "They
undersland the problem· they understand that to make a living and to preserve and possibly even
advance their quality of life, progress on improving this infrastructure must be made," said Mulvale.
Ontario's SuperBuild and the Federal-Provincial Agreement on Infrastructure are partial solutions.
Municipalities have yet to be informed of how the proposed billion-dollar Millennium Fund will or will
not assist in dealing with the road and transit deficit across Ontario. "While these federal and
provincial programs help, and we are grateful for them, there is much more that needs to be done,
said Mulvale. " If an economic downturn is coming, even with a soft landing, announcing new, major
investment in our transportation and transit infrastructure will signal that Ontario is serious about
remaining open for business. It will demonstrate our confidence in the economic future of our
Province by investing in our own economy."
Ontario's municipalities are responsible for maintaining approximately 142,300 kilo metres of roads,
and using average costs for maintaining them, this amounts to as much as $441 million. On top
of this is the cost of bridge maintenance and reconstruction. Within the Greater Toronto Area
current municipal spending on transportation infrastructure, primarity sourced from the property tax
base, is $570 million annually - but a spending of $1.37 billion annually is needed to meet future
demand and improve present levels of sen/ice.
The Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) is a non-profit organization with member municipalities
representing 9B per cent of Ontario's population. AMO supports and enhances stron9 and effective
municipal government in Ontario and promotes the value of municipal government as a vital and essential
component of Onlario and Canada's political system.
- 30-
For more information, contact: Pat Vanini, AMO Director of Policy and Government Relations
(416) 971-9856 ext 316
-