The URL can be used to link to this page

April 27, 2004 Agenda ORDERS OF THE DA Y FOR TUESDAY. APRIL 27. 2004 - 9:00 A.M. PAGE # ORDER 1st Meeting Called to Order 2nd Adoption of Minutes - meeting of April 13, 2004 3rd Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof 4th Presenting Petitions, Presentations and Delegations DELEGATIONS: 9:00 a.m. Retirement Recognition - Carol Beauchamp 9:05 a.m. John Maddox, Director, Municipal Services Office - Southwestem, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, updating Council on Ministry Activities 2-6 9:15 a.m. Chester Hinatsu, Director, Ontario Works, Quarterly Report (Attachment) 5th Motion tq Move Into "Committee Of The Whole Council" 7-62 6th Reports of Coµncil, Outside Boards and Staff 63-84 85-108 109-110 7th Council Correspondence - see attached 1) Items for Consideration 2) Items for Information (Consent Agenda) 8th OTHER BUSINESS 1) Statements/Inquiries by Members 2) Notice of Motion 3) Matters of Urgency 9th 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 LUNCH WILL BE PROVIDED . . SPECIAL PUBLIC MEETING - COUNTY COUNCIL APRIL 27TH, 2004 AT 7:00 P.M. PROPOSED TREE BY-LAW 1 · Report No. CR-Q4-07 FileNo. OW-04-07 Date April 19, 2004 Attachments Two (2) .hJ.;L, .J~7~:. Corporation of the City of St. Thomas """'_..",,...,"'-,""« ST. THŒ\'IAS Directed to: Warden D. Rock and members of Elgin County Council Department: Prepared By: Subject: SI. Thomas-Elgin Ontario Works Chester Hinatsu Ontario Works Quarterly Report (January to March 2004) Report: The first quarter of 2004 was a very busy but also an exciting period for the Ontario Works Department. The City's new Management Board concept and the preparation of this year's budget required adjustments and delayed the approval of our 2004 budget estimates. It is anticipated our operating budget will be reviewed by council in May. The following is an update of first quarter activities in the department. Income SUDDort: The social assistance caseload showed a slight increase over the numbers we experienced at the end of the fourth quarter of 2003. This trend is customary at this point in the year and as the attached graph indicates, should gradually decline as spring and summer arrive. In comparison to last year's first quarter the numbers are slightly lower this year. The number of new applicants in the first three months ayeraged 180 per month. In staff activities, Advanced Care Management Training was completed by all caseworkers to refresh and enhance their skills in case management. This training covered a one-month period and should prove to be beneficial to all who participated. Ernolovment: The Employment division worked hard in the first quarter preparing workshops and continued their efforts to prepare clients for employment and securing Community Participation placements. The staff also participated in the advanced Case Management Training and gained further knowledge to better serve the needs of the hard to serve participants. Over the past two years, as caseloads decline, the balance of clients require greater supports to become self-sufficient. Childcare: On January 7, 2004, the Minister of Children's Services, Marie Bountrogianni announced the government's plan for investing the 2003/04 Federal Early Learning and Child Care Funding Initiative. This funding initiative is to assist licensed non-profit child care operators serving children under six years of age to address minor capital improvements and repairs and maintenance needs. The funding < is 100% provincial. Ontario Works 5t. Thomas-Elgin received funding in the amount of $72,400 for distribution in our community. These funding dollars have been reinvested into our community child care organizations. A pay equity settlement was reached with the government and five unions in April 2003, regarding proxy pay equity funding for child care workers. This Memorandum of Settlement provides eligible organizalions, including not-for-profit child care operators, with funding to meet current proxy pay equity obligations. The Memorandum of Settlement covers the period from January 1, 1999 to December 31, 2005. The province ended pay equity funding in December 1999 when the program was downloaded to the municipality. Our office is currently in the process of revisiting all the child care organizations that received pay equity prior to the download of the program. This represents six organizations in total. At present pay equity settlements are 100% provincial funding dollars. Our Child Care Management System, which is our data base system for child care management is now fully populated and functional. Social Housina: Waiting list statistics: Total numbers of applicant households waiting for subsidized housing during the first quarter of 2004, compared to the same period last year, were: Jan. 31 Feb. 28 Mar. 31 2003 173 181 194 2004 251 258 267 As is evident, the number of applicants has been increasing steadily. Our housing providers no longer experience a general vacancy problem in the larger bedroom sizes as was the case a year ago. with the exception of Port Burwell Family Residences_ Similarly, the number of Special Priority applicants (victims of family violence) has increased from an average of seven during the first quarter last year to an average of twelve this year. The pèrcentage of total applicants seeking bachelor or one-bedroom units, however, has remained fairly constant at approximately 60% of all applicants, as has the percentage of seniors over the age of 65 (about 13% of all applicants). Applicants eligible for bachelor and one-bedroom units include single people or adult couples. Affordable Housing Needs Assessment We are awaiting completion of this study. An interim supply and demand report was forwarded by the consultants in February. Preliminary results point to a need for more one and two-bedroom units, more housing for seniors, and the provision of emergency accommodation for the homeless. The completion of the needs assessment and housing strategy are pre-requisites for application for funding under the Canada-Ontario Affordable Housing Program for the construction of new affordable housing. A number of groups in St. Thomas and Elgin County have expressed interest in developing new affordable housing in their cqmmunities. The Province recently· announced initial funding commitments under this program for twelve municipalities. It is anticipated that the final Affordable Housing Strategy will be available in June. The consultants will present their findings to County Council at that time. Rent Bank On March 29, the Province announced funding for a new initiative designed to assist tenants experiencing short- term rent arrears. The Sl Thomas - Elgin Service Manager Area has been allocated $71,475 under the Rent Bank Program. Maximum assistance will cover two months' of rent arrears. We are in the process of developing local criteria for the program and an application and evaluation process. It is expected the funds will be administered out of the Ontario Works offices_ This funding will be forwarded by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing by the end of April. Energy Emergency Fund The Province has also announced funding for a second new program. An Energy Emergency Fund will provide one-time assistance to households for the payment of energy utility arrears, security deposits, and reconnection fees. The amount of the allocation for St. Thomas - Elgin has not yet been announced. It is expected thís fund will also be administered out of the Ontario Works offices to complement the Rent Bank Fund and the provincially- funded Homelessness Initiative Fund, which has been in place for a number of years. Respectfully, ~ Chest CHlss Reviewed By: Treasury Env Services Planning City Clerk HR Other -2- March-04 CR-04-07 OW Allowances 518.546.75 1,510,400.35 ODSP Allowances 238,799.11 731,801.40 Tara Ha1l 22,627.18 64,057.66 MandatoI)' Benefits 5,298.74 9,294.30 DiscretionaIY Benefits 9,246.95 19,714.53 Homemakers 600.19 1,227.87 ODSP Benefits 78,314.69 227,256.16 OW Administration 94,721.74 285,805.27 ODS? Administration 55,496.05 166,969.37 Direct Operating Expenses (1,256.32) 34,831.43 Intake Screening Unit 7,500.00 22,500.00 Homelessness 7,305.30 19.642.65 N.C.B.S. 19,799.67 59,709.78 Administration Overhead 0.00 Totallncorne Maintenance: 1,057,000.05 3,153,110.77 Less Recoveries: 20,831.19 75,073.87 Net Income Maintenance: 1,036,168.86 3,078,036.90 Employment Supports 8,882.53 24,732.65 - Expenses Community Participation 1,596.10 4,812.56 Expenses L.EAP. 225.60 953.60 Administration 36,912.34 102,658.95 Direct Operating Expenses (854.99) 21,165.20 CP Innovation 5,109.72 CP· Bonus 0.00 CP Bonus ERW Contract 4,255.37 12,070.78 Administration Overhead 0.00 Total Employment: 51,016.95 171,503.46 Level One - Job Ready Employment Search Level Two - Employment Placement, Community Placement < 30 hours and Basic Education level Three -: Employment Placement with Incentives, Community Placement> 30 hours and Self Employmen 458 425 311 290 66 81 L.E.A.P. - Learning, Earning and Parenting 4/19/0411 :13 AMJan Z004Committee Report T ablesln~me Maintenance Employment March-04 CR-04- 07 Wage Subsidy 71,057.13 213,170.99 Special Needs Resourcing 30,119.32 90,357.96 Resource Centres 2,620.00 7,860.00 Fee Subsidy 75,221.88 198,050.54 Ontario Works 20,820.14 51,795.42 Federal Early Learning Fund 72,384.58 Pay Equity 16,590.21 16,590.21 Administration 14.475.65 42,789.35 Direct Operating Expenses (201.11) 2,486.58 Administration Overhead 0.00 Total Childcare 230,703.22 695,485.63 Direct Operating Expense 231.07 6,693.87 Administration 9,198.77 27,264.41 Non Profit Housing Subsidy 239,990.08 713,534.28 Paid Federal Non Profit Housing 17,528.40 52,585.16 Subsidy Paid Elgin 8t Thomas Housing 112,078.00 Corp Subsidy Paid Rent Supplement Subsidy 12,367.50 37,802.50 Paid Administration Overhead 0.00 Allocation Total Social Housing 279,315.82 949,958.22 . OW Ontario Works ODS? Ontario Disability Support Program PNA Personal Needs Allowance NCBS National Child Benefit Supplement LEAP Learning, Earning and Parenting SDMT Service Delivery Model Technology SHC Social Housing Corporation 4/19/0411:10 AMJan 2004Committee Report TablesChitdcare Social Housing 2004 Ontario Works Caseload Trend 2003 IiJCounty .City 00 600 500 00 400 300 200 600 700 1000 900 'C ro o ïí ro () Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 Month 4/19/04GWASTATS2004 2Years5 Year Trend o REPORTS OF COUNCIL AND STAFF ADri127.2004 Staff ReDorts - (ATTACHED) 8 13 15 17 19 21 31 39 43 46 54 56 59 Tree Commissioner- Application for Minor Exception, Lot 14, Concession 1, Township of Southwold Manager of Engineering Services - Decommission of Wells on Union Road and Centennial Road Manager of Engineering Services - lona Road Slope Instability Manager of Engineering Services - Engineering Services for the Replacement of the New Sa rum Bridge Manager of Engineering Services - Union Road Resurfacing Manager of Engineering Services - Elgin Manor Waste Water Treatment Plant- Engineering Services Manager of Engineering Services - Chatham-Kent Maintenance Agreement Technical Services Officer - Request to Reconstruct Sunset Road . . Ambulance and Emergency Management C.o-Ordinator - Ambulance Emergency Response Vehicle (ERV) Court Services Co-Ordinator - Hire of Full-Time Bilingual Administration Clerk/Clerk Monitor Manager of Resident Care, Terrace Lodge - Ministry of Health - Enhanced Risk Reviews Director of Financial Services - 2004 Operational Needs Manager of Engineering Services - Terrace Lodge - Compliance Requirements/ 2004 Construction (referred from April 13, 2004 Council) 7 REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Rob Lindsay, Tree Commissioner DATE: 16 April 2004 SUBJECT: Application for Minor Exception, Lot 14, Concession 1, Township of Southwold INTRODUCTION: The Tree Commissioner has received an application for Minor Exception from John D. Lyle to clear 0.75 hectares of woodlands from Lot 14, Conc. 1, Township of Southwold. DISCUSSION: The proposed clearing involves 0.75 hectares of woodland to allow for a private field drainage outlet and to provide an access laneway to the rear of the farm. The applicant is currently accessing the rear portions of his property through the neighbour's field. Tree species located within the woodland area are hardwoods consisting of shagbark hickory, soft maple, bur oak, green ash and hawthorn. During a field inventory on March 26, 2004, the presence of any rare or significant tree species was not found. All abutting landowners have been contacted regarding this clearing and have no objections. L TRCA and MNR have responded with no environmentally significant concerns. The applicant is aware of the required replanting of trees and is proposing to replant a .75 ha area within a woodlot on the same farm. CONCLUSION: It is the opinion of the Tree Commissioner that this application meets the goals of the Elgin County's forest management. RECOMMENDATION: THAT, the Application for Minor Exception to the Trees Act from Mr John D. Lyle, Lot 14, Conc. 1, Township of Southwold, to clear 0.75 hectares of woodlands to allow for a private field drainage outlet and to provide an access laneway to the rear of the farm be approved, subject to a minimum of 1300 trees being replanted or an equivalent donation being made to a local conservation/heritage association. Respectfully Submitted ~/ ~ /3.; Rob Lindsay Tree Commissioner Ma Donald Chief Admin! Icer MAR 29.'0411:44 FR RA PROD/SUP MVCOE 5197404756 TO 915196315026 P.01/04 Rockwell Automation Rockwell Automation Canada Control Systems 135 Dundas Street Cambriclge, Ontario Canacla N1R5X1 From Sent r- To Name: Ron Lindsay Company Name: Kettle Creek Conservation Auth. Fax Number. 51963Hi026 Name: John Lyle Telephone: (519)740-4774 Fax Number: (519) 749-4756 Ex!, Date: TIme: Pages: March 29. 2004 11:27:AS AM 4 Message: Topic: Lot 14, Concession 1 Southwold Township Rob Attached is the "The Trees Act Application for Minor Exception", If you need more information, call me and I will be my office for this week. John Lyle :; fl/~ I) 1 MAR 29.'04 11:45 FR RA PROD/SUP MVCOE 5197404756 TO 915196315026 P.02/04 ~ c. WfOONoU.U ~- (W.....ISAfß1A",:,ttEJlfllEN lVIIt'{e:o"..nQllbl . ," \ !t"4M ;;:~:F::;~~\ !§¡( I~.:%£':';.'.>;~.'~J \g 'P:,i~j'<i p,\-\ ·-·-·V...-, \*-="'~~'C). "°&J:4'ß\/ ...........-. :;¡; '\'!lOMAS, 0I<IWI10 ...... I'IiDNS !IlifÐM4GO fAX ($11) a.7551 THE TREES ACT APPUCA TION FOR MINOR EXCEPTION 1/ We wish to apply for a minor exception from the provisions of the County of Elgin By-Law No. which restricts and regulates that destruction of trees. In order to be allowed to remove trees as outlined in this application. 1. NAME(S) OF OWNER(S): Jo hV"\ ..1. L~ Ie. MAILING ADDRESS: RR ~ i./- IoV"\ð.. 5tcdiOf'\, oN PostalCodeNOL IPO Phone No, SIC¡ 7/ b 0 -r-S7 5/7 ?40 - J../77tf bu$.. 2. LOCATION OF LAND: Mûnicipalily (Town, Village, Township) . .50u.-~<...0 6\ð I LatNo. /4 Concession No. LatNo. Registered Plan No. 3. Reason for wishing to Remove trees. ACc.ess ~ I", :sJd\ A ~~'^ -tt.e oj d r~,,"J¿ feor oJ ft,fii:. ..J4f'Yh C/u:1 It::J. 4. Describe species of trees and size of trees to be removeð. ~M': T~, 5"%."'1< ft'-'1; fY\a.,IJL.e. ì Lro _ Uo,_ I A' 5),.} 1JeJ" ¡ <:,4 ffi - 70 VJc:> ·Sc,H 5. Area to be cleared (in metric) Length ~ .5CY"\ Meters Area (). 1~ J.JA Width / S Meters (in square meters or hectares) MAR 29.'04 11:45 FR RA PROD/SUP MVCOE 5197404756 TO 915196315026 P.03/04 6. Has the owner previously applied for and been granted permission to remove trees? Yes ("f...) No ( ) If yes, please indicate the purpose to which they were removed approximate size of area cleared and date. j)Î6.:¡/\~JC: O~d: re. pc.: r. ARJ ID X- 1Y2 k(.r~ 7. Names, mailing addre$ses and phone numbers of all owners of property which abutts the land of the owner of the trees in respect to which this applicalTon is made as per section 9.2 of the act. (If insufficient space below please attach another sheet of paper) NAME MAILING ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER (-'~ ,\,..} -, ,\. l71R I ~...-I- -<'''\'''''...1 """ ..... '1:2 -.l+~1 . I . 8, Other information deemed pertinent to this application. ~ . 1"1 f ~e.. J~e.\à5'::::-+ i-ÞL~ ,ba,,¡¿ ..µ....e.. pl"1".¡o.e.rlJ tk- pJ.:":P""'....·*. e~~ IJ'\.->.u-<A . 1",rn<;'S ~ l\eí)~~úW5 /4'1J. . C\..c.(.e~ 9. Each application must be accompanied by a sketch, no smaller than 20 centimetres by 35 centimetres, showing: (e) The parcel of land that is the subject of this app!icalion, clearly indicating the area proposed to be cleared and the area or trees which will remain. (b) buildings on the owner's property and also on the abutting property. ¡/ CJ h, w.' (d, 1.Js (c) use of abutting lands (e.g. residential agricullural, cottage, commercial, etc.) 10. As an on site inspection will be made. Use peMmeteroftrees which will remain if this appiícationis granted. must be marked by spraying or some other means, 10 clearly indicate during this visit what Is proposed to be removed. ~ .21Ä<f Date / Note: If this application is signed by other than the owner, written authorization of the owner(s) must accompany the application. If the applicant is a corporation, the application must be signed ~,. ~_ _"'___ I~~" .h",' """itinn mll~1 boo inni"",I..tJ1 ...nd the coroorate seal shall be affixed. w o u ::> E "- ~ Q o œ "- a: œ œ LL !g ... ... " is) m N œ a: E - Proposed Area for Clearing . Lot 14, Concession 1 Southwold John Lyle ·······....~.~R ". 2nd line ;::Ol::~ ... "';:::O~... ..,:;-.:::~ ,ere Field <D N m ... ~ ... If) ... m ¡::! <D 1!2 " is) " i:'- m ... If) -....... ... - New Drain Outlet Drain Outfets Existing Access Path ......... '. '. ............. .... ........ " " " " " .,,~ 'í"" ..r .. :: "..,,9 '. II '19- .... ",.""'-",¡,. "0 11 ~ 1p "0 II , ···Zo.,Ä~re Field ~ ..... ~ ...... ..... ...... 1po .... s.\I -0. 1jP'L -0. _ . " "'. ~ '. .... ~~ Goodhue Farm \ " is) ~ "- '. ...... '" ":~~ . '" '" '" '" 1 st line REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Clayton Watters, Manager of Engineering Services, Sonia Beavers, Purchasing Co-Ordinator DATE: April 8, 2004 SUBJEcr: Decommission of Wells on Union Road and Centennial Road. Introduction: On March 9, 2004, Council directed staff to proceed with the projects entitled Decommission of Two Wells on 7986 Centennial Road (County Road 28) and on Union Road (County Road 20) north of Fifth Line and that the funds be allocated from the 2004 Engineering Miscellaneous Operations. Discussion: Formal quotations were delivered for the decommissioning of the two wells to three (3) quotation packages contractors and one (1) contractor responded. The quotation was received as follows: Company Total of Bid J. B. Wilson & Son Well Drillinq Limited $ 6200.00 D. R. McClintock & Son Well Drillinq No Bid David S Ross No Bid *Bid does not include G.5.T Conclusion: Since, J.B. Wilson & Son Well Drilling Limited's bid and past performance are favourable, staff recommends that they be awarded the contract. Recommendation: THAT J.B. Wilson & Son Well Drilling Limited be selected for the project to decommission two wells: 7986 Centennial Road (County Road 28); Union Road (County Road 20) north of the Fifth Line at their quoted price of $6200.00 plus G.5.T.; and also, THAT the funds be allocated from the 2004 Engineering Miscellaneous Operations account. Respectfully Submitted PJ,,~ Clayton Watters Manager, Engineering Services ~I~ ß;~~ Sónia Beavers Purchasing Co-Ordinator G. McDonald, Chief A . fficer. REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Clayton Watters, Manager of Engineering Services DATE: April 6, 2004 SUBJECT: Iona Road Slope Instability INTRODUCTION Iona Road between the Hamlet of Iona and Burwell Corners was reconstructed in 1960 and resurfaced in 1989. The reconstruction included land purchase, road surface widening, re-ditching, and including Granular B and Granular A with 100mm of hot mix asphalt. The 1989 resurfacing included a drainage system, catch basins, paved asphalt swale, and 100mm of hot mix asphalt. Also included in the project was redesigning the curves north of the Iona Bridge to accommodate the posted 80km/h speed. In the summer of 1991 the creek had a partial dam crossing so that it impeded the free flow low water volumes of water. The County of Elgin hired a local contractor to remove the dam with the consent of the Ministry of Natural Resources: DISCUSSION: In the approved 2002 Capital Budget allocations were provided for the drilling of boreholes at this location and a topographical survey of the area. The purpose of the borehole investigations was to determine subsurface soil and groundwater conditions in areas of slope instability and to provide engineering recommendations for potential measures to reduce the slope instability and the related impact on the adjacent roadway. The topographical survey would be used to visually show the area and also provide for material quantities for the movement of the fill for a new road. Iona Road north of Iona Bridge is at the top of an unstable slope. The County of Elgin has at least four options to rectify the situation: 1. Do nothing and close the road when is becomes unsafe; 2. Relocate the road to the west and flatten the slope; 3. Lower the roadway in present location and flatten the slope; or 4. Relocate the road to center of road allowance and flatten both the upside and downside slopes. In all cases the County will be required to protect the creek slopes and realign the creek so that whatever road alignment is chosen the creek will not meander to further erode the side slope of the road and so that this process will not be required at another time in the future. In the immediate future a monitoring system will be required to measure the distance from the top of the slope to the edge of roadway on a regular basis. If the roadway is within 2.5 meters from the top of the slope signs will be erected and an another visual review will be conducted. If the top of the slope is within 2.0 meters from the edge of roadway the road will be closed. The project will require approval from various government agencies due to the work within the creek. CONCLUSION: This report identifies a potential slope stability issue on lona Road south ·of the Hamlet of lona. In the immediate future staff will monitor the situation and conduct engineering on alternatives: do nothing; move road east or west; and lower road. Once our engineering is complete a further report will be for the County of Elgin Council's review. RECOMMENDATION: That this report be received and filed. Respectfully Submitted Approved for Su ission ~ ý\1tM4 Mar Dona Chief Administrative Officer Clayton Watters Manager of Engineering Services · REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Clayton Watters, Manager, Engineering Services Sonia Beavers, Purchasing Co-Ordinator DATE: April 8, 2004 SUBJECT: Engineering Services for the Replacement of the New Sarum Bridge Introduction: On February 10, 2004, Council directed staff to a) proceed with the project of obtaining quotations for engineering services for the replacement of the New Sarum Bridge as per the County of Elgin's purchasing policy, b) staff report on the results at the next County Council meeting. Discussion: Formal quotations were retained for Consultant Services to undertake the detail design and assist with the contract preparation and construction supervision for the proposed replacement of the New Sarum Bridge. Staff had estimated the value of these services to be $50,000 as identified in the 2004 Capital Budget, therefore, three (3) quotation packages were distributed as per the County's purchasing policy. The quotations were received as follows: COMPANY TOTAL OF BID Spriet Associates $54,900 Delcan Corporation $97,250 Totten Sims Hubicki Late Submission / Not Accepted *Bids do not include G.S.T. Spriet Associates was the lowest quote received for Consultant Services for the Replacement of the New Sarum Bridge at the quoted price of $54,900 plus G.S.T. The County's purchasing policy states that goods and services exceeding the value of $50,000 should be publicly tendered. Since the lowest price submitted exceeded the policy limit to invite bids, these services should be re-tendered publicly to adhere to the policy. · For Council's information it will cost approximately $1,500.00 in advertising costs plus staff time to publicly advertise and tender for these services. Delcan, Spriet Associates and Totten Sims Hubiciki Associates will be invited to re-bid. By tendering for -consulting services for the replacement of the New Sarum Bridge the County of Elgin mayor not receive a lower bid. Conclusion: Staff has solicited prices for consulting services for the replacement of the New Sarum Bridge planned for 2005. The lowest submitted price exceeded the County Purchasing Policy limit for invited quotations, therefore, the Purchasing Co-ordinator advises that the current Purchasing Policy be adhered to and recommends tendering for the services publicly. Additional costs will be realized to advertize and execute the tendering process. The bid process was done in good faith, the submitted quotations were publicity opened and the lowest bidder is aware that almost $40,000 separated him from the second lowest bidder. Public tendering for these services may not be fair to those who already submitted prices and the County may ultimately pay more for these same services. Recommendation: THAT consulting services for the design, administration and inspection of the New Sarum Bridge Replacement be re-tendered publicly per the County's Purchasing Policy. Respectfully Submitted Approved for Submission (]M~ Clayton Watters Manager, Engineering Services MarK. ona Chief Administrative Officer. 0~1 ~ LJ...-(,..{,,(fi Sonia Beavers Purchasing Co-Ordinator REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Clayton Watters, Manager of Engineering Services DATE: April 6, 2004 SUBJECT: Union Road Resurfacing INTRODUCTION Staff proposed in the 2004 Capital Budget a project on Union Road, from Fingal to Thomas Road, that would see a thin Cold Mix Overlay applied to the surface at a cost of $130,000. This project would also include crack sealing of the transverse cracks. The Township of Southwold may be installing a water line on this section of roadway and it may be best to resurface this roadway once the water line has been installed so as not to damage the roadway surface. DISCUSSION: In the 2004 Capital Budget one project will be a potential conflict with a municipal project. Southwold is in preliminary stages of a study that vyould determine if a water line would be installed on Union Road. Due to the uncertainty of the water line project staff are proposing that this project be deferred until after Southwold has completed its project (2006). This project has an allocation of $130,000. If Council were in agreement with staff's recommendation to defer the project until 2006 these monies would be better allocated to other capital projects. These projects are: engineering for the electrical power and control system redesign for the Port Stanley Lift Bridge; resurfacing pilot project on Union Road south of Fingal; and also a road resurfacing on Third Line between Mill Road and Highway #4 The first project is the engineering for the electrical power and control system redesign for the King George Lift Bridge in Port Stanley. This project will be completed in the winter of 2005. The bridge was built in 1938 and has undergone a number of electrical modifications and upgrades. In 1979 a major electrical upgrade was completed and incorporated the present DC drive systems with other modification to the electrical power and control system. It now is necessary to update the electrical power and control system and this project has been included in the 2005 budget at an estimated project cost of $400,000. The project will be complete during the winter season, as the bridge is not in operation. Byrne Engineering Incorporated is the preferred choice for this engineering project as have extensive knowledge in the design and maintenance of lift bridges and they have completed the bridge weight design for the bridge weight by-law and a review · in 2001 and 2003 for electrical, mechanical and structural. The design engineering for this project is $40,000. The second project is a modified slurry seal on a V2 km section south of Fingal, as proposed in the budget. This would include two methods to eliminate the water from entering the transverse cracks. One method is by the standard products for crack sealing and another would be with a modified slurry seal. Once the cracks are sealed the modified slurry seal would cover all the area. Since the transverse cracks have cupped significantly the other methods to repair is to mill and pave, which is the most costly of the three options. This project is estimated at $15,000. The third project is to repair several small road sections that show major structural deformations on Third Line between Mill Road and Southdel Drive and on South minster Borne between Highway #4 and Southdel Drive. These sections are showing high degrees of structural deformations. The road section in distress will: be sub-excavated; installation of a subsurface tile; and then replace with new granular materials and new asphalt or double surface treatment wearing surface This project is estimated at $75,000. CONCLUSION: Due to the uncertainty of the installation of a waterline on Union Road, by Southwold Township, staff is reluctant to complete the project as originally proposed. Three projects are listed as alternatives to the one project: engineering for electrical power and control system on the King George Lift Bridge in Port Stanley by Byrne Engineering Incorporated; Modified Slurry Seal on Union Road with crack repairs; and also road repairs on Third Line and Southminster Borne. RECOMMENDATION: That the 2004 proposed capital project on Union Road be reduced to $15,000; and also; That the remaining funds, $115,000, be allocated for the following projects: Engineering for electrical power and control system by Byrne Engineering Incorporated, project cost $40,000; and also road refurbishing on Third Line between Mill Road and Southdel Drive and Southminster Borne between Highway #4 and Southdel Drive, project cost $75,000. Respectfully Submitted cnw~~ Clayton Watters Manager of Engineering Services · REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Clayton Watters, Manager of Engineering Services DATE: February 18, 2004 SUBJECf: Elgin Manor Waste Water Treatment Plant- Engineering Services INTRODUCTION At the January 13, 2004 Strategic Planning Caucus meeting for County Council several items were discussed including the Elgin Manor Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP). Council suggested that when the new system is designed an investigation be undertaken to determine if the neighbouring elementary school would wish to use the treatment plant and whether capacity could handle additional waste, septage, hauled from Elgin municipalities. DISCUSSION: One of the first step is to determine if an Environmental Assessment, EA, is required. There are generally two solutions with the WWTP at Elgin Manor. One is to rebuild a new plant at the existing site and secondly would be to transport the waste to another location. As such staff requested clarification on several issues from Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, CRA, (see attached letter Appendix 'A'). A Class "Aft EA would not be required if the County were to replace the existing temporary WWTP with a new WWTP at the same site. A Class "Aft EA incorporates two of the five phases of an EA: Identify the Problem or Opportunity; and Implementation. The estimated cost for the EA is $2,000 and time for completion would be less than two days. This would be completed in conjunction with the engineering of the plant. The capital cost of the new plant would be approximately $1,000,000 with an annual operating expenditure of $50,000. The other option would be to close the plant and transport the waste to the City of St. Thomas via pipeline. This option would require a Class "Bft EA at an estimated cost of $50,000 and be completed within four months. The Class "Bft EA incorporates three of the five phases of and EA: Identify problem or Opportunity; Alternative Solutions; and Implementation. The capital cost of the new infrastructure, pipeline and pumping station, would be approximately $500,000 with annual operating costs of $10,000. Requests were made to the municipalities, as per County Council recommendation, to determine their interest in utilizing the plant to treat the septage within their municipalities, and responses are attached (see appendix 'B'). All contacted municipalities expressed an interest in exploring the possibility to use the plant. A request was also made to the Thames Valley District School Board to seek their interest for the Southwold School and to date we not received a written response. · The attached table, (see Appendix 'C'), lists the municipalities, households on septic systems and the yearly volume that could be experienced. The estimated quantity by staff is approximately 55 cubic meters per day. No response was available from the school at the time this report was authored to determine its required capacity. Presently all the treatment plants within Elgin County do not accept septage. If Council wishes to have the new plant treat septage an EA would be required. One major issue needs further clarification as it has a direct impact on the process. The County of Elgin presently has no agreement with the Township of Southwold or the City of St. Thomas for sewage capacity at the St. Thomas pollution control plant. This would also require negotiations with the City of St. Thomas to treat the wastewater and the Township of Southwold to give up capacity. In order to determine the viability of this option, Council may wish to initiate discussions with St. Thomas City Council and the Township of Southwold Council. Several other issues should be brought to County Council's attention. The existing Certificate of Authorization is for 100 cubic meters per day plant capacity. The plant has a normal operating volume of 20 cubic meter per day. A private company has expressed an interest in the old Elgin Manor including some sewage treatment. This would require capacity at the new plant. CONCLUSION: Of the two systems it is financially more cost effective to install a pipeline to the St. Thomas WasteWater Treatment Plant than to build a new plant at for Elgin Manor. The Southwold School and the potential use of the old Elgin manor site could also use part of the capacity for the pipeline. There is capital savings of approximately $500,000 and annual operating savings of $40,000. Therefore, if a pipeline was installed the County of Elgin would re-coup the capital costs within 12 years ($40,000 savings for 12 years), assuming it was funded 100% by the County of Elgin. An Environmental Assessment is required with this solution. While this plant is presently operational it is intended as only a temporary solution. It is prudent to make arrangements for the new plant as soon as practicable. As noted in the introduction above, it is Council's wish to replace the WWTP at Elgin Manor. Any discussion relating to other options is merely for Council's information. Since Conestoga-Rovers & Associates has sound knowledge of the issues with the wastewater for this area, staff would suggest that they are the preferred firm to provide engineering and contract administration service for the treatment of the wastewater at the Elgin Manor. · RECOMMENDATIONS: "A" That Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, CRA, complete the design and tendering, construction management, Certificate of Authorization amendment and commissioning to replace the existing temporary Waste Water Treatment Plant at Elgin Manor at an estimated cost of $175,000; and also That the cost of the project be financed from our Annual Financing Budget; and also, That CRA complete and cost benefit analysis on whether to allow septage to be treated at the new facility at an estimated cost of $10,000. - OR- "B" THAT the Warden be authorized to initiate discussions with the City of St. Thomas and the Township of Southwold to determine their interests in pursuing the installation of a pipeline to the St. Thomas Wastewater Treatment Plant. Respectfully Submitted ßl1tth Clayton Watters Manager of Engineering Services Approved for Sub . 'on Ma cDonald Chief Administrative Officer · Aooendix 'A' ~ 1651 Colby Drive. Waterloo. Ontario. Canada N2V 1 C2 Telephone: 519·884·0510 FacsimiJe: 519·884·0525 VVWI/II.CRAworld.cam CONESTOGA.ROVERS & ASSOCIATES February 10, 2004 Reference No. 033564-99 Mr. Gayton Watters, P. Eng., Manager, Engineering Services, County of Elgin, 450 Sunset Dr., 51. Thomas, ON N5R5Vl Dear Mr. Watters: Re: Elgin Manor Wastewater Treatment System Environmental Assessment (Gass EAt Conestoga-Rovers & Associates (CRA) understands !hat there are questions from Elgin County (County) regarcling the applicability of the Environmental Assessment (Gass EA) process with the potential alternative projects to the existing Elgin Manor wasteWater treatment plant (WWIP). This letter provIdes QUI' understancling of the compliance with provIDcial regulations governing this prace'55 and considering the scope of each scenario outlined by the County. CRA understands that the County is consIdering the scenarios as follows: a) Replace the existing WWTP with a new WWTP (or a sigrùficant portion of the tankage) on the same site; . b) Remove the present WWTP and transfer the wastewater to another WWTP by force main; and c) Use of seplage at the WWTP. For scenario a) above, after Investigating the applicability of the class EA requirements our understancling is !hat non-profit organizations as well as sChool boards are exempt from the requirements of the EA. This was a!so the basis for the EA exemption for the design and construction of the previous WWTP. CRA concurs with that decision and advises the County to proceed 0;' this basis. In addition, repairs to the plant (new dual train process) usIng the existing C of A could be considered a Schedule A activity if the EA process applied. This is assuining the conditions of the existing C of A are maintained. (ie., no changes to service area, plant loacling, or discharge criteria or flow). In this case, the existing C of A could sIn1.ply be amended with the updated design draWIng package, again assuming there are no significant changes to service area, plant loading, or discharge criteria or flow. It is recommended that a predesign consultation with the ini:nistry RECEIVED FEB 2 02DD4 ...,."."0...... ISO 9001 '..,."......".. Woddwid.. Engineering. Environmental, Con~ction. and IT Serviçes ,u_.._..._ · ADDendix 'A' @Y CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSQCIATES February 10, 2004 Referenœ No. 033564-99 -2- staff be arranged. Ideally, this can occur once the County has !aid out the requirements fur the redesigned tankage and design drawings have been prepared. For scenario b) above, again due to the private nature of the facility and rio increase in service area, it Iilavbe possible to eXempt project. However, since the förcemain w:ould require easements or pass through other easements, a class EA process would be required. On the septage issue, assuming volumes are not unmanageable, we ate reasonably assured that C of A approval woUld be êntertained by MOE staff by using the Sëptagé as a SUpplemental carbon source for the biological nutrient removal (BNR) process. In addition... given the low flows experienced during the night, septage addition would be ideal to smooth process fluctuations. Of course some design effort is needed to ensure adequate storage and odöur control for expected quantities. We would be happy to sit down with County staff to scope out project requirements and o~tline potential approaches. Meanwhile, if you have any questions plea:;è feel free to contact me at (519) 884-0510 or at dmillar®craworld,com. Yours truly, CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCÌATES 2/~ J. Duncan Millar, P. Eng. jDM/ ck/3 e.e.: Andrew Lugowski, CRA WDrldvuide Engineering, Environmental, Constrllction. and IT Services _ ---- -."...-- Appendix '8' ~ 04/01/2004 THU 15:13 FAX 519 866 3884 Municipality oiBayham Municipality of Bayham P.O. 80" ¡6Q, 9344 Pbnk Road, StraffordVille. Ontario NO) ¡YO Tcl:(5¡9)866-5521 . 1'a:x:(519)866-3884 email: bayh31]l@boyham.on.ca April 1, 2004 Fax No. (519) 631-4297 Clayton Watters Manager of Engineering Services County of Elgin 450 Sunset Road St.,"Thomas, ON N5R SVl J Dear Mr. Watters, Re: Wastewater Treatment at E]~dn Manor Thank you for the notice regarding the possibility of joIntly utilizing the new plant at Elgin Manor for the trea!meut of septage waste. The Municipality of Baybaro is definitely mterested in exploring this possibility. '. Insofar as infonnation on a~erage septage vo1mncs generated in Bayham. this is difficult to. emmate. On the basis that Bayham has approximately 1360 households on private septic systems. and assuming an avel'f!.ge tank size of 3.64 m3, the total storage capacity is 4,950 m'. Again asswning an average of 10 years prior to the need to empty a tank and_ an even cycling of tanks, 495 m' annually could be expected. 1'J:¡onk you again for the opportunity to discuss this potential partnership. y~¡"rÝ ý4.i~'. .. Kyl)¡p-u' , ..0. AMmi~ or p.c.k ROlokn .._._,._---_..~ - --_._.._~ . ~ 0011001 J I · Aooendix 'B' 'Ifie Corporation of tfie Municipafit!} of Centra[ 'E[gin 450 Sunset Drìve, 1st Roor, St Thomas, Ontario N5R 5V1 Ph.519-631·4860 Fax519>63104036 Man:h 23m, 2004 Clayton Watlers Manager Engineering Services County oi Elgin 450 Sunset Drive Sl Thomas, ON N5R 5V1 Dear Mr. Watlers: Re: Wastewater Treatment Plant Please be advised that Council discussed the above noted matter at their meeling dated Monday, March 22"",2004 and the fOllowing resolution was passed: THAT: The Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Central Elgin advise the County of Elgin that it may be interested in utilizing a new wastewater traatment plant for the treatment of septage waste. CARRIED. . If you have any questions or concems respecting this information, piease do not hesITate to contacl me at the municipal office. Yours truly, ~XJ-- Dianne Wilson Deputy Clerk RECEIVED MAR 2 52004 --_.~------- - --- --..--- --- - ---- · ADDendix 'B' Township of MALAHIDE 87 John Street South, Aylmez; Ontario N5H 2C3 TelephOne: (519) 773-5344 Fax: (519) 773-5334 Email: maWlldê@township.malahidê.on.ca www..townsbip.malabide.on.ca March 23, 2004 County of Elgin, 450 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas, Ontario. N5R WI RECEIVED MAR 2$ 2004 COUNTY OFaGII\1 ADMIN!STAA'!M1~ Attention: Clayton D. Watters Dear Sir: RE: Wastewater Treatment Plant at Elgin Manor Malahide Township Council passed the following Resolution on March 18, 2004: THAT the Township ofMalahide advise the County of Elgin ofihe Township's interest in the fnture nse of wastewater treatment plant from the County of Elgin. Yours very truly, TOWNSHIP OF MALAHIDE ð~ R. MILLARD, C.A.O.lCLERK H:\diana's files\R.andy 2004\county ofelgin -wastewater march23.doc RANDAlL R. MILLARD C.AO.1Cle1k Email: clerk@tuWmhip.malahíde.on.ca SUSAN E. WILSON T~ Emaîl: treasurer@townsbip.malahîde.on.ca · ADDendix '8' m4£ ¿ßffutticipalitlJ nf ~st IliIgin March 29, 2004 RECEiVED County of Elgin, 450 Sunset Drive, ST. THOMAS, Ontario N5R 5V1 MAR 21. a004 COUI'iTý(¡¡:ElWN A!}mSiMm1E~ß Attn: Clayton Watters Dear Sir: RE: WASTEWATER TRJ;:ATMENT PLANT AT ELGIN MANOR Please be advised that your correspondence dated March 4, 2004 regarding the above noted subject was discussed at the Council meeting held on March 25, 2004. Council wishes to advise that the municipality is interested in the future use of the wastewater treatment for septage. While the municipality does not have any figures on septage volumes at present, an engineering consultant is preparing a study on this matter. Should you have any questions please contact the undersigned. Yours truly, ~~ Norma I. Bryant, Hö,BA, AMCT Clerk 22413 Hoskins line, Box 490, Rodney, Ontano NOL 2CO Tel: (519) 785-0560 Fax: (519) 785-0644 · Appendix 'c' Municipalities on Septic System Municipalities # of Households # of Septic Fields Volume per year (m3) Avlmer 2714 0 0 Bavham 2283 1183 1775 Central Elain 4797 2347 3525 Dutton/Dunwich 1421 921 1375 Malahide 2838 2593 3900 Southwold 1587 1386 2075 West Elain 2427 1259 1900 Total 18067 9689 14550 Assumptions: Clean tanks every three years Tank volume 1000 gallons (4.5 cubic meters) Therefore, 1.5 cubic meters cleaned per household per year Average weekday daily volume of 56 cubic meters (14550 / 260 days) The following municipalities have treatment plants: Port Burwell, Aylmer, Port Stanley, Belmont, Dutton, West Lome and Rodney. Presently none plants accept household septage. REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Clayton Watters, Manager of Engineering Services DATE: March 16, 2004 SUBJECT: Chatham - Kent Maintenance Agreement INTRODUCTION At the March 13, 2001 County Council meeting the following recommendation was adopted; "That the County of Elgin Solicitor proceed with drafting a formal agreement between the County of Elgin and each of our exterior municipalities, making reference to the Ministry Order with respect to the road maintenance responsibilities, to clarify each parties responsibility and transfer liability to the responsible party." DISCUSSION: A draft agreement was forwarded to the Municipality of Chatham-Kent for their comments in 2002. Numerous conversations, e-mails and faxes on the agreement have taken place between both parties regarding the County of Elgin maintenance document. This document is a variation of the agreement between the County of Elgin and the seven lower-tier agreements in Elgin County. Chatham-Kent in reply redrafted the old style, circa 1970's, agreement for our comments. A review by the County of Elgin solicitor and myself revealed several differences to our proposal. A meeting was arranged to discuss both agreements, which included the Chatham-Kent area road supervisor and solicitor and the County of Elgin solicitor and myself. The following are staff issues, our solicitor concurred with the staff report, with the proposal from Chatham-Kent (document attached): not detailed; not consistent with agreements with lower tier partners and also they refused to sign our agreement. CONCLUSION: Is an agreement better than no agreement? Staff is of the opinion that we should sign the agreement reluctantly as it is advantageous to have an agreement than no agreement. The agreement is short on detail and not consistent with our agreements with the lower- tiers but if it is signed we have an agreement. . RECOMMENDATION: That the County of Elgin enter into a maintenance agreement with the Municipality of Chatham-Kent for the provision of maintenance on our shared boundary roads; Clachan Road and McPhereson Road; and the shared boundary bridges: Bothwell Bridge and Fleming Creek Bridge. Respectfully Submitted Approved for . sion JfNJ ~4J¡~ Clayton Watters Manager of Engineering Services Mark. a Chief Administrative Officer __. u___..___... < , THIS AGREEMENT made this day of ,2003. BETWEEN:' THE CORPORATIO!,<, OF THE COmITY o;FELGII'<' (hereinafter called the "Elgin") OF THE FIRST PART and- THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CHATHAM-KENT (hereinafter called the "Otatham-Kent") OFTHE SECOND PART WHEREAS Chatham-Kent is an ao;ljoining municipality with Elgin. AND WHEREAS Elgin and Chatham-Ken\ have joint jurisdiction over the boundary line lúghways and bridges described in Schedule "B", "C" & "D" hereto (the "Boundary Roads and Bridges"). . AND WHEREAS the parties ~eto are desirous of entering into an agreement under the provisions of Section 29 of the Municipal Act 2001, SO. 2001, c.25 as amended to determine each party's obligations for the repair and maintenance of the Boundary Roads and Bridges. NOW THEREFORE ill consideration of the pren:dses and the covenants and the promises hereinafter expressed and other good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of wlúch.is hereby acknowledged by the parties hereto, the parties hereto agree each with the other as follows: 1.0 Maintenance and Repairs 1.1 Chatham-Kent hereby covenanfs and agrees to maintain and keep in repair for the whole width thereof thaI portion of the Boundary Roads and Bridges as set oUt in Schedules liB" and IIC:' hereto. 1.2 Elgin hereby covenants and agrees to maintain and keep in repair for the whole width thereof that portion of the Boundary Roads and Bridges as set out in Schedule liD" hereto.. 2,0 Costs 2.1 The cosls associated with the repair and maintenance of that portion of the Boundary Roads and Bridges set out ill Schedule "B" hereto shall be paid for 50% by Chatham-Kent and 50% by Elgin save and except for the costs associated with the bridge strUcture over the River 1'hanœs which costs shall be shared as follows: (a) Chatham-Kmt (b) Elgin (c) County of Middlesex 50% 27'h% 22'h% Chatham-Kent Will illvoiœ Elgin for ils share of the expenclitures related to the work œnied outfor that portion of the Boundary Roads and -------- --------- < Bridges set out in Schedu1e "B" hereto and Elginsball pay O1atham-Kent the amounfinvoiced within t1rlrty (30) days of receipt of suchinvoice. The Chatham-Kent costs and invoice shall be determined on the basis of the average cost per lane kilometre to fuaintairt paved:i:uraI roads Ïn. the M1.UÜcipaIiLy of Cha~-Kent for th~ calendar year in whtch the Înaintenarl,ce and repair was Jncuxred. . 2.2 Chatham-~t shall pay all costs associated with the repair ånd maintenance of the Bound<µy Roads.and Bridges as set out in Si::hedule "e" hereto. 23 Elgin shall pay all costs associated with the repair and maintenance of the Boundary Roads and Bridges as set out in Schedule "D" hereto. . 24 All road authority costs associated with automatic signal protection at the crossing of the boundary road with trackage maintained by Canadian National Railway in accordance -with Orders issued by the Railway Transport Committee, Canadian Transport Commission will be shared equally by Elgin and Chatham-Kent 3.0 MaintenanceStandaIds 3.1 All repair ànd ~ténance performed by the partieshereto pursuant to the prOvisions of this agreement shaJ) be carried out in actordance with the miIümum maintenance standards for municipal highways as prescribed hy, Regulation Z39iæ made under the Municipal Act and any ariœndmènts thereto. 4.0 New~onWork 4.1 The parties hereto shallnot c~mmenœ any new construction work on any Boundary Roads and Bridges unless such new consb11ction work has been first approved by tile Councils of all of the parties hereto. 5.0 Jgm 5.1 This agreement shall con:œ into full force:µ¡d t#ect on the day of its signing by all of the parties hereto, each authorized by a by-l~w of their respeC!ive Councils, and shall continue in full force for a period of ten (10) yeàrs th.erefrom and may be renewed at the end of such term by a further by-law by all parties to this agreement. Provided however, Chath?m-Kent and Elgin may terminate tb,is agréement upon providing a. one year notice in writing to, the other of its intention to t~te this agreement. 6.0 Indemnitv 6.1. Chatham-~ent hereby indemnifies and ~aves harmless ELgin and its inst1rers:fröm any and all loss, claims, actions, damages, liabilities and expenses ipcurred by Elgin and its jnsurers in coroiection with loss of life, personal injury, damages to property or any loSs or injury whatsóever arising out of theIailure to keep inrepair any part or all of that portion of the Bounçlary Roads and Bridges as set-eut in Schedules- "B" .and "en hexeto. If Elgin shall be made a party to any 1itigation commenced against it with respect to any of the aforesaid matters, then Olatham-Kentshall prOtect and indemnify Elgin and its h1surers hannless, and sball pay all costs, expeÍ1Ses ànd legal fees (ón the basis of a solicitor am~ his own < client) which ~y be incurred or paid by Elgin or it<> insurer' in d~dîng :ßgin.in such litigation. 6-Z Elgin ~iw indem:iÜfies and save hannless O1atham-Kent and its iI:Isurer £rom any and all loss, claims, actions, damageS, liabilities and expenses incurred by Chatham-Kent and its ínsure;r in connection with loss of life, personal injury, damages to property or any loss or injuIy Whatsoev~ arisIDg out of the failuxe to keep and repair any part crall of that portion of the Boundary Roads and Bridges as set out inSchedtùe "D" hereto., If Chatham-Kent shall be made a party' tó any litigation commenced against itwithrespectto any of the aforesaid matters, then Elgin shall protect and indemnify Chatham-Kent and its insurer harmless, and shall pay all costs, expenses arid legal fees (on the basis of a solicitor and its own clieI1-t) which may be incurred or paid by Chatham-Kent or its insuxer in defending Chatham-Kent in such litigation. 7.0. InsuraIlce 7.1 O:la.tham-Kent shall maintain and keep in£uÌl force and effect at its O'Wn expense a policy of g<>neraJ public liability and P'operty damage instiranœ with respect to its obligation for repalxand main~e of that portion of the Boundary Roa.ds and Bridges as set out in Schedules "B" and "c' hereto protecting against claimsfor personal injury, death and property damage resulting from failure to repair and maintain the said road and bridges in which the limits shall be not less than ten million dollars ($10.,00.0,000. in respect of injury or death to a single person, for each occunence and not less than tenroiIlion dollars ($10,000,000) in respect of property dBmage. The policy shall name Elgin as an additional insured and Chatham-Kent shall provide a certificate of such insurance cov_erage to Elgin tlttoughóut the term of this agteeDtent and any renewal thereof and further provide Elgin with 3Q days prior written notice of any cancellátion or material change in risk which cmùd diminish the aforeSá..id c~verage. Such insurance policy shall contain a waiver of any subrogation rights which the insurer of Chatham-Kent may have against Elgin, save and except for the grossly negligent acts of Elgin. Further, Chatham-Kent shall eÌ1SUIe that all policies obtained by them shall be not contributing and shall apply omy as primary and not as excess to any other insurance available to Egin and that such policies shall not be inValidated with respect to the interest of Elgin by reason of any breach or violation of any warran:tieB, represen~ons, ç.eclarations or conditions contained in such policy, . 72. Elgin shall maintain and l<eep in full force and eff~ct at its awn expense a policy of g<>neraJ public liabiliJy and property dlimage insuranCe with respectto its obligation for ~epair andmaintenanœ of.that portion of the Boundary R-riads and Bridges as set out in Schedule "I)" hereto protecting agaInst claims for personal injUT)', death and property damage resulting from failure to repair and maintain the said road and bridges in which the limits shall be not less than ten million doliars ($10,000,000) in :respect of 3njury or death to a single pWon, for each occurrence and not less tban ten million doliars ($10,000,000) inrespect of property damage. The policy sball name Chatham-Kent as an additional insured and. Elgin shall provide a cert$cate of such.insui"ance coverage to Chaf:ham.:Kent t1tt~~mthe~of~a~t~~~~~~ :further provide Chatham-Kent wµh 30 days prior written notice of any -----.-..---..-- < canœIlation or ~teña1 charige iI\ risk which conld d:imirúsh the aforesaid coverag¢; Such:ïnsuranœ policy sbaIl cantaiI:ta waiver of any sabrogalion rights wbich the insurer ofEIgin may have againstdIatham.-Kent , save and ""œptfor the grossIynegIigent acts of Chatham-Kent Further, ffigin shall ~ tqa.t·a1J poIiciès obtained by them shall bé not contribµting and shall apply only as primary anp. not as excess to any other insurance available to Chatbam-Kent· and that such policies shan not be invaU-dated with respect to the interest of Chatham-Kent by reason of any breach or violation of any warranties, representations, declara:lions or conditions contained in such policy. 8.00 ARBITRATION 8.1 Any dispute between the parties heretQ whether arisU1g during the period of this Agreement or any time thereafter which touches upon the validity, const:ruction,. meaning, per£onnance or _effect of t1ñs Agreement or the rights and liabilitieS of the parties hereto or any matter' arising out of orcönnected with this Agreement shall be subject to arbitration purs~ant to 'I'h£ Arbitration Act 1991, S.D. 1991; c.17 and as provided in this paragraph and the decision shall be ñnaI and binding as between the parties hereto and shall no_t be subject to appeal 8.2 Any arbitration to be ca1Tied out under this paragraph shall be ~ect to the following provisions: (a) the party desiring ,rbitratiOIl shaJl nottúnate one arbitrator and shall notify the other parties hereto of such nomini3:tion. Such notice shall set forth a brief description of the matters submitted for arbitration and, if approPriate, the paragraph hereof pursuant tp which such matter, is so submitted. Such other parties shàll ~thin thirty (30) days after receiving such notice narrrlnate anarbitrator and the tw.o arbitrators shall select a chairman .of the arbitral tribunal to act jointly with them. (b) the arbitration shaJl take placè in. the Mwpcipality of Chatham- Kent, Pravince .of Ontaria where the party desiring arbitration is :Elgin and the arbitratian shall take place in the Qty ofSlThamas where the party desíring arbitration is Chatham-Kent and the chairman shall fix the time and plice in the_said loœtion as af.oresaid for the purpose of the hearing of such evidence and representai:ions as either 9f the parties may present and, subject to the provisiorts hereQf, the d~ion of the arbitrators arid chairman or any two of them in 'Writing shall bé binding upon the parties bOth inrespect .of procedure and the coþduct of the parties during the proceedings and the final determination of the issues herein. Said arbitrators and chairman shall, after hearing any evidence and repreSentations thatfue parties may. submit, maketheù' decision arid reduce the same to writing and deliver çme copy thereC?f to each of the parties hereto. The majOrity .of the chairman and arbiÌrators may détermine EµlY matters .of procedure for the arb:itration not specified herem. (c) 1£ the party hereto receiving the notice of the nonúnation of ¡µl arbitrator by theparty ð-esiring ar~trationfailii within the said thirty (30) days to noJ:ninate an arbitrator, then the arbih"ator nonûnated by the party desiring arbitratian may proceed _alone to determine the dispute in such!nanner ~ at such time as he shall < tbiDk £it and his decision shall, ffUbject to the provisions hereof, be bIDding upon the parties. 8.3 NotWithstandirig the foregoing, any arbitration may be car.ried out by ~ single arbitrator if the parties herein so agree, in wlúch event the proVjsions of tIús paragraph shall apply, mutatis mutandis. . 8.4 The cost of tbe arbitration shall be borne by the parties hereto as may be specified in such determination. 8.5 Su~on to arbitration pUrsuant to the provisions of this paragraph shall be a condition precedent to the bringing of any action with respect to ~ Agreement. 9.0 General 9.1 This agre~ent shall be registered in the proper land registry office of the registry division of Elgin and the registry division of Kent following the execution of this agreement and Chatluun-Kent shall pay 1/2. of the costs of such registration and Elgin shall pay ~ other 1h of such costs. 9.2 This agreement shall enure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective sucœsso:r.; and permitted assignS. 9.3 The provisions of this agreement shall not be assignable by either party without the pciox wrlttenconsent of the other party. 9.4 Any notice required to be gIven by elfher party to the other party shallbe sufficiently given and sent by fascimi1e transmission, delivered or mailed by pre-paid registered post addres.sed"to the other at The Corporation of ftLe Municipality of Chatham-Kent 315 King Street W, Box 640 Chatham, Ontario N7M 51<8 The Corporation of the Municipality of Elgin 450 Sunset Drive St. ThOmaBr Ontario N5R 5V1 Ally such notice shall be conclusively d~ed to have been given and received at the time of its facsimile· transmission ~ at the time of its delivery by one party to the address of the other. or in the event of service by registered mail,. on the secorid business day after the day Of such mailing. Either party may by nQtice in writing to. the ~er designate anot:her address to which notice if mailed more than 10 days after the giving of noüce of change of address shall be addreSsed. 9.5 This agreement embodies the entire agreement of the parties with regard to the matters contained herem; and nq other agreement shall be deemed to exist E;Xcept as entered into in writing by bOth parties to this agreement, 9.5 This agreement shall be governed by an4- be construed solely in accordance with the laws of the Proviru::e of Ontario and the laws of Canada applicable thereto. < 9.7 All referenceS to cmrency amounts in this agreement shall be refeienœs to Canadian dollar.;. 9.8 H any part of t1ús agreement is held or rendered invalid or illegall the remaindér of this agreement continues to apply. 9.9 All o£ the prOVisions and oovenánts contaìned in this a~t shall survive the ~iry or other termination of this a~ement IN WITNESS VVHEREOP:the parties have s~ their hands and corporate seals attested by the hands of their respective officers duly authorized in that behaJf. SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED )THE CORPORATION OF THE . )MUNIClPAUIY OF CHATHAM- ) KENT .) ) ) Mayor - Diane Gagner ) ) ) Cork-Elinor Mifflin ) )The Corporation of Mu¡ûdpality ) of Elgin . ) ) . ) per: Mayor ) ) ) )per: Cerk ) ---,..,.._----- , REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Peter Dutchak, Technical Services Officer DATE: April 13, 2004 SUBJECT: Request to Reconstruct Sunset Road INTRODUCTION The County of Elgin has received a request from the Council of the Municipality of Central Elgin to reconstruct approximately 10 kilometres of Sunset Road. The actual correspondence is attached for your information and the following is the resolution that was passed by Central Elgin Council on March 8th, 2004: THAT: The Council of the Municipality of Central Elgin formally request that the County of Elgin reconstruct Sunset Road between Glenwood Avenue and Warren Street; AND THAT: The reconstruction project be commenced not later than 2005. CARRIED. DISCUSSION: The County of Elgin received Sunset Road, also known as County Road #4 (formerly Highway #4) from the Province in 1997. The traffic volumes on the section of Sunset Road between Glenwood Avenue and Warren Street varies from 6,350 to 10,900 per day. The majority of this section of roadway has a concrete road base with successive layers of Hot Mix Asphalt placed on top. The drainage infrastructure is effectively at the end of its lifecycle and must be replaced prior to completing any roadway surface improvements. Staff has identified this road as a need and a detailed construction cost estimate was prepared in 2002. The project will be broken into at least 2 phases due to available resources. Phase 1 of the project would see the existing drainage infrastructure be replaced along with any required lane widenings, ditching, utility relocations, curb and gutter and restoration. Phase 1 was estimated at costing $3,565,000 in 2002. Phase 2 would rehabilitate the roadway surface with either a Cold-In-Place or Pulverizing solution to mitigate reflective cracking and restore the pavement's profile. Phase 2 is estimated at $1,630,000. The total estimated cost for reconstructing Sunset Road is $5.115 Million. During staff's research it was discovered that a couple of sections of this roadway do not have a legal drainage outlet and therefore when improvements are made, the County will have to petition for legal outlets under the Drainage Act. This estimate does not include any possible Municipal Drainage assessment costs. The cost estimate also assumes that staff will administer and inspect the projects therefore any additional consultant costs are also not included in this estimate. As Council is aware, approximately $4.3 Million is allocated for County Road Capital Projects. It is therefore most realistic to assume that the Sunset Reconstruction project would take 2 to 3 years to complete once initiated. Although staff has identified this roadway as a "Now Need" it has not been identified on the 5 Year Capital Plan. The road is not in an unsafe condition and because the method of rehabilitation is destructive, additional costs will not be realized if this project is postponed. Staff had previously identified the intersection of Sunset Road and John Wise Line as being the most important work to complete on this section of roadway. The reconstruction of this intersection was completed in its entirety in 2003 at a total cost of approximately $450,000. CONCLUSION: The Municipality of Central Elgin has formally requested that Sunset Road be reconstructed. The cost of this work is estimated at over $5 Million. At current budget allocations it would be realistic to presume this project will require 3 years to complete once initiated. Staff has also identified this section of roadway as requiring reconstruction, however, has not included the work to commence within the next 5 years because the method of reconstruction is destructive, road safety concerns are not imminent and because other road projects are taking precedence over available funding. Sunset Road is one of the busiest roads in Elgin County and it services tourism oriented activities for the surrounding communities. This road project would be an excellent candidate for any future Government sponsored funding programs. < RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Central Elgin be informed that, with available funding resources, other County Road projects are taking precedence over the reconstruction of Sunset Road; and also, That a copy of this report be forwarded to the Municipality of Central Elgin for its information. Pe er Dutchak Technical Services Officer (jì)W~ -i6< ~d) Chief Administrative Officer Clayton Watters Manager of Engineering Services 'Ihe. Corporation of the Municipa{itg of Central 'Efgin 450 Sunset Drive, 1st Root. Sl Thomas, Ontario NSR SV1 PII.519-e:31_ F3x 519-e:31"4006 Mardi 15",2004 Claylon Watters Manager Engineering Services Cotinty of Elgin 450 Sunset Road Si. Thomas, ON N5R 5V1 Mr. Watters: Re: Sunset Road Recons!tuclion PI_ be advised that Council dlscus$ad the above unset matter at !heir meeting dated Monday, Mar<:h S", 2004 aadthe foJiovlÍng resolution was passed: THAT: The Council of the Corpor.¡tion of the Munlcî¡>aftty ofCentœll3gm farmally request that the CoIItt!y of Elgin reconstruct Sunset Road between G1ênWOOd Avenue and Warren street AND THAT: Too reconstroction project 00 ~ not Iatocthan 2005. CARRIED. If you have any questions with respect to thÌ$ infOß'!1ation, please do not he$i!ate to contact .... at the municipal offIœ. Yours 1ntIy, , ~XifM,..) Dianne Wilson Dep¡t!yClarit 1:.1:. Mayor 0, Rock and Cotincil Uoyd J. Perrin, DirectorofPhysicai S«...!'IÍOO$ RECEIVED tjAR 1 52Ð04 < REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Larysa Andrusiak, Ambulance and Emergency Management Coordinator DATE: April 19, 2004 SUBJECT: Ambulance Emergency Response Vehicle (ERV) INTRODUCTION: At the August 14, 2003 County of Elgin Council meeting, the following decision was carried unanimously: "That the Director of Financial Services be authorized to set aside sufficient funds annually, for the following ambulance services costs (which are in addition to the ambulance service contract) for which the County is directly responsible: County administrative and office expenses; cost to replace ambulances and administrative vehicles used by the operator; cost to replace/ repair major equipment; and contingency reserve for future severance liabilities." This report deals with the Request For Quotation (RFQ) results for the purchase of an administrative vehicle (Emergency Response Vehicle (ERV» for use by Elgin-St. Thomas EMS Duty Managers. The budget for the purchase of this vehicle was previously approved as stated. above, and the recommended amount budgeted for ambulance replacement and 1 administrative vehicle was $185,000. DISCUSSION: During the process of assessing the Proposals submitted to provide ambulance service to the County of Elgin, one of the key components identified as a higher level of service was the provision of a Duty Manager on duty 24 hours, 7 days per week. This position's function is to address service delivery issues, maintain quality assurance, and co-ordinate service delivery during major mishaps, disasters and other such occurrences. The Duty Manager also provides First Response services as requested by CACC (ambulance dispatch), and reduces the amount of recovery time during any instances of downstaffing. Duty Managers require a designated Emergency Response Vehicle to do their jobs. This vehicle is not designed or meant for patient transport. It is needed to carry supplies required by the Duty Manager for First Response and back up during mass casualty events; to carry supplies requested to ambulance stations and vehicles, to transport back boards or stretchers from one location to another; to transport new employees and/or students for training and geographic orientation purposes. A Request for Quotation for the manufacture and supply of one new vehicle that would later be converted into an emergency response vehicle was issued March 6th, 2004 with a closing date of March 22, 2004. A total of nine bid packages were distributed and four companies responded. The quotations were received as follows: Name Make -2 wheel drive Price * Oxford Dodge Dodge 2500 Sprinter $ 51,655.32 Waaon Larry McDonald Chevrolet Oldsmobile Chev. Suburban $ 49,537.44 Ltd. of Strathroy Cotrac Ford Lincoln Sales Inc. of Dutton Ford Excursion $ 44,397.72 XLT Talbot Ford Lincoln of S1. Thomas Ford Excursion XL T $ 44,280.00 Cotrac Ford and Talbot Ford as listed below also provided bids for an Excursion SSV: Name Cotrac Ford Lincoln Sales Inc. of Dutton Make -4 wheel drive Ford Excursion SSV, 6.8litre V-10 310 HP Ford Excursion SSV, 6.8litre V-10 310 HP Ford Excursion SSV, 6.8litre V-8 255 HP Price * $46,761.84 Talbot Ford Lincoln of S1. Thomas $43,370.72 Talbot Ford Lincoln of S1. Thomas $42,319.80 * G.S.T. not included. This vehicle will undergo a conversion process to meet Ministry of Health specifications and standards for an Emergency Response Vehicle. This process is estimated to cost $11,000 plus taxes. A Request For Quotation will be tendered to the three firms that do these conversions once a decision is made regarding the vehicle. CONCLUSION: An Emergency Response Vehicle is required for use by the Duty Managers of Elgin- S1. Thomas EMS. A Request for Quotation was issued. The lowest bid that met specifications was submitted by Talbot Ford of S1. Thomas for a Ford Excursion SSV, 6.8 litre V-10 engine in the amount of $43,370.72. It was confirmed with the operator that a V-8 engine would also meet our needs. Talbot Ford of S1. Thomas also submitted this bid in the amount of $42,319.80. RECOMMENDATION: Option 1 THAT Council approve the award of the bid to the lowest bidder, Talbot Ford of St. Thomas, for a Ford Excursion SSV, 6.8 litre V-10 engine in the amount of $43,370.72, to be converted to an Emergency Response Vehicle. Option 2 THAT Council approve the award of the bid to the lowest bidder, Talbot Ford of St. Thomas, for a Ford Excursion SSV, 6.8 litre V-8 engine in the amount of $42,319.80, to be converted to an Emergency Response Vehicle. ALL of which is respectfully submitted, Respectfully Submitted Approved for Submission C2fi . Q ~dN~~ La~ndrusiak Ambulance and Emergency Management Coordinator Mark. onal Chief Administrative Officer ~.~~ Sonia Beavers, Purchasing Coordinator REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Vicki Scott, Court Services Co-Ordinator DATE: 19 April 2004 SUBJECT: HIRE OF FULL TIME BILINGUAL ADM. CLERK/CLERK/MONITOR Introduction: The federal government through the provincial government has designated Elgin-St. Thomas Provincial Offences Court as a bilingual court and has allocated funds to hire a full time bilingual administrative clerk/court clerk for the Elgin-St. Thomas POA Court. The funds that are available are approximately $47,500.00 per year, including benefits. Other benefits are outlined in the attachment. Discussion: Due to the fact that Elgin-St. Thomas has been designated a bilingual court and the federal government requires that we have a bilingual person to deal with the Federa/ Contraventions Act, they are prepared to provide the funds to cover all matters dealing with bilingual signs, prosecutors, transcript services, Justice of the Peace fees, along with court office staff, etc. They also allow us time and funds to train a person to this French level. The position and conditions of employment should clearly state that this new position is totally dependent on financing from the province and if the money disappears so would the position. The extra staff would also help existing staff by rotating among all duties and during sick/vacation time and could work on special projects as required. Conclusion: It is important that the County take advantage of the allocation of funds provided by the Federal Government as we have been designated a bilingual court location. If we do not take advantage of these funds at this time we will still have to provide the services required and with our own funds. Recommendation: THAT one full-time contract position for a bilingual administrative/court clerk be posted as soon as possible to take advantage of the Federal funds provided; and THAT the terms of employment clearly state that the position is dependent on receipt of financing from the Province and said position will terminate upon cessation of Federal funding. Respectfully Submitted /££y/~ Vicki Scott, Court Services Co-Ordinator. Approved for S Mark McDona , Chief Administrative Officer. \-'.·,:i1.L.',' ,1 -1 <"\ "<"\¡ .' - ¿UU,+ Ministry of the Attorney General ® Ministère du procureur .général Provincial Offences Act Transfer Project Le project de loi sur les infractions provinciales 720 Bay Street 3rd Floor Toronto ON M5G 2K1 Tei: (4161 326-0579 Fax: (416) 326-2592 720 rue Bay 3e éta!J!' Toron~o ON M5G 2K1 Tél: (416) 326-051) Téléc: (416) 326-B92 Ms. Vicky Scott Manager, Provincial Offences Office Elgin County Administration Building 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, ON N5R5VI Dear Ms. Scott, RE: Contraventions Act Agreement - Funding Ontario Thank you for your assistance in identifying local costs to provide federal French Language Services for federal offences designated as contraventions under the Contraventions Act. The information provided by you has resulted in the successful negotiation of the funding agreement entered into between the province and the government of Canada. Enclosed is a cheque payable to the County of Elgin in the amount of$18,342 for-star( up costs. These funds must be used for the implementation of federal French Language Services and may not be used for any other purpose. You must keep a detailed account of the allocation of these funds and any portion of the start-up cost funding not used for the implementation of federal French Language Services must remitted back to the Ministry You are reminded that requests for ongoing funding for the period of April I, 2004 to March 31, 2005 (actual costs April I to June 30, 2004 and estimated costs July I to March 31, 2005) must be submitted to Mr. Furhad Yaqubian by August 31, 2004. Upon receipt of the ongoing funding from the federal government it will be forwarded to you less 20% holdback by the federal government. This portion will be submitted to you once released by the federal government upon receipt ofthe provincial final report in 2005. Currently, estimated ongoing funding (including the 20% holdback) for the County of Elgin is $130,910. ~ All questions regarding funding are to be direct to Mr; Furhad Yaqubian, Financial Coordinator & POA Liaison Lead (416) 326-4291. Questions regarding French Language Services are to be directed to Dennis lng, Assistant Coordinator French Language Services, (416) 326-4052. . -~,_._-,..,- Yours truly .?- ~;;'ra Manager, Business PI:µ¡ning & Support Corporate Planning Branch _v~" I'i.Ç\"oVyÇI V ~"'IIÇUU(Ç" I ÇUÇlia( _VI(uayçl(I.IV(I~ - "'(I\..IVII.", VV~"" Municipality/Ontario Court of Justice at ~~ /tLÆ 'd.... ft I'll 3.4,;) .00 Elgin County Period 1-Apr-03 To March 31, 2004 (In "Gøutt 'l"(erí611.l<\"'9I!age·$<ì~i¢:e) 1 Bilingual Prosecutors 2 3 4 . Bilingual Court Monitors Transcription Services Bilingual Interpreters 35.10 I hr $1,200.00 $1,000.00 $1,100.00 34.00 1 hr 5 Cost of Adjournments 6 160.00 I hr 200.00 1 hr $5,440.0 Any .Other costs (provide details) Justice of the Peace SUB· TOTAL (Oüt:ofCøutt .Ft~ri¡Ôîìí:.<ì~ií)i'?~~iVl¡;f~ ... 7 Bilingual Prosecutor (designated N / A under S 5.1 of Provincial Offences Act - First Attendance) 8 Bilin~ual Counter Staff 9 French training to staff (Alternative) (Sch. IV of Agreement) Training Costs (Upgrading) Testing Fixed Costs Oral Max $160 $1,000.00 $160.00 $25.00 $25.00 Written Reading $25 $25 10 Bilingual Receptionist and/or Bilingual First Contact Staff 11 French training to staff (Alternative) Training Costs (Upgrading) Testing Fixed Costs Oral Max $160 $160.00 . $25.00 $25,00 $1,000.0 Written Reading $25 $25 12 Any Other costs (provide details) SUB· TOTAL TOTAL ~·8·_~£D~·~ unici OffiCi (Tit . . ~o9.ràtions NOTE: The preliminary report due date of August 31, .2003 has been extended to October 2p, 2003 for the year 2003 only. "'U~l ~t;:\.;VVt;:1 V ,,;;J\.OIIt;:UUIt;: - rt;:\..It;:lctl vVIIUctVt;:IIlIUII~ - ~lctllUJ.J "'V~l,o:, Municipality/Ontario Court of Justice at Elgin County Period 1-Jul-D3 To 31-Mar-04 (InC<>\lrt -Frèi'iè1i tang!.!iigè .S¡;rviè¡;î ùfiil cròst FÜ1"rRéj5o-rt 1 Bilingual out-door sÎgnage Bilingual Notices $1,000.00 2 Bilingual in~door signage $1,000.00 3 Bilingual letterhead & envelopes $500.00 4 Printing & Distribution to Enforcement Agencies . Certificate of Offence Forms .. Cost of Notice of Intention to Appear Forms '. Replacement of Missing Documents Forms inistry to rovide 5' Any Other costs (provide details) Translation for Phone,Llnes $500.0 SUB-TOTAL TOTAL ~~"o . Manager, -Court Operations Notes to the Cost Recovery Schedule - Federal Contraventions 1) If there are any explanations to any of the cost recovery expenditures; please explain via a footnote or as an appendix to the Cost Recovery Schedule. 2) Please note that the Federal government may also direct the Ontario government to conduct an audit of accounts and financial records of any Municipal Partners or other entities entrusted with the of Contraventions and make the results of the audit available to the Federal government within 30 days of its admjnistration 'and implementation completion. 3) If any of the above costs have not been incurred; please send.in pr9forma invoice amounts and/or esimated amounts as accurately as possible. The above Is going to be charged against the 2003-03 funding provided by the Federal government. . Notes to the Cost Recovery Schedule - Federal Contraventions 1) Cost recovery expenditures for. period April 1, 2003 to June 3D, 2003 to be actual incurred expenditures only. 2) Cost recovery expenditures for period July 1,2003 to March 31, 2004 are to be estimated expenditures for this period. 3) For the period Aþril1 2003 to June 3D, 2003 the municipalities and the court offices must submit the Preliminary Cost Recovery Schedule duly completed to the Ministry of the Attorney General (MAG) at 720 Bay St., Toronto M5G 2K1 by August 31, 2003 latest. If the report is nòt received by the deadline, no funds will be available from the Federal government to offset mÜl1icipal partner costs. 4) For the period April 1, 2003 to March 31, 2004 the municipalities and the court offices must sub-mit the Final total actual expenditures duly completed to the Ministry of the Atlòrney General (MAG) at 720 Bay Street, Toronto M5G 2K1 by May 31, 2004 latest. If the report is not received by the deadline, no funds will be available from the Federal government to offset municipal partner costs. 5) Ifthere are any explanations to any of the cost recovery expenditures; please explain via a footnote or as an appendix to the Cost Recovery Schedule. 6) Please note that the Federal government may also direct the Ontario government to conduct an audit of accounts and financial records of any Municipal Partners or other entities entrusted with the administration and implementation of Contraventions and make the results of the audit available to the Federal government within 30 days of its completion. 7) The Municipal Partners should provide categorized information broken down as follows: a) the number of offence notices tiled for Contraventions for the individual statut~s and regulations covered by the Contraventions Regulations b) the amount of fines imposed categorized as follows: i. amount of fines ordered ii. amount of pre-paid fines c) the total amount of tines outstanding d) the number of trials held e) the number of French trials held f) ~ available: i. the number of offence notices and amount of tines for which a default conviction was registered ii. the number of offence notices and amount of fines withdrawn iii. the number.of'tinesorderecl as well as th.e amount of the fines in question under paragraphs d) and 0) iv. any complaint concerning non-compliance to the Official Languages Act with respect to communications with and service to the public 8) Cost of adjourments is where a .defendant requests a French trial at the time of trial. In these situations the trial would be adjourned where a defendant makes that request on the assumption that the presiding Justice of the Peace and/or the prosecutor is not bilingual. There is a CQst to the Municipal Partner from the judicial, prosecutorial and administrative perspective when such trials are adjourned and re-scheduled. For' example Justice of the Peace sittings, the complement of prosecutors, will have to be increased and the administrative staff may have to deal with significantly more adjournments and re-scheduling than they normally do. Contraventions Costs JP: :3 Days X 8 Hrs X $160 1 Day X 8 HrsX$200 Proscecution: Court 4 Days X 8 Hrs X $200 , Resolution 4 Days X 4 Hrs X $200 Expenses 4 Days X $160 Court Monitor J Clerk: Court 4 Days X 8 Hrs X (Job Rate 4 -18.83 X 1,25) 23.54 Expe!",!ses 4 Days X $1 00 . . Bilingual Interpreters; Courl (31.40 + 19.20 X 7) X 4 Days Expenses 4 Days X $100 Bilingual Counter Staff: Job Rate4-$37,661.48X 1.25 $3,840.00 $1,600.00 $5,440.00 $5,440.00 $6,400.00 $3,200.00 $600.00 $10,200.00 $10,200.00 $753.20 $400.00 $1,HiJ.20 $1,200.00 $663.20 $400.00 $1,9.êJ.2!J $1,100.00 il1,97·ê.8. $47,500.00 .. Schedule II BILINGUAL COURT SERVICE AREAS # Code No. Court Service Canada's Obligations Ontario's Obtigations Areas Official La/lguages Act French Language Services A ct 1 CO 7 Barrie/Orillia Bilinaual 511\h)(ji) Bilinaual 2 C 3 Brampton Bilinaual 5(1)a) Unilinaual 3 CO 17 Cochrane Bilinaual 511\h\(jiD Bilinaual 4 CO 39 CornwalVAlexandrial Bilingual 5(1)h)(iii) Bilingual Morrisburq 5 CO 23 EJliot Lake Bilinnual 5111h\liii) Bilinaual 6 CO 11 Espanola Bilinnual 5111h\(jiD Bilinnual 7 CO 37 Haileybury Bilinaual 511 )h\{¡iD Bilinaual 8 CO 13 Hamilton Bilinnual 5111a\ Bilinaual 9 C 14 Kitchener/Cambridge Bilinaual 5(1)a) Unilinaual 10 CO 20 L'Orignal Bilinnual 5111h)liii) Bilinaual 11 C 42 Milton/Oakville Bilinnual 5f.i\~' Unilinnual 12 CO 5 Mississauga Bilinaual 5(1)a) Bilinaual 13 C 4 Newrnarket Bilinnual 5(1)a) Unilinaual 14 CO 55 Niagara Falls Bilinnual 511;;;\ Bilinnual 15 CO 1 North Bay Bilinaual 5(1)h)(jii) Bilinaual 16 C 2 Orangeville Bilinoual 5(1)a) Unilinnual 17 C 36 Oshawa Bilinnual 5(1)a\ Unilinoual 18 CO 47 Ottawa Bilinaual Sec. 22 OLA Bilinaual 19 CO 29 Pembroke Bilinoual 5(1)h\liiD Bilinnual 20 CO 46 Sault Ste. Marie Bilinnual 511\h)(j) Bilinaual 21 CO 38 81. Catharines Bilinnual 5(1\a) Bilinaual 22 CO 41 Sudbury Bilinaual 5(1)a) Bilinaual 23 CO 26 Thunder Bay Bilinnual 5(1)e \ Bilinaual 24 CO 19 Tîmmins Bilinaual 511\h)(jii) Bilinnual 25 CO 52 Toronto Bilinaual 5(1)a\ Bilinaual 26 CO 54 Weiland Bilinnual 5(1)a) Bifinaual 27 CO 45 Windsor Bilinaual 5(1)a) Bilinoual 28 u 8 Bracebridge Unilinnual 511\h)(i) Iii) Unilinnual I,ll 29 U 50 Cayuga Unilinaual 5(1)h)lD,IiD Unilinoual 30 U 34 Cobourg Unilinnual 511\h1(i) (ji\ Unilinnual I,ll 31 0 43 Dryden Unilinnual 511\h1(j),iD Bilinaual 32 U 28 Fort Frances Unilinnual 511\h\li) lii\ Unilinaual I,ll 33 U 51 Goderich Unilinaual 5(1)h )(j),lii) Unilinaual 34 U 24 Gore Bay Unilinnual 5(1)h)(j),ii\ U nili naual 35 u 31 Kenora Unilinnual 5(1)h\(j\lii\ Unilinaual 36 U 27 Lindsay Unilinaual 5fi\K\ Unilinnual 37 U 9 Napanee Unilinnual 5(1)h)(j),ii) Unilinoual 38 U 40 Owen Sound Unilinnual 5(1)h\(j\Iii\ Unilinaual 39 U 10 Parry Sound Unilinaual 5(1)h)(j),{;D Unilinnual 40 U 35 Perth Unilinnual 5111h)(j),ii) Unilinaual 41 u 6 Picton Unilinnual 5(1)h)(j),ii) Unilinaual Schedule II (cont' d) Page 2 012 42 U 48 Simcoe Unilinoual 5(1)K) Unllinoual 43 u 16 Stratford . Unllinoual 5(1)h\!i\,ii\ UnllinQual 44 U 53 Walkerton Unilinoual 5(1)h)(i),Iii) Unllinoual 45 u 15 Woodstock UnilinQual 5(1)h\in,lin Unilinoual 46 u 25 Belleville Unllinoual 5(1)k) UnllinQual . 47 U 32 Brantford UnllinQual 5(1\k\ Unilinoual 48 u .33 Brockville Unilinoual 511\k\ Unllinoual 49 0 21 Chatham Unllinoual 511\k\ BilinQual 50 U 22 Guelph Unilinoual 5(1\k\ Unllinaual 51 u 18 Kingston Unllinaual 511\d\ Unllinoual 52 CO 49 London Bllinoual 5(1)a) BllinQual 53 u 30 Peterborough UnllinQual 5(1\k\ Unllinoual 54 u 12 Sarnia Unilinoual 5(1)k) UnllinQual 55 C 44 St. Thomas BllinQual 5(1)a\ Unllinoual Leaend C Canada: bilingual 0 Ontario: bilingual CO Canada & Ontario: bilingual U Canada & Ontario: unilingual FROM: REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL Carol Bradley, Manager of Resident Care, Terrace Lodge DATE: April 16 2004 SUBJECT: Ministry of Health -Enhanced Risk Reviews INTRODUCTION The Ministry of Health and stakeholders have developed a new comprehensive risk management framework for monitoring long-term care facilites. This framework was designed to identify facilities where residents may potentially be at risk, and trigger appropriate due diligence to determine if actual risks exist. DISCUSSION: The ultimate goal of the Ministry is to protect the residents and public interest. The recent newspaper publications and television reports have sparked great concern. With this concern in mind the Risk Management Framework has been developed in Waves. The key features of the the first wave are resident risk focused. -resident environment -resident safety -resident health and welfare -quality of life -management/staff utilization and competence The standards set by these risk indicators will identify where there may be situations of resident risk that potentially require an enhanced review. This will mean an immediate annual review, which will include a Resident/Family Satisfaction Survey. The data resulting from these tools will be used to validate the First Wave Risk Management Framework. Following analysis of the data, facilities with five or more key risk indicators will be subject to enhanced risk reviews. The first wave could result in a Home being "flagged" for enhanced scrutiny, including teams of Compliance Advisors visiting a site. The due diligence standards will be set high with immediate action on sited non-compliance expected. CONCLUSION: The Ministry has taken action to the public outcry. This could result in enhanced reviews for our County Homes, and immediate expectaions to meet Standards. The Ministry and County Homes Management Team share the common goal of assuring quality care and safety of the residents. RECOMMENDA nON: Receive and file. ALL of which is respectfully submitted, Respectfully Submitted Approved for Submission ~~ C,arol Bradley Manager of Resident Care Mark G. c a Chief Administrative Officer REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Linda B. Veger, Director of Financial Services DATE: April 19, 2004 SUBJECT: 2004 Operational Needs INTRODUCTION: At the last Council session, staff was directed to analyze reserves in order to meet the 2004 operational needs of the County of Elgin. DISCUSSION: Several outstanding items require a decision by Council: · County of Elgin CISM Team - $10,000 for ongoing training, mileage and conference costs - as discussed at last Council · Dedicated Classifiers - create/update forms - $3,240 - as discussed at last Council · Dedicated Classifiers - RN's - % hour per resident chart per home - annual $66,096; 2004 (8 months) - $44,100 - as discussed at last Council · Terrace Lodge repairs - breakdown costs into compliance and non-compliance issues - as discussed at last Council - discussed in a separate report from the Manager of Engineering Services - copy attached · Three requests for staffing hours as discussed in January and referred to budget deliberations The requests for additional staffing hours, as reported in January, have not been included in the extra dollars required for 2004. Staff reviewed the current reserves and suggest that the following be utilized to augment the 2004 operational needs. A copy of the reserves is attached for your review. Reserves - Surplus Construction $147,659 Reserves - Ambulance Severance $246,797 Total $394,456 The Reserve Surplus Construction resulted from additional funds from the Province during construction of the Bobier Home. The Province has advised that the funds stay with the County of Elgin. The second reserve, Reserve Ambulance Severance, resulted from a one time payment from the Province to be held in the event that the attendants' jobs were eliminated and severance was due. This is now highly unlikely. CONCLUSION: Reserve funds have been identified to offset 2004 operational costs in the amount of $394,456. RECOMMENDATION: THAT, in order to offset 2004 operational costs, funds from Reserves Surplus Construction in the amount of $147,659 and funds from Ambulance Severance in the amount of $246,797 be utilized. Respectfully Submitted Approved for Submission L~ Director of Financial Services G. McDonald Chief A Officer 4/20/04 11 :34:42AM Report(GL TRLR1) In Functional Currency Sort By Include Accounts With No Activity For Year-Period From Account No. From Account Group From Account Account Number 2600-000 2610-000 2620-000 2625-000 2626-000 2630-000 2640-000 2650-000 2670-000 2675-000 2680-000 2685-000 2690-000 2700-000 2710-000 2720-000 2770-000 2790-000 2800-000 2810-000 2830-000 2850-000 2870-000 2880-000 2900-000 2910-000 2920-000 2930-000 2940-000 2950-000 2960-000 2970-000 2980-000 33 accounts printed COUNTY OF ELGIN Trial Balance as of 4/30104 [Account No.] [N] [2004 - 04] [] To [777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777] [Current assets] To [Other] [2600] To [3199] Description· Reserves Donation~ Elgin Reserves Donations Terrace Reserves Donations Bobier Alma College Alumnae Donations Reserves Social Committee Reserves Working Funds Reserves Mill Rate Stabilizati Reserves Information Tech Reserves Staff Training Reserves "Little Read Wagon" Ontario's Pro Reserves Library Reserves Early Years Challenge Reserves .Waste Management Reserves Strategic Planning Reserves Insurance Deductible Reserves Emergency Measures Reserves Bobier E[ Premium Red Reserves Museum Reserves Tourism Reserves Surplus Construction Reserves Performance Excellenc Reserves Connect Ontario Reserves Road Maintenance Reserves Special Circumstances Reserves WSIB Schedule 2 Reserves Sewage Treatment PInt Reserves Land Ambulance Reserves Contin - Ont. Works Reserves Archives Reserves Ambulance Severance Reserves Woodlot Reserves Capital Police Services Reserve Debits Total: Amount Out Of Balance: Net Income (Loss) for Accounts Listed: 0.00 4,062,501.68 0,00 Page 1 Credits 6,578.20 3,365.70 44,086.65 2,760.10 1,289.24 500,000.00 47,475.53 16,786.61 38,568.84 250.00 20,277.86 2,557.49 22,586.92 36,684.22 11,123.00 48,470.33 9,039.69 2,500.00 40,000.00 147,659.46 31,472.88 350,000.00 250,000.00 922,073.00 156.288.14 15,042.91 173,900.58 354,225.00 287,173,03 456,654.88 13,989.57 35,259.60 14,362.25 4,062,501.68 REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Clayton Watters, Manager, Engineering Services, Sonia Beavers, Purchasing Co-ordinator DATE: March 31¡ 2004 SUBJECT: Terrace Lodge - Compliance Requirements/ 2004 Construction INTRODUCTION County Council approved the following recommendation on July 15, 2003; . "That staff be directed to complete: Item #3 Staff Room, Item #4 Laundry Room, Item # 5 Secured Adult Day Care and Item #13 Kitchen Exhaust AC and Exhaust, identified in Option A of the report entitled - "Terrace Lodge Update #2 " dated June 16, 2003" from the Manager of Engineering Services, at approximately $280,000 (including engineering and contingencies" On February 10, 2004, Council directed staff to proceed with the Project entitled Terrace Lodge - Compliance Requirements / 2004 Construction. In 2003, $280,000 was allocated from the 2002 Surplus Funds. In the 2004 capital budget an additional, $120,000 has been recommended for Council approval to this project and $40,000 for a commercial washer and dryer. To date the total dollars allocated for the renovations to Terrace Lodge is $440,000. DISCUSSION: Peter Mitches and Associates was retained as the Consultant for Engineering Services. Quotations for the supply of architectural, mechanical and electrical required for upgrading Terrace Lodge, Home for Seniors to achieve Compliance Requirements were received and evaluated on February 12, 2004. We invited 3 firms to bid for each of the four areas (architectural, electrical, flooring, mechanical) and 6 firms responded. Quotations for Electrical and Flooring were received in compliance with the purchasing policy. The quotations were received as follows: Description COMPANY TOTAL OF BID Electrical Turna Electric Ltd Pro Electric EI in Electric Bernardo Grou $ 39,964.50 $ 48,685.00 $ 65,585.65 $ 14,863.00 Floorin *Bids include G.S.T. Only one bid was received for architectural and was returned unopened to the company as it was submitted after the specified closing time. The overall bid for mechanical exceeded fifty thousand ($50,000) dollars. The purchasing policy states; "all goods and services to be purchased with a value exceeding $50,000 must be tendered in writing", and therefore a Request for Tender for the entire project was issued on February 24, 2004 with the understanding that the successful bidder would include in their bid, Turnay Electric Ltd at their quoted price of $ 39,964.50 and Bernardo Group for flooring at their quoted price of $14,863.00. A total of 9 Tender Packages were distributed and only 2 firms responded. The Bids received are as follows: COMPANY TOTAL OF BID CCl Contracting Ltd Allied Construction Corporation . $478,489.02 . $605,170.60 The bid to supply mechanical, electrical, architectural goods and services for the renovations to Terrace lodge is recommended to be awarded to CCl Contracting Limited at their quoted price of $478,489.02 (G.S.T. included). CCl Contracting Limited will be become the general contractor for the project and will carry the prices for Turnay Electric ltd and Bernardo Group. The total cost to complete the renovations for compliance issues at Terrace lodge is listed below: Goods & Service Company Name Total Cost Engineering and Contract Administration Peter Mitches and $55,000 . Associates General Contractor CCl Contracting ltd $478500 Miscellaneous Services (canopy from trailer to $7,500 building, building permit, disbursements and trailer rental) Industrial Washer and Dryer (also eight Harco Company Limited $40,000 laundry carts) laundry Services Kitchen Services (durinq construction) $30,000 Contingencies and Material Testing $44,000 Total $655,000 Council should be aware that for two weeks during the construction the kitchen area will not be functional, therefore staff has estimated $30,000 for portable kitchen to be in use during those two weeks. Homes staff will be required to present a plan to the ministry for their review and approval on what actions are required, during the shutdown, to meet the dietary needs of the residents. Below is a financial description of the project and costs: Description Costs County Council has at least two options: increase the 2004 recommended Capital Budget for Terrace lodge by $215/000 or reprioritize projects that have been approved but have not been started. These projects that staff are suggesting are: engineering evaluations at Terrace lodgel $71/700; paint exterior trim at Terrace lodgel $20/000; mechanical system review at Terrace lodge, $9,700; dresser replacement at Terrace lodge, $4,900; door wall protection at Terrace lodge, $10,000; barn repairs at Elgin Manor, $28,000; sewer charge at Administration Building, $19,000; communication conduits at Administration Building, $15,000; miscellaneous building improvements at Administration Building, $7,300; and unallocated capital projects at Homes, $29,500. The total of the above projects is $215,100. The total cost of the compliance issues for Terrace lodge as described above is estimated at $655,000 and after the initial allocations in 2003 ($280,000 for project and $75,000 for . engineering) additional monies were requested in the 2004 Capital budget ($120,000 for the project and $40,000 for commercial washer and dryer) additional monies are needed to complete project. Council needs to consider allocating further dollars in the amount of $215,000 or reallocating from approved projects that have not begun or have less priority at this time. CONCLUSION: Since, CCl Contracting's bid and past performance are favorable, and CCl agreed to retain Turnay Electric Limited and Bernardo Group for flooring, the recommendation from staff would be to proceed as soon as possible to ensure that completion will be no later than December 21, 2004 or 180 working days. Furthermore, in order to complete the renovations at Terrace lodge additional funding, $215,000, will be required and staff believe that allocating from existing projects that have less priority would be more beneficial to the County of Elgin. RECOMMENDATION: THAT CCl Contracting Limited be selected as the contractor for the Compliance Requirementsj2004 Construction Project for Terrace lodge in the amount of $ 478/489.02; which includes the electrical portion of the project awarded to Tourney Electric at their quoted price of $37/350.00 plus G.5.T.; and includes the bid from Bernardo Group for Flooring at their quoted price of $13/890.00 plus G.5.T.; and also, That the monies from the following projects be allocated to Terrace lodge Compliance Requirements j 2004 Construction: engineering evaluations at Terrace Lodger $71/700; paint exterior trim at Terrace Lodger $20/000; mechanical system review at Terrace Lodger $9/100; dresser replacement at Terrace Lodger $4/900; door wall protection at Terrace Lodger $10/000; barn repairs at Elgin Manor, $28/000; sewer charge at Administration Building, $19/000; communication conduits at Administration Building, $15/000; miscellaneous building improvements, $7/300; and unallocated capital projects at the Homes, $29/500. Respectfully Submitted ói)vU dl1t11i Approved for Submission ~,,) Clayton Watters Manager, Engineering Services Chief Administrative Officer A -. 7JQH\-J. G'_ ~.<...(~ 'Sonia Beavers Purchasing Co-Ordinator 04/27/2004 TUE 11:49 FAX 519 866 3884 Municipality of Bayham 2004-208 Moved by C Ewnitski Seconded by M Taylor "THAT the Municipality of Bayham request that the County of Elgin reconsider the proposed 2004 bndget with the intent to reduce the amount of the increase to the tax levy." Disposition: Motion Carried Unanimously ~ 002/002 CORRESPONDENCE - April 27. 2004 Items for Consideration 1. J.D. Leach, City Clerk, City of Vaughan, with a resolution requesting the Federal and Provincial Governments share 5% of the Gasoline Tax with Municipalities. (ATTACHED) 2. City of Peterborough, with a resolution requesting the Province to cover 75% of the funding costs for the County-City Health Unit. (ATTACHED) 3. Anne O'Reilly, with a letter of concern regarding the County overspending and specifically relating to care of seniors. (ATTACHED) 4. Spencer C. McKee, Member Services Co-Ordinator, St. Thomas & District Chamber of Commerce, with the annual membership renewal invoice and requesting confirmation of three County contacts. (ATTACHED) 5. Pat Berfelz, Deputy Clerk, Town of North Perth, requesting the Ministry of the Environment to exempt washroom facilities at municipally owned rural sports fields, from all portions of Ontario Regulation 170/03. (ATTACHED) 6. Kathy Robitaille, Vice Chair, T.Y.P.S. Incorporated, Community Development Consultant, Councillor, Township of North Shore, requesting support for Town Youth Participation Strategy, TYPS Inc. to be invited to the final round table discussion with the Ministry of Children and Youth on the needs of children and youth in Ontario. (ATTACHED) 7. Responses to County 2004 Budget increase: 1) Mayor Paul Baldwin, Town of Aylmer 2) Danial R. Dale, Northridge 3) Dianne Wilson, Deputy Clerk, Municipality of Central Elgin Kyle Kruger, Administrator, Municipality of Bayham. Mike Reiter, President, J. Frisch Construction Glen White, President, Steelway Building Systems Loretta and J. Ayerst, Aylmer Debbie and Paul Desrosiers, Aylmer Bob Nesbitt, Springfield (2) Vä1@an APR .2004 ~tytfs.ll ~1M"~ Clerk's Department 2141 Major Mackenzie Drive . Vaughan, Ontario .. Canada L6A 1T1 The Cío/ Above Toronto - Tel (905) 832-8504 Fax (905) 832-8535 FOR INQUIRIES: PLEASE QUOTE ITEM & REPORT NO. April 2, 2004 Mr. Mark G. McDonald, CAO The County of Elgin 450 Sunset Drive SI. Thomas, ON N5R 5V1 Dear Mr. McDonald: RE: RESOLUTION - GAS TAX REBATE AND P.S.T. I am writing to advise you that Vaughan Council, at its meeting held on March 29, 2004, adopted the following resolution: Whereas Municipalities are vital to the economic growth and prosperity of Canada. and its Provinces; And Whereas the continued dependence on property taxes as the single major source oftinancing for municipalities is not appropriate; And Whereas there is a need for additional funding over the long-term to assist municipalities with respect to infrastructure particularly transportation infrastructure repair and replacement; And whereas both the Federal and Provincial Governments place a significant tax on the sale of gasoline; And whereas the Province imposes the Retail Sales Tax on Goods purchased by municipalities; And whereas the Federal Government has recently eliminated a tax on other levels of government by providing a 100% GST rebate to municipalities; NOW THEREFORE be it resolved that the Council of the City of Vaughan requests: That the Federal and Provincial Governments share 5% of the Gasoline Tax with Municipalities; That the Provincial Government fully exempt Municipalities from the Retail Sales Tax on the purchase of all goodS; That the Provincial Government share a portion of the Ontario ~ales Taxwith Municipalities; That the Federal Government share a portion of the GST with municipalities; .../2 Mr. Mark G. McDonald, CAO The County of Elgin Page 2 April 2, 2004 And that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to Prime Minister Paul Martin, Minister of Finance Ralph Goodale, Premier Dalton McGuinty, Minister of Finance Greg Sorbara and local Federal and Provincial Members of Parliament, and municipalities over 50,000, Be it further resolved that the City of Vaughan supports continued dialogue on a fair and equitable distribution of these sources of revenue with municipalities. Attached for your information is Item 1, Report No. 29 of the Committee of the Whole regarding the above-noted matter, Sin rely, /bLooch rœ cierk Attachment: Extract 1. City of Sarnia Resolution JDL/as CITY OF VAUGHAN EXTRACT FROM COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 29 2004 Item 1, Report No. 29, of the Committee of the Whole, which was adopted, as amended, by the Council of the City of Vaughan on March 29, 2004, as follows: By approving Clauses 1), 2), and 3) of the recommendation contained in the report of Councillor Yeung Racco, dated March 22, 2004; By adopting the following resolution: "Whereas Municipalities are vital to the economic growth and prosperity of Canada and its Provinces; And Whereas the continued dependence on property taxes as the single major source of financing for municipalities is not appropriate; And Whereas there is a need for additional funding over the long-term to assist municipalities with respect to infrastructure particularly transportation infrastructure repair and replacement; And whereas both the Federal and Provincial Governments place a significant tax on the sale of gasoline; And whereas the Province imposes the Retail Sales Tax on Goods purchased by municipalities; And whereas the Federal Government has recently eliminated a tax on other levels of government by providing a 100% GST rebate to municipalities; NOW THEREFORE be it resolved that the Council of the City of Vaughan requests: That the Federal and Provincial Governments share 5% of the Gasoline Tax with Municipalities; That the Provincial Government fully exempt Municipalities from the Retail Sales Tax on the purchase of all goods; That the Provincial Government share a portion of the Ontario Sales Tax with Municipalities; That the Federal Government share a portion of the GST with municipalities: And that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to Prime Minister Paul Martin, Minister of Finance Ralph Goodale, Premier Dalton McGuinty, Minister of Finance Greg Sorbara and local Federal and Provincial Members of Parliament, and municipalities over 50,000. Be it further resolved that the City of Vaughan supports continued dialogue on a fair and equitable distribution of these sources of revenue with municipalities. "; and By receiving the memorandum from the Commissioner of Finance & Corporate Services, dated March 26, 2004. .../2 CITY OF VAUGHAN EXTRACT FROM COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 29 2004 Item 1. CW Report No. 29 - Pape 2 1 RESOLUTION - GAS TAX REBATE AND P.S.T. The committee ofthe Whole. recommends,that this matter ,be referred to the Council meeting of March 29, 2004, and that staff provide an appropriate resolution regarding this matter for distribution. Recommendation Councillor Sandra YeungRaccorecommends: 1) That Vaughan City Council supports the efforts being made, by the Mayors of some of the larger Canadian cities to realize full municipal rebates of the GST, and a 5 cent per litre share of the Federal Gas Tax; 2) That a similar position be adopted by other municipalities with respect to PST; 3) That the City of Vaughan believes that a percentage of the revenues realized by the 8 percent PST, and 7 percent GST, imposed on goods and/or services in the various municipalities within the Province of Ontario, and collected and remitted by the organizations and businesses within said Province, be negotiated between representatives of all governments, and that the agreed upon figure be remitted by the organizations and businesses directly to the municipality based upon the time schedules now implemented, and 4) That this motion be forwarded to area municipalities, to AMO, to our local MP and MPP, and to the Mayor of Toronto. Purpose The mayors of larger cities are suggesting that a full rebate of the GST and a 5 cents a litre share of the Federal gas tax be made available to municipalities by the ,end of 2004. The City of Vaughan should recognize the importance of said issue and join the efforts of these municipalities. BackQround - Analvsis and Options On January 26th, 2004, Sarnia City Council considered the above matter and adopted a similar resolution. It is important that new sources of funding be found to pay for municipal services. Municipalities should not continuously be expected to raise property taxes in order to meet their financiai needs. Furthermore, while millions of dollars are removed from our communities through GST and PST assessments to flow to higher tiered governments, these governments expect still expect municipalities to finance handed-down services and associated costs. Relationship to VauQhan Vision 2007 2.1.3 Develop appropriate funding strategies for long-term projects, 2.3.2 Evaluate/increase grants and subsidies from external agencies. 5.3.1 Coordinate strategies and priorities with the Region of York and other levels of government. 5.3.2 Establish a position of advocacy for Vaughan's priorities for other levels of government. .../3 CITY OF VAUGHAN EXTRACT FROM COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 29. 2004 Item 1, Report No. 29, of the Committee of the Whole, which was adopted, as amended, by the Council of the City of Vaughan on March 29, 2004, as follows: By approving Clauses 1), 2), and 3) of the recommendation contained in the report of Councillor Yeung Racco, dated March 22, 2004; By adopting the following resolution: "Whereas Municipalities are vital to the economic growth and prosperity of Canada and its Provinces; And Whereas the continued dependence on property taxes as the single major source of financing for municipalities is not appropriate; And Whereas there is a need for additional funding over the long-term to assist municipalities with respect to infrastructure particularly transportation infrastructure repair and replacement; And whereas both the Federal and Provincial Governments place a significant tax on the sale of gasoline; And whereas the Province imposes the Retail Sales Tax on Goods purchased by municipalities; And whereas the Federal Government has recently eliminated a tax on other levels of government by providing a 100% GST rebate to municipalities; NOW THEREFORE be it resolved that the Council of the City of Vaughan requests: That the Federal and Provincial Governments share 5% of the Gasoline Tax with Municipalities; That the Provincial Government fully exempt Municipalities from the Retail Sales Tax on the purchase of all goods; That the Provincial Government share a portion of the Ontario Sales Tax with Municipalities; That the Federal Government share a portion of the GST with municipalities; And that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to Prime Minister Paul Martin, Minister of Finance Ralph Goodale, Premier Dalton McGuinty, Minister of Finance Greg Sorbara and local Federal and Provincial Members of Parliament, and municipalities over 50,000. Be it further resolved that the City of Vaughan supports continued dialogue on a fair and equitable distribution of these sources of revenue with municipalities. "; and By receiving the memorandum from the Commissioner of Finance & Corporate Services, dated March 26, 2004. .../2 CITY OF VAUGHAN EXTRACT FROM COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 29 2004 Item 1, CW Report No. 29 - Paqe 3 Conclusion In order to maintainèorisistency witllneighbouring municipalities, it is recörmTiended that Council adopt the abovè resolution. Attachments 1. City of Sarnia Resolution Report prepared bv: Cindy Furfaro-Benning, Council Administrati~e Assistant (A copy of the attachments referred to in the foregoing have been forwarded to each Member of Council and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.) Mar 04 04 11:55a CITY OF SARNIA City CIMk's DilPanment Telephone: (519) 332-C330 Fax: (519) 332-3996 E-mail: c1Bbtã!city. ...mia on.ca '_~ p.l h-~-' 1.3 - / /255 North ChrÎ$tÍntI Street . P.O. /JDx 30'S !;amia,ON NIT 7N2 Of IS ßf__~-;,-=-_ :-~ ~." February 18, 2004 --~--_._. ALL MUNICIPALITIES IN ONTARIO: -- __·_n._ Re: Resolution - Gas Tax Rebate Samia City Council at its meeting held on January 26th, 2004, considered the above matter, and the following resolution was adopted: THAT SarnÙl City Council supports the efforts being made by the Mayors of some of the larger Canadian cities to realize full municipal rebates of the GST, and a Scent per litre share of the Federal Gas Tax, and THAT a simUar position be adopted by other municipalities with respect to PST, and ' THAT the City of SarnÙl believes that a percentage of the revenues realized by the 8 percent PST, and 7 percent GST, impo~d on goods and/or services in the various municipalities within the Province of Ontario, and collected and remitted by the organizations and businesses within said Province, be negotiated between representatives of all governments, and that the agreed upon figure be remitted by the organizations and businesses directly to the municipality based upon the time schedules now implemented, and THAT this motion be forwarded to the usual municipalities, to AMO, to our local MP and MPP, and to the Mayor of Toronto. Background information on the resolution is attached. Your favourable consideration of Council's resolution would be appreciated. Yours truly, Brian W. Knott City Solicitor/Clerk c.c. Caroline DiCocco, MPP Roger Gallaway,MP AMO Mayor David Miller CITY OF VAUGHAN EXTRACT FROM COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 29 2004 Item 1. CW Report No. 29 - Pace 3 Conclusion 111 order tomaintainroñsistency withrieighbouringmuriicipalities,it is recommended that Gouncil adopt the above resolution. . Attachments 1. City of Sarnia Resolution Report prepared bv: Cindy Furfaro-Benning, Council Administrative Assistant (A copy of the attachments referred to in the foregoing have been forwarded to each Member of Councii and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.) , 84/88/84 22:17:38 EST: ASSOCIATION OF?-) 519 633 7661 CLERH-EIyin Co Paye 88ft APR-08-04 THU 04:10 PM 260 FAX NO. 416 971 6191 P, 05 , I) bruyof I .. elev oroug 1. RESOLUTION OF COUNCIL DATE: MARCll S, 2004 Wll<'rens in :¡ rcgoJution pas"cò by the Council of the Corpomti()n ()f the City of l'ell"'bO'ongh ,m March 8, 2004. the report of the Director of Finance and A<l¡ninistr"tivc Services, dated Murch!, 2004, recommending: (,) Th:¡t the Co"nty-City H~alth Unh's 2004 budget presentation be rcfcrred to the Ch"innan ofFìmmcc fol' considerati()\ in the dran 2004 budget That COlweil petition the Province or Ontario to cover 75% of the funding costs for the ('o\mty-City Hea]¡h lInit and that our municipality covct' the remaining 25% funding; nnd furlher, that this t'cso!uHon bc scm to the Association of Municipplities of Ontruio m<:mbor~ for their support. _ j~tlb~~k~__.._,_.._..._ ì MAYOR 1'01' f\\l'1h<:.r inf"¡m;\ti..,,, pk(1~c contac1: NlInçy Wtight"Laking, City Clcrk Cily ()fh:lerborough SOD Gc'mgç StreN ~ !'.I()rb"rotit~l. ON K')¡j JI(<) TC'l705·74:>-7771 Fax '/05.'/42··1 LJ8 [";711¡S';';;'¡ìorial is provided lInd"'r-~õñtract as a paid service by the originating organization. and doCõs not neœss3rily rencùt [he views or po~itions of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), its subsidiary companies, of[jcers, directors or agents." ----.---.---.................-".- -_..~ - ~APR~14-2ØØ4 12:54 AM P.01 107·- 80 Highview Ave E London, ON N6C 5W8 12 April 2004 Mr. David M. Rock Warden, County of Elgin County of Elgin Administration Building 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, ON N5R 5V 1 Dear Warden Rock: It is with a great deal of concern that I read an article in the St. Thomas Times Journal 31 March 2004 about the consequences of Elgin County's overspending over the last two years, And, specifically, how that overspending relates to the care that our seniors receive in the county's nursing homes. First of all, it would be a "no brainer" as far as 1 am concerned that housekeeping costs have increased because each resident now has their own bathroom, Did Elgin County Council not look at the plans for the new Elgin Manor prior to its construction? H(lwever, given the increased number of bathrooms, it is also my belief that these washrooms would be much easier to clean and keep clean than the communal washrooms of the old Manor. And what about the waste treatment facility? Is that another tiasco? My mother is currently a resident at EJgin Manor and has been for about two years now, While I was excited for my mother to be moving into the new Manor, that transition has been a difficult one for residents, staff and visitors. The current building is definitely not as user friendly as the old Manor and that shows in so many ways. Ways that I won't go into in this letter. There have been several cutbacks sinee the movc to the new Manor, ^ maintenance person was eliminated trom the complement. Somewhat a surprise move given the many "bugs" which needed to be ironed out in the new building. Another was incontinent products which were previously included as a small portion of the senior's room rate. At the moment, it would appear that staffing at Elgin Manor is below standard, let alone thinking about reducing those numbers, On many occasions when I've been visiting my mother, I. would be hard pressed to find a stafr member to help should the occasion arise. And that situation ís even more pronounced on weekends. Rumours of staff working 16 hours days because of no replacements arc common. Given their responsibility, this is an unacceptable practice. Nursing, housekeeping and food services staff at Elgin Manor are dedicated and I stand behind them 100%. ~AP~14-2ØØ4 12:54 AM P.02 I certainly do 110t agree with offering a percentage of the rooms to seniors who could aftàrd to pay more. If that were to happen, then does that mean that someone who cannot pay more will not get the same level of care as they currently do? Would a person paying more receive a better quality meal, more baths per week'?? I reali:>:e that a tightening of the purse strings is inevitable, But, it seems very sad to me that people who have worked, lived and supported Elgin County for all of their Hves would, according to your current proposals, have to take a back seat because someone else can pay more. Rottom line, ! wonder how many of you on Council have gone through the process of requiring nursing home care, such as Elgin Manor, for a loved one. And moreover, how many of you actually know what happens throughout the day at Elgin Manor? Our most vulnerable and fragile seniors sho~lld not have to bear the brunt of these proposed cutbacks. I would hope that Elgin County Council will endeavour to find other ways to counteract these proposals as outlined in the above noted newspaper article. Yours very truly, ../ J "'\ I../.. , "z:~:--.---.L/ U 1~7 I (Mrs.) Anne O'Rei11y ST. THOMAS & DISTRICT CHAMBER QECOMMERCE April 8, 2004 Harley Underhill Corporation of The County of Elgin 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, ON N5R 5V1 RE: Renewal Letter: Dear Harley: On behalf of the membership, Board of Directors and staff, please allow me this opportunity to thank you for your continued involvement in the Chamber over the past year. Enclosed is the annual renewal invoice, along with the verification report; These verification reports are important to both you and the Chamber, so if anything is inaccurate, please correct and fax / mail back to the Chamber with your corrections. We've also included a note about the Chamber of Commerce Building Fund, which you will see on your invoice. Making the most of membership is a shared responsibility. Our benefits, services and staff are at your disposal. You also have access to many services offered throughout the Chamber network at provincial, national and international levels, and we hope you continue to use and benefit from our services. To ensure that our functions remain beneficial we ask that you keep us informed of your needs and expectations. Please feel welcome to call, visit or comment at any time. By taking part in Chamber of Commerce programs and events, and by using the world of contacts and information we have, your business will be rewarded. Again, thanks for your support! Sincerely, Spencer C. McKee Member Services Co-Ordinator 555 Talbot Street, Call 519-631-1981 Fax: 519-631-0466 St. Thomas, ON N5P 1C5 E-mail: mail@stthomaschamber.on.ca. INCORPORATED AS ST. THOMAS BOARD OF TRADE IN 1869 MEMBER OF THE CANAD!AN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE MEMBER OF THE ONTARIO CHAMBER QFCOMMERCE 51: THOMAS & DISTRICT CHAMBER QECOMMERCE ~ 555 Talbot Street, St. Thomas, ON N5P 1 C5 Call 519-63H981 Fax: 519-631-0466 Web site: www.stthomaschamber.on.ca. Corporation of the County of Elgin 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, ON N5R 5V1 RECEiVED BILL TO APR I ¡) 2004 œU~1Y Of WIN. ¡)\D~~~t~~TiVE~S ;.<£,~'<%~'J ~f,' ',"'"~ ~ ~ " -" ~ , »" ,~'""'~ ~ , ~ ",' (_, OJ if ~ ,~-- ~''''P6= f@.·<~}&QIJÄN.æI'F¥y¡ ~""'~),t"f' ,/'" ,- ~ "DESCRIPT:IQNI' <~«\,~~ "'h ":,>, - '<, - 0 ^, 'RATE,' y;.~</<~ :¿-'"" '^'lü1øUNm5t;;-"'':~:t , ' ~, ~, ~" ,. ;.~: ~ -~~.. ~ ' "X··" _ Membership for Non-Profit Organization May 1, 2004 - April 30, 2005 Building Fund Cancellations accepted within 30 days. 145..00 25.00 145.00T 25.00 Total GST Business Number: 108042896 10..15 Payment may be made by cash, cheque, debit or credit card. TOTAL $180.15 INCORPORATED AS ST. THOMAS BOARD OF TRADE IN 1869 MEMBER OF THE CANADIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE MEMBER OF THE ONTARIO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE , A Note About the Chamber of Commerce Building· Fund... Our Members have decided to work toward a new home for the Cham~er! Sh1ce 1995, as the result of a vote by Members at the Chamber's Annual General Meeting, we have asked all registered Members to voluntarily support a special reserve fund with an annual donation toward creating a. new, long- term home for the Chamber. When membership invoices are issued, we invite contributions scaled according to· the size of each business. Contributions rangéfrom $25 to $100, but . are welcomed in any amount. Any contribution made by your business is fully tax exempt as a tax-deductible business expense. « At the end of our last fiscal year - August 31 , 2003 . contributions from Member-businesses and interest totalled $105,650.01.11' goal this year is to add $12,700. The Chamber will continue to ask Members to support the project until your Board of Directors finds sufficient funds raised to acquire and furnish a site· while keeping mortgage and operating expenses at an affordable level. When our goal is reached we will be able to expand, again, the variety .of programs, services and benefits available to each and every Member. J. Brent Shaw, CA Chair, Board of Directors 2003 - 2004 Building Fund QUèstions & Answers Whèn will the Chamber makè a move? Our goal is to make a change whenever we can afford to. Occupancy costs, interest rates, available locations and the lease on our present space are all considerations. Is the Chamber working to build a tcnew" building? 1110 decision has been m<ade to build a new stl"llcture or renov<ate an existing one. Your Chamber's Board of Þil'eCtors will act in the best overall interest of the ·membershipwhen. time comestOdeCid~Location, value and sei'vice to Members will be critical. . What about housing other services or organizations? Th<at's a very real possibility. Many cOmmunity services; and the Chamber itself, could benefit from sharing space and equipmentbj,¢ <any plan must not place the Chamber in position of high risk or liability. For example, a government-t'unded sei'Vice inay make anideal·tenant asíong as funding is in place. Whàt position . would the Chamber be in it' funding were cut? Who determined the donation amount on my invoice? Your neighbors! When the membership adopted the Building Fund it was agreed that requests would "ary according to the size of each Membe....business. l'hose WIth up to 50 employees are asked to give $25 èach year, 51 to 250 employees $50, and those with 251 or more, $1 00. What's in it for me and other Membe..s? Members have clearly told us that a visible, accessible spot to serve Members, welcome guests, promote the community and display/distribute information is a must. Beyond that, we're watching and learning from the experience of other Chamber offices, and listening to needs identified by our volunteers, committee members, Membe....businesses and staff. Building Fund Questions & Answers When will the Chamber make a move? Our soal is to make a change whenever we can afford to. Occupancy costs, interest rates, available locations and the lease on Gur present space are all considerations. .' Is the Chamber working to build a unew" building? No decision has been made to build.a new structure òr renovate an existing on.e. Your Chambel"sBoarci ·of Directors will act in the best overall interest of the 'membership when. time comestòdecicié~Locatïon, value and service to Members will be critical. What about housing other setvices or organizations? · Thai's a very real possibility. Many cOmmunity services, and the Cha~ber itself, · could benefit frôin sharing space and equipment b~t any plan ~ust not place the Chamber in positionO'f high risk 0'1' liability. . For example; agoverríl1)~nt-funded · service .maymaké an ideal tenant as long asfuildi!lg is in place. Whát pO'sitiO'n would the Chamberbé in if funding were cut? 1. Who determined the donation amount on my invoice? YOUI' neighbors! When the membership adopted the Building Fund it was agreed that reque$ would 'l'ary according to the size O'f each Member-business. Those witlÍ up to 50 employees are asked to give $25 øach year, 51 to 250 employees $50, and those with 251 or more, $1 00. . What's in it for me and other Member's? Members have clearly told us that a visible, accessible spot to serve Members, welcome guests, promote the community and display/distribute information is a must. Beyond that, we're watching and learning from the experience of other Chamberoffices,and listening to needs identified by O'ur volunteers, committee members, Member-businesses and staff. Organization Verification Report Accurate information helps us provide you with the best possible service! Date: 04/08/2004 Corporation of The County of Elgin Page: 1 l1>'.. . ..- . ~, J~!'~,;lG ~ j Organization Name: DBA: Physical Address: 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, ON N5R 5V1 Mailing Address: 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, ON N5R 5V1 Org. Number: 78634 Org. Status: Active Rep: AL BOD Billing Address: 450 Sunset Drive SI. Thomas, ON N5R 5V1 Corporation of The County of Elgin Corporation of The County of Elgin Phone: (519) 631-1460 E 125 Email: Fax: (519) 633-7785 URL: Toll Free: Bus. Begin: / / Date Joined: 05/09/2000 Employees: Full Time: Part Time: Total: 43 7 50 Source: Sales Contact Business Type: Categories: Government Government Services - (MAIN) Tax Exempt: D Next Bill Date: 05/01/2005 Dues: $145.00 Bill Cycle: Annual Prefer Method of Communication: o Email ŒJ Mail o Fax Fax When: Any Time Contact Mr. Harley Underhill ŒJ Main Contact Title Phone fax Director of Human (519) 631-1460 E 125 (519) 633-7785 ŒJ Main Event Contact ŒJ Main Adverliser Contact ŒJ Main Benefit Contact Email humanMresouro;es@elgin-county.on.ca ŒJ Main Dues Contact ŒJ Who's Who Status: Contact Title Phone Fax Email Mr. B_....:~ f.. 8..:..~;t.J. Councillor (519) 782 7112 (519) 7Sf! 7828 Address: 1278£ RD6ê¡(.(, L:,,~ U..;....., at J t J8L 2L8 . o Main Contact 0 Main Event Contact o Main Advertiser Contact 0 Main Benefit Contact o Main Dues Contact ŒJ Who's Who Status: Contact Title Phone Fax Email Mr. John Wilson Councillor (519) 269-3364 (519) 269-3617 Address: 50850 Wilson Line, R.R. #1 Springfield. ON NOL 2JO o Main Contact 0 Main Event Contact o Main Advertiser Contact o Main Benefit Contact o Main Dues Contact ŒJ Who's Who Status: ",^","'~"'rlh"MM¡:¡: 84/16/84 22:83:33 EST; ASSOCIATION OF?-) 519 633 7661 CLERK-Elgin Co Page 882 APR-16-04 FRI 04:10 PM 260 FAX NO. 416 971 6191 P, 01 Town of North Perth 330 Wallace Avenue North Listowel, Ontario N4W 1 L3 (519) 291-2950 Fax (519) 291-9643 ^pril I:;"', 2004 Munip.ipnliti<>~ "fOntario IknrConm:il: Re: H.¡I.\!.!'Il¡:~H MOH The Council of the Town of North P~rth at their regular mccting 011 Monday, April 5''', .200·1 p~,~çd The f"Howing resolu1ion: wm'~IH~AI'; the MinisTry of Environm<:nl hns maclcd Ontario Regulation 170/03; AND WHEREAS ti,e ahow stated regulation h~s regUlatlx! the operation of smnll munieipnl1y Ü\H1Cd nnr¡, re~jd"'""1)ti;~1 wnter system::;; M-ID WI lEREAS a wNshroÜT!1 facility a1 a municipally owned rLl1'al sports field is now çtm~idúrc:( 10 b(,:. rq~uk1tcJ; AND WI !E{([;AS tho long term c"st of opemting such a small facility under the above stated Jl~glllilliJn:; is pn)hjbitivcJy expcnsive; AND WllERI,AS the f"1\II'I\ to 'port-a-potl ie<' as washroom faci1i1 ics is no! a positive c.hange, :nnd prl.,'SCH{S fin inCfL'¡\SOO health risk to USI,,~rs; AND WHIm r.AS tloe Perth Dislrict IIcn!lh UnÎl aleo beljeves [lwt the move awoy from the ""!'!'CHI hci!iHcs to p0l1~h¡c j'~cHíties presents hca!lh risk; Nnw TllERFFORli liE IT RESOLVr.n that the Council oCtile Corporation oftll<: Town of NOllh I'"rth rellu~~t Ibe Miniel.ry oCEnvironmcnt cxempt 8m3!! non-residential faciJi¡jes which ~i1I'Ply WaSbfi)()1111ådJiHcs only from a11l'oniolls of a.Reg 170/03. I'h" ']'owlIlIfNorlh l'cnh Council respcctfL1l1y request support for thi:; rC$oJutioli horn all Ol)tario mHilicip(l1Jtie~, ~;I",ulcl you ImY<; tiny queslìons, pJc.,"" <10 nol he.,itate to cont,Ùit me at (519)291-2950 cxl. 21\9 1Ij' Plkrl\¡];<!p)lown.[1oI1hpcrth.on,c.a. Y,'¡n,¡ 11uly, PH\ Ikrfc!?, A.M.C.T., CMM I Ikp\ily CILTk TownufNNtlJ Perth [';'Th(¡ n;;;¡c,¡:¡"';;lis provided under contmct as "! paid selvice by the originaling organization. and doc;:; not nC'wssarily refiec:t the views or positions of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), its s\lbsidlary comp"nies, OmC€,rs, d[recíors or agents," ~~.ft.y.,~_----.--~.~__~~.,__~. .. _~.. _ .,~"::",~.:"";'~____~':-~_-:=:- EST; ASSOCIATION OF?-) 519 633 7661 CLERH-EIgin Co Pag" 81B 1'14/16/1'14 22:1'14:1'13 APR-16-04 FRI 04:11 PM jf? ~O ¡J~tj t,td )~ ~ - /) C""J o ~ o'¡¡::ß ,':"<.~1 (¡;-~')I //- Jì" IÞ"-..1 '" ~~"',"J <Ç.JJ "r--';'¡ ,.:~""þ ¡':'-'J f.~ ~JJ --""'~ ~. (¡~~I "-~.."'. ".!i:""~' ~~ t";''':1' ~.! ~,~ -,~ "''iJ ~ ~ ~l~ . .r'~~ .~, ""~~l 1 ~;~::'J " FAX NO. 416 971 6191 P, 02 260 YOUTH REACHING OUT ACROSS ONTARIO Y0l11h ju lowns and cilicR all ovcr Ontariu ~ncJ Canackl are reaching uut to government to listen to "wluablc I\l~""g" they W~llllo sharc. Hundreds of adults supporting youth organizations across Onw";o r<>~ogniz~ II," n~ecJs ofyoUlh und arc working tirdcssly as volullteers in pulling together prog..al11<, IhfOLlg.h illlennitlent project funding, unci cndl<.:Rsly raHying fur more voluoteers to keep II)Orn~otUJn going. Youth, alld all pef\pl" involyed with youth ~erOss Onrario, havc paid thßir dU4'" <1od ~"!lJpi"'d research to illuslmte how posHivß SUpporls and measures go a long way low;"rd Iwvcntion of crime, ,ocial delinquency, and substance. abuse. 13y providing a place for youlh 10 gu " cülnH1unity-bosed yuuth cenl'rcs " OUl' youth spend quality time doing what IIICY enjoy with positive rolc-mode]]jng sllpporls aL'Ouno them, thus empowering (he youth to take 011 rok" wilbill Ihose org1lnÎza1íonö and affect chonge within themselves and within th"ir <'Ilvironllle"t, C"mmullily-bQs~d YOllth cemres provide ."fe and nurturing environmßnts and have 1"'ov<:1\ 10 make " diff~renco during those very formidable y~a'ö before adulthood and aid in the ,\()vdc)JJIl""I. <.>f the our country's llexlleaders and dccisionIlH,kers. 1,<),,11 YOluh Pnrlicipation Slrategy, TyrS rne, is an organizationlhat works tirelessly in support of Yl1Uth thr"ugh )'l)uth <'CUlm programming ~crnS5 Onll1rio. TYPS Tne. has takcn the lead in rl'sa"'ch and dilta ~"lIl'clion (0 d"mOllSll'Ale the bencfils uf youl'h involvemcnt in commuuily- ha;,ed )'(Jl\th C"llIres_ The information TY!'!; has compHed spells oul what is needed by youth øno wh.1\ h~,s bNn w.'rking for yonth in town< and cities aeHJSS Onlørio for the past 12 years. Much "lore eiln 1>" a~cl\mpli$I1C¡ wilh the ,'Wpp011 and recognition ol'lh" Ontario govonullent. It is time r"r ""I' government 10 acknowledgc these town aud I'u"al youths' efforts to reach Olit and conncct with tJldr cornBlUlli1y. 11", li'''ß is now to ta"e n hill'd look al the research, to takc a close I"ok "t the government's slr,I{~gic plan, II1HI rccognizc thl! enormous gaps for supports and services for youth, and the <liHproporlioa.,te concentration of supports and mC11sures which are only available to city youth hllt clcnk'd their 11 "" I/SII1" II town cousins. ï hú Mif);'tl'r fur Children alld Yuuth, Dr, Marie Bountrogianni has been holding a number of round table discussions on II", needs ol'chiIdl'en and YOlilh acl'OSS Ontario, TYPS representatives 'Will not invit"d to ~oy of Ihcse lorums to express Ihß vÎßws of its member ürgani7.ations on thc ¡¡lig!;1 or tf.'C""g.eI'S. One fjn~1 Round Table discussion in Teronto will be organized nnd OJC p~rlieip;"'ls targetcd for th;< forum will be by invitation only. !'"Ii¡i"i:ws whhin nlllnicípal councils arc closest to the people and many of thcm wOI'k with grH~!;{,o01s yomh organizations th01 cOIIstan11y bring thúir succcssc.,s, elToJ1f1 and concorns to the cmulcil tables ill tl'WI1S ~J1d cirks IhroughO\Jt Onlnrio. We speak tbr the public jn saying that reprc'~nliHi,es from TYPS must be iIlVit"d, 0" behnIJ'ofyonth in cDeh eomlhunity, we se"k the Stlpp\1lt ofllllmidpafiliu.i through couocil r~solutÎon 10 influcncc [he Mlnist"r to invite TYPS to the ¡"ok' to pteScnl lhc doC"",,,,,I,,lio,, and the resc~rch that suppurts the noed of the youth l'oj>ubt¡"" ill ()(.t ,,'ele>ty. Knlhy RobiT.\ill" Yke C'h,fÌr, T. Y .P,:;, ¡'worponlkd COli1lillli1iiy DeVCDjHnClll Con,llltam COllncill"r, TQWllship pfthe Nodh Shore [';;-¡:i;¡;'-;Dni'~ri¿lï;p;Ö:;'ÏdCd under contract' as a paid service by the originating orgañization, and~ doc:; t10t nec(m.Garily rcf10ct the vlews or posltiOl1$ of the AssodaUon of Municipalities of Ontario j!y,10Li~~.~:1~~~ct¡ary comµ¡¡i'\Íes, off~~ß'L~irec!ors or a~en:~:,:'".___n .. _n... .... n" __ 84/1~/84 22:84:53 EST; ASSOCIATION OF?-) 519 ~33 7~~1 CLERK-Elgin CD Page 884 APR-16-04 FRI 04:12 PM 260 FAX NO, 416 971 6191 P, 03 rÐfilloñrn-mrnrn 1'0 Box 108, Algoma Mills, ON POR IAO (705) 849-2213 (705) 461-1821 RI~G{lLAR COUNÇIL MIŒTtNG Mø:;.t.'l'iNù DAn,: AÞRIL 5, 2004 AGENDA ITEM(S) : M(;\¡mO UY "NcllO<H'I Kmko" SECONDED BY: "Howard Booker" ~~~~'.:~:-:"~::-",;"t ..L ~_ ,..~_ ..........__.1" .n_ "J". _ ,,- - ... .,..~ Wllf'REM, it is "dnowlc,lged Ihal ¡f)~ Minister ror ChiJd"en's Services reccntly put out a comnllll)iqll6, "('01,\lJ!'11I1-\ Oulsid" Ihe Lines", which expressed Stlpport by many professional youth advocates, as well r," Ii,o p¡'cmioJ' D;¡lton McGinty, ih"t tl1>O Minist,')' name should renect the YOllth segmcnt of socíCly a.nd be lHot't: ij]cI!I~jvc of tcc.nagçr~; ¡\ND WifERl,AS (1) March 10, 200~ thc MinistIy oHicilllly changed the llamC La Ihe Ministry or Child '1I\d Y"ulh Sefviees, and On,,,rio's Minisler orClllld and Youth Se¡viccs, OJ'. Maric Bountrogianni, ha.s a)(,'''''Y "~t III' r·, s~h,,¡ulo of round Hlule disctlssions in communities flCrOSs southem Ontario to meet with t'l1nHnwlily p~rtn('r> to gather idoo, on how to i01pJ'Ove services for young people thrOllgh discussion h~IIHIIS; 1\1:,1T I{ESOLVED THAT we sut'porl the Ontario wide youth organization, Town Youth Parlicipntion Stmkgy, ¡II Lhdr len yc"r history working with youth groups nil over Ontario compiling rescarch that jilu:o:trntc:o:: Ilow ~k·th\Ítivc suppür!s and m~aSLU'D$ provided t~) yuulh in sound~ positiyc environments hfls il1,r,'",,'d poshiw ¡,;roWlh ond deyeloplllent of leenagers. That the rescarch fUl1h~r ìIlllf¡trates that by rJovjdiJlt~ p~'ögr:alnmillg and st:'rvìçes to ar.os·jst youth with con$1J"lIctive and h:U1d~-on apprOi]cht~s to pI/'bk'I}!"of\'Îi¡g and providing it chanco for each youth to experience opportLIl1Íties that they wuuld not o¡j.¡,'lwi,,,· hflvù ¡!rid eXl'llSuæ 10, has provcn 10 make the world of' differencc in thosc very formidable Fars bc/i)r" adulll,nod when Illuy wíll become the Ilext leaders and decision makcl'S; BE IT FIJRTlIEtt RESOLVED that 1'.Y.i'.S. Inc., the non-profit organization that works tirelcssly in s"I'P"I'Il1[yol1lh IOm,res across Ontarju. be invited 10 the final round table discossion ill Toronto, or thai a 'l",dallclI""u for the p~'rp,"e or'li\eussing the needs or youth bc coordinated, with all invitation to TYPS IlIe I" fln'sell! II", l'eBcnrch and "p,,,,k on behalf of well over Olle hundred youth organizations across 5 rugÎt1l1,"I or Ontm in; AND FiJ!~ ITU,R ,(,JJAT a copy "rthis rcsolution, snpported by each council, be fOlwarded direcLly to thc Minbi<'r of Child and Yo,,!h ServilOcs and Ihat II copy al.o bc forwarded on to: TYPS Il1c. 88 Comolia St, West, Unit A3 Snlith Foils Ont:\l'ío, lOA 5K9 Fax 613-283-9,107 Emaj, lypô01nl"gm",~ We r,,,pcc'ir,¡Jly ",'(¡II""! Ih.~t consideration be gívcl110 this nl()(ioll as well as the attnched comm"ni'l"é, Youth Roaching Onl ^cro:-;~ Ontacio. n_ ,ø__.., ,.,._....ø_~,.,_, ~,. ~,___.._. ,......----,.-~_~~,,___ft_, C^ RRI ED "G.B. Johnson" [~1:¡:~;;ïn','ï~;;¡~ìiS providëd und~r;;o¡:;¡;:a~t as a paicÎsorvice by the ~JÌgjnating organization, and ~ dQe.' not rw(-",sS<trily reflect the views 01' positions of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), 113 subsidiary companies, officers, directors or agents." ",. <_'__~":'''-:n"""'''"";'-__'~_'_~___:~_, . .. '~~':~::'_"""'~"':':. _ .._ TOWN OF AYLMER 46 Talbot Street, West, Aylm.er, Ontario N5H IJ7 Office: (519) 773-3164 Fax: (519) 765-1446 Mayor Paul Baldwin Ernail: rnayor@town.aylmer.on.ca .·.ftECEivt;D Faxed and Mailed APR 21 2004 April 20, 2004. (œ.~TY Of a.œR "f~~-"'''mi!.~--!'ii 'j"';~'}f:::1~1:~D',,,~~~,~w§Ç ~';J~~gJ. Mr. Mark G. McDonald, Chief Administrative Officer, County of Elgin, 450 Sunset Drive, ST. THOMAS, ON N5R 5V1 Dear Sir: Please be advised of the following resolution passed by Aylmer Town Council, when they met in Special Session, last evening: "That the Council of the Town of Aylmer express its deep opposition to the proposed 2004 County of Elgin budget, reflecting a 17% increase; and further That the Council of the Town of Aylmer, on behalf of its local businesses and residents, who are County ratepayers, requests the County reexamine its proposed budget to ensure the County's tax levy is held at a maximum of 4%." Please give Aylmer Town Council's resolution your serious consideration. Sincerely, ~ Mayor Paul Baldwin c.c. Warden David Rock -f. fORTHRIDGE April 15, 2004 Warden David Rock 450 Sunset Drive St. lrhomas, ()}¡ }¡5R 5Vl Re: 2004 Bud!!et Dear Sir: In recent days I have learned that County council representatives have approved the 2004 budget reflecting a 17% increase. Suffice it to say I find the recent actions of council a flagrant abuse oftheir fiduciary responsibilities to the ratepayers of this county. I must say that I could not imagine anyone of the mayors or deputy mayors returning to their respective municipalities and accepting carte blanche a 17% increase in their local budgets. I must speak out as a rate payer and as a member of council for Central Elgin and say that the recent actions of county council, places an undue burden on the lower tier councils and administration to mitigate the impacts of such an outrageous and quite frankly unwarranted increase, Have the members of county council lost sight of the fact that there is only one taxpayer? Are they as a colIective prepared to hold a public meeting and defend such extreme and unwarranted increases? AdditionalIy I am aware of a number of issues that exist within the county system that bares close examination folIowed by open explanation. ()ver expenditures that appear to have been overlooked by upper administration and previous councils, departments that are heavily staffed and growing without any question from council, department budgets that are soaring out of control and yet council appears to do nothing to address the obvious. Why? Mr. Warden if! could make one suggestion to you and the other members of County Council it would be that in the future, before any county budget is passed that it be vetted by each county representative with their respective councils. In doing so, those that pay the bill would have an opportunity to express an opinion to their county council representatives on the major issues before county council who would then carry that concem(s) and respective vote to the county table. I know the first argument is, why then, have a county representative if they are required to get local council approval on the budget? lrhe answer is simple. Over the years it has become obvious that two standards of responsibility exist, and-Ît is this double standard that has created siguificant problems for the local politician below the mayor and deputy mayor, a situation that must end. I must insist that as the head of County Council you take the necessary action to facilitate a complete and comprehensive review of the corporations policies, procedures and practices. lrhat a paralIel review of staffmg needs and job descriptions are carried out. I believe that through both of these processes council as a whole will better understand its operations and will be better equipped to address the kind of flagrant misuse and abuse of positions and resources that we have witnessed over the past number of years. 44694 FRUITRIDGE LINE, R,R. # 5 . ST. THOMAS, ON . N5P 359 PHONE: 519-633-1515 . FAX: S16-63ï-8143 E-MAIL NORTHRIDGE@EXECULINK:COM I would be prepared to speak to my concerns, at any time with you personally, or with council as a whole. I await a response to my concerns. Respectfully t2:;. ~:;! K4d. Cc. Mayor David Rock, Deputy Mayor Sylvia Hofhuis Municipality of Central Elgin 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, ON N5R WI Tfie Corporation of tfie :Municipa£ity of Centra[ 'E[gin 450 Sunset Drive, 1st Floor, St. ThomaS, Ontario N5R 5V1 Ph.519·631·4860 Fax519'631'4036 RECEIVED ApriI20~, 2004 David Rock Warden County of Elgin 450 Sunset Road St. Thomas, ON N5R 5V1 APR~_ ".~~aøI ~~;¡!¡~~~~~ _, .<, .,,,,),':.:~1r-c!fité},:,,,,, Dear Warden Rock: Re: 2004 County of Elgin Budget Please be advised that Council discussed the above noted matter at their meeting dated Monday, April 19fu, 2004 and the following resolution was passed: THAT: The Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Central Elgin request County Council to reconsider its 2004 Budget with the objective of substantially decreasing the proposed increase in the 2004 Budget. UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED. If you have any questions or concerns respecting this information, please do not hesitate to contact me at the municipal office. Yours truly, ~~ Dianne Wilson Deputy Clerk 04/27/2004 TUE 11:49 FAX 519 866 3884 Municipality of Bayham 2004-208 Moved by C Evanitski Seconded by M Taylor "THAT the Municipality of Bayham request that the County of Elgin rcconsider the proposcd 2004 budget with the intentto reduce the amount ofthe increase to the tax levy." Disposition: Motion Camed Unanimously ~ 002/002 r '\ J. Frisch Construction & Dev. Ltd. 19 Centennial Ave, Aylmer, ON N5H 2X1 Phone: (519) 765-2051 R EIVED April 26, 2004 APR 26 2004 Elgin County Municipal Building 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, ON N5R 5Vl COONWOf aGIN 1ff.,,,,~¡¡;¡"'''I";UI'''r,:' A~JmfIS~n.~~~~~" ~t;Ft'_'f\J,,~:~? ß:lS 01./,/\ . Attention Mr. Mark McDonald. County Administrator Dear Mr. McDonald, As an Aylmer ratepayer I strongly oppose the proposed 17% rise in the Elgin County tax rate, as reported in the April 21 Aylmer Express. Such an increase is unconscionable in light of the County's $4.16 million reserve fund, and especially insulting is thatthis 17% increase includes an addition of$241,250 to this already bloated reserve fund. It was mentioned in the article that county-run nursing homes are the problem. One solution to keep the rate down, it was mentioned, is to privatize them. As a private sector landlord I can attest to the fact that privately owned facilities are run much more efficiently than so-called government-run affordable housing, and I dare say the same is true in the nursing home area. Please pass this letter on to the Elgin County councillors and ask them to honestly reconsider all the options available so t.1.at this deplorable increase will not take place. I salute the four members who opposed this scandalous increase. Let's hope the others come on side. Yours truly, Mike Reiter, President, 1. Frisch Construction cc The Aylmer Express, Aylmer Town Council , FrQm:STEELWAY 519 773 7398 04/26/200408:88 #243 P.002/002 . ~STEELWAY 5Tf£LWA)' B~.ß:LÐnlG SYSTEMS A f'i.'Ÿf::.}C)N Of (~t.r.þ¡ W1ft'CE' lri!}U.gTI.'.Œ..s ( ¡ì) ,t~:¿.J~ .:,~r'+)!}""<'Ih~" R.ü~' . Aykn;"f C¡.i.:'lrx¡· çQf\¡¡IO;, !olSH 2f;!-:i- Ph. «j.1.';") 1tj~r<?:!'14 t~i;t (~l~) ::3-:<~'JU A"r" ...~ "0'" '"'P,) .'!,.'" r... V·'t M:,lr~ Md)nn'lkl l\Jmi"".rraltVe SerVIC;E;o C olJnly o( E.-kilt I I\dmlnktraliw!Juiiding 1f-iO Sun>;,':·;1 Driv\7.' .s~ Thol1~~~~;. Ont,ç':t((j N51'< f,v [J"ar Mr McDonald Elgin County s racent annOI.it'.cerhent that the (,-,\Inti S Þ(U'tion .::f pmperty tø'~'~; oc.uld go up by 1/ percent ha.~ our or',J1~nizalio~ conc8med a& fo> the atfordability ')f b"'''9 located in Contral Elgin and the impact lOOSE'> tugh ta~¡¡¡s wiìl hg,ve on the municipaliti." aMity to bê ;;" attractive place to locate In the ~l1tllre .St",,,Iw-<lY is one ()( the largest t,,~ p"yer5 in Cèntr,,1 E:'IQln aod we undorstand ·'.hat ~"xes ..rfll!<>C(!~""ry to provide tho: quality OT !if.? thai we. de",m within Ihe wmmunit/ but it is ve,·y impurtant hat 1M lax money i~ spant In an efficient $lId respon~¡bl,~ rnanier l)nn~e Elgin counJY sod Centra' Elflll>. Sle",!v,¡ay does not have a caþtive! cUI;!i',mer aCId ¡~,. it' '" very comp:;titivt; l:>u5ineS3 environment. We do not have the ôbi1ity 10 p'" S on i'hi~ siqmllçant Ia. increa~e to our (,u~tùl'1'l"r ,,~ you "'re prep",riog tö dO to uô. We ,re c.wrently formul,¡jing plan~ which coull, st>e f¡ign~Gant ilddition to our ,;lIr!'",!'>t i ¡eMi,,$ and ta" ¡ntreases at ths magnit"de t'ìat is bf¡ouig cór>sideroo by the County 'll/o;Jld mal<.e Ih,,:,;o pl,;¡ns diriic.ult to ju~;tj{v. t im"fma y~~u to use all your rS'S{Jtlrt~~S. Including ~·our ""~s;erves to redtJc~ Y'H"r t~): ín='~$('$ to '" "'<!Xilllurn <)( :3 percent. Th~!!~:s tor your r:of';sideratíon Sif)I~~r~iV', (;I'.'n While r~;{~tf;ldø'l' 10 39\1d >i80;:¡ a 99S2:-L£9-519 1S:L1 ÞØØ2:/92:/ÞØ APR 2 '2 10~~ e ~ U/~~ .P7?~/~' . ~~C-~~~ ~~~ ~~,~~~~'f ~~~~~~~. ·~f . ~~~~~,~- ~--.>c7~ .'. ~~~~..:zJ;..:::J ~-.~~~~~~. ~~~~V~~t ~... 'Y~~. ~.~~. ~.. ,., ~~~~f~./~~.-£ ~~~~-~.~~~~ ¡~~, . ~~~~.~ '~.~~~~~. . . ~~ ... .'Yr~~ .~~ o«~Þ# ~~ ~ ~~' . R·'·'E"". 4i.~"".·E',. ...gl!'''' "'.m.f ""'''''''!ì''' ;'," ..""'" ~tf( ,¿.¡1 .~~'@'~1tl~~!id.; ,,'t~ ~.. ·t~ ""' .""~T:¡¡ "t,.,4;;." =. J,,} , . ='~ .hw~ Jþ ,:9' . APR 23 2004 C~W(fa61N , '''M'''!!>:!--~~~iæ':~''-,!;¡;¡ ~~.ír~'~~~\;;¡~~ ~ ~~4_ H~t; 0-f.'J",";~~U~,,: v APR 2 2 ?I\I\4 __._-=~.-~_=~..~..=_~~~-'=_-~~=-__~:-~-~--~_~=:~~_~=v_=__-=-=..:~:~\_=~~Q-~'=_==._ _.____=~=__=_-_=___~~~~~:~;~_=~:~==~¡::==~-":G~'~~~:~:~::::~~~::~- -==······==~E~::S~~~~~~~~r~;f:~~~:,-=?~~~= ~<2,'2.~\e .- \o~"-'1t'Þ"-:\-Q ..C"-c... ._y,¿..C._.~o_.,._.G,c.... ..._."'5".,\\ .. __. _n_ _ __ .... ___S!::'-'",J____:\c-.."'.Ÿ-3'-',..5___0<-"""~____""'=9"'_e.._._L\,,_~_ _~S_~9.-"-~____ ___ ---~-~5>~3~-~-vcf'-~· ·-t-2c---~-~s..-e--=~~t:-~'~~... __..~~0-----.- --===_-~~?·:iE~,~"E~~¿;:~3-'e~¿:~E~o~;· .--- .""'\º'*s:::~"'_')0~S.--ç·...-s-e.e.~\..- S>"3...::t:-~ ~.s:s-:I...L.__ -~-....-",,- - -- no' ·-G.--'^""'~\-æ..'C-'--'Ä-c,.....t.\ -~--\C"'- - ~~ ~L ..'¡,,,....:..'..~_';..._~___ ~ C'::::,C_ '-0\.""'~-h""'S\..-.... '-...L)e:...""'~_~'()_':~~\-~(,_"=_"""_\f\=""_\".Yn - .:'-"..t,¿,;,,¡: .S.__._"A....~ .---~~e.-.'""---:-\"''-''''-s.--'Ç'-'=\--¿..\").ec~l~\,,..,-'> "'j-- .'L-\~ e._._ .~. _..._.._..~..~:~..~.."~&~~:::~Çt:~~b_~~:_~:~=.~\::..\=:=~~~\:~,.........._ / __"'_h9:c,~~"",,,,,,,,,,'h,,,,,, :it"""""!. ...c:._"""'::_-::'\"-"-~ ..~_._ ~-\ ~\..:.~- ··i=~~~£~~~~t~;~~~~~======-===:==- ) ..__ ..________1-.JS"<",___:0<:o,:-t____ . ._ ____...._ L _..__.____ _. __..._.__..____._... I / . V·-·---..-------·- a~~. ===- =~ · - . ~ ~=_.:::===·-=-ReœIVED- . '··"".._._··__.m. ,. --~..__.._~-_._-_._-._-_....."~.._~,,---,,....._-_.._---~--.----.-.----.-- --.......-----.-..-......-.'--. - ______.__~_.____.______~______~._......._ ."...______.".__________n__________________________ , .___________.________"_____._.__._n___________.__.__~._ _ APR 23 2004 __~________.__m·____.._.._._..__.._ ___ __ _..__.____.....__ _ _.. .._____________..___._______ ._.__ __ __._..___..._.__ ... ______ . _ _____________...__________.____._~._._..__ _ ___ _______ _____...._.__._.________ .___ ....___..______..___M..._._" ___ ____.__________._.______~_._..._ _ ... ... ---~T'lOfa.6IN~~-. i~J_:~t!l~~]~m~'T~~ ~FRlftCl,;:~ __ ___ __ _ __ ____.___._..,,__._______._._...~m.·_.___________·_______·~...._______.__ . ----..~-- --'--.------- ~---~~--~--.._._----"---_.__......_-----._~._--_.------ . . - -. - -.-----.--........---..--------- .--~-----_.-"--_..__.- .---.-.-.--.- -_._------~-----.._-- ..---------..--- ...,,- ....---....-.-----.-- 04/22/2004 05:20 -000000 0000000 PAGE 01 jb· t~~\)~\,J ÁI,I, '~~~~J)~~\.. . "fu, """ ),~':-' ~ .Jc0....ç"'\"" ~ w<w "f\'~ Jo ~~'-\J ~:f ~ .J..~ ,CI... .&0ûtJ ~ ~l~\)~\~ J..().,\." ~--u.JJ )~~ \1 (~~\r,. JLI)..'->. ~~,\\\ ,~L: :L~ ~ ~~~ ~It\~ ~~c.Ci.>>J ..1~ð..... ~ ,~ ~~ ~ ~~D..ID ~ ~'ð.... . k ~ ~ ~\~!l.,.)o V ~ ~~l1.W ~ ~ J~ ~~ ~\~. '. ~,,~ ~~'-ì ~~.M.à-~ .'\\... ~ "'" <>- ~"'" Fò\,à 1,0';' ù . J ~'I"- .& ~ ~'-.~~~ J\.!L~JL ~~\- ~0""t'Jù ~~ ~~ ~Ú>L ~~ ~~ l\\J ~ Xi) ~!l}-~ cJh~ ~ ) ~) ~ ~1.:.l... ~ J'r\~ .M.~~~ \ 'C.. n..~h 0.J, ~ . ~\) ~~ ~~ ~i) u~ ~~~ ~\L \1"1· ~Ð\I¡¡"]Q_ ~ ~~~ J.t~ . ~~~~ ~'4~~DC~ Wcr\\1 ~l. }ù ~~ ~~ ,~\\-)~ ~ ~~ ~cru. 0.»- hJ'o ~L~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~LUS\~ ~ ~~~'-'".~ - ~~o5 ~H \. ~~ '-\\-f1b\\& ~~ ~ 1t ~ ~ t~.Wu~~~~' ~~ ~ð ~. L~ ~~~ ~ 'ð.6\i'I'\ ~ 0..Lv0.\ }~ ~~ ~V ~~ '. 1û~~ . . Ì!~~~~ ~~ tL\.~ ~~ ~~J.. i~~.w ~ ~~C~ ~ ~ ~t)\ ~~~~&.~t~1J:. ìw.. ~ \~ ~ ~~ <4. ~CX. .l.~ CN.V ~ ~J-L\ ~~ ~ ~ 1\~'l.~~ ~M~~ ~\1w _ \\~~ -1 ~'" 1" ~'\ ~<-.&. ~"" ~ ~" Wà...,.,.." ~\\~\V ~ J.\~ î~ }o ;.J;tuX ~)~ ~~~h~~~~~~~ ~\~\ ~.. ~J0.\iJ~)\.UÙ ~L)( ~~ ~ "t\0 0.... ~ -1c h~\'\.l ~v J~~ ~~,~ ~ ~lJ'f~ %~ }'--'~ ~'\V j.":\'<n JQ ~~ L4''''''1- ~~"- 1~ "F M", 10 39\1d 0000000 000000- ÞE:S0 Þ00~/L~/Þ0 CORRESPONDENCE - April 27. 2004 Items for Information - (Consent Aaenda) 1. Robert A. Richards, President and Chief Administrative Officer, Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC), with copy of correspondence to the Ontario Public Service Employees Union concerning a proposal to work together to improve the quality of service MPAC provides. (ATTACHED) 2. Peter Hume, Chairman, MPAC Board of Directors, with the 2003 Annual Report and Financial Statements. (available for viewing at Administrative Services) 3. Gar Knutson, M.P., Elgin-Middlesex-London, with copy of correspondence: 1) to the Minister of Transport regarding the status of funding from CN Rail for rail crossings on County Road 48; 2) with copy of correspondence to the Minister of State - Infrastructure Concerning the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund. (ATTACHED) 4. Responses to the Middlesex-Elgin Community Residency Program: (ATTACHED) a) Margaret Underhill, Bayham Community Health Action Committee, Municipal Staff Resource 5. Steve Peters, M.P.P., Elgin-Middlesex-London, with copy of correspondence: 1) to the Ministers of Finance, Transportation and Public Infrastructure Renewal, regarding the County of Elgin report "Provincial Issues In Elgin County"; 2) to the Minister of Health, Environment and Natural Resources, regarding the County of Elgin report "Provincial Issues In Elgin County"; 3) to the Minister of Transportation regarding Emergency Detour Route for Highway 401. (ATTACHED) 6. AMO Member Communication "For Your Information" 1) Environment Canada Issues Final Road Salts Code of Practice; 2) Province Reverses Decision To Close Judson; 3) Province Amends ESA to Allow Family Medical Leave. (ATTACHED) 7. Jean-Francois Trepanier, Chief Elections Officer, Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Consent Form for National Board of Directors for 2004 Annual Conference. (ATTACHED) 8. Mark Cousins, Committee Chair, Ontario Family Fishing Weekend Steering Committee, advising that July 9 - July 11, 2004 is a licence-free-fishing weekend. (ATTACHED) -2- 9. Shmuel Farhi, President, Farhi Holdings Corporation, thanking Council for the opportunity to speak to Council recently regarding the Pioneer Museum. (ATTACHED) 10. Honourable John Gerretsen, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, with copy of correspondence the Honourable Steve Peters, M.P.P., regarding the Line Fences Act. (ATTACHED) 11. Jeff Okrucky, Manager, Operations, London/Sarnia, Union Gas, with information regarding rate changes effective April 1st. (ATTACHED) 12.St. Thomas-Elgin General Hospital Auxiliary, with an invitation to the 50th Birthday Celebration for the St. Thomas-Elgin General Hospital- R.S.V.P. required by May 1 to Sharon Little at 633-6781. (ATTACHED) ~paè. MUNICIPAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT CORPDRATION RECEIVED APR '[ 2004 COUNiY OF tiSlN i\nMII!\!lli"l'l5>£'!'<¡U"" <':'!:mll',"'''';;, 1·"-;;'L~~~~"}e:~g~l}j~ ~:J;!:nv~u¡;~ March 29, 2004 Ms. Leah Casselman, President Ontario Public Service Employees Union 100 Lesmill Road North York ON M3B 3P8 Dear Ms. Casselman: I think it is fair to say that you and I disagree about a number of areas concerning the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MP AC). We do, however, agree on one critical matter. As representatives of our respective constituents, we want MP AC to be the best that it can be. We want the quality of our products, services and their delivery to our various customers to be exemplary. We also want to foster the best possible working relationships between MP AC and those customers. The question is, how best to achieve these objectives? In your letter to the Minister you wrote: "[OPSEU] members have the knowledge, skills and professionalism needed to provide excellent assessment services for Ontario. They can tell you, in detail, exactly what is wrong with MP AC - and how to fix it. To do so, they will need a certain level of protection." I offer MP AC' s OPSEU members an opportunity to be part of the solution. Speaking on behalf ofMP AC's management, we would welcome the ideas our 1,300 OPSEU employees have to address the business challenges facing MP AC. As you may be aware, there already exists, within the company, a variety of communication avenues where employees are encouraged to bring forward new ideas. You imply, however, that many of your members are reluctant to do so. Therefore, let us try a different approach. Office of the President and Chief Administrative Officer 1305 Pickering Parkway, Pickering, Ontario L1 V 3P2 T: 905.837.6150 F: 905.831.0040 E: richarbo@mpac.ca www.mpac.ca Form Nc. L705GM Ms. Leah Casselman March 29, 2004 Page 2 of3 To bring these ideas forward, I suggest OPSEU become the vehicle to directly solicit and collect ideas :from MP AC's OPSEU members. Positioning your organization in this way should address the "protection" concern you raised with the Minister. As a result, members should be able to unleash their creative energies to develop concrete solutions to MP AC challenges without fear or favour. I further suggest that OPSEU take these ideas and formulate them into a report for submission to MP AC's management team in Pickering. To guarantee complete anonymity, you may choose to have members e-mail their ideas to you :from their home computers. Alternatively, if they were comfortable doing so, employees could use MP AC's co=unications facilities for this purpose. To make this process manageable, workable and timely, for both MP AC members and the Corporation, I think it prudent to establish some operational guidelines. I suggest the following: ~ Members are solicited by OPSEU for ideas on a finite number of areas, say four or five (e.g. How can MP AC improve the quality of its services?) Areas that can be better dealt with through our Collective Agreement process should be excluded; ~ Members should be asked to consider how their idea(s) could be implemented within the current legislative requirements and the constraint of providing an annual assessment of 4.3 million properties in Ontario; ~ Any ideas that require additional human and/or financial resources should also identify how those extra resources can be obtained; and ~ To ensure the "timeliness" of the ideas, OPSEU's final report should be available for review by May 31, 2004. If you believe it would be beneficial to your members to have access to an advisor, you may contact Eric Preston, Vice-President of Corporate and Human Resources. He can provide you with information on matters such as staffing numbers, costs, and legislative requirements. To move forward with this proposal, I do have two requests of you. The first is that all of MP AC's OPSEU members are solicited for their ideas. The second is an assurance that the forthcoming ideas are truly a representative sample of the 1,300 members. I am excited about the possibility of getting meaningful and workable input :from the members about the important business issues currently challenging the Corporation. ::ffÎce of ¡;h.~ Pr-esi,jent ¿,-,:; Chief Administrative Officer T ~~~~;~G~~!~';º ~:a~~'~¡8;~~~~~:6' ~:fì~~~~r~~,~~:;c.ca 'NV'¡'N.rnpaC.ca Form No. L707Q,\ Ms. Leah Casselman March 29, 2004 Page 3 00 Therefore, I sincerely hope you will accept my proposal and play an integral role in bringing to light constructive ideas that the members have to offer. For my part, I assure you that we will take the ideas submitted in your report most seriously. I am aware that your letter has also been addressed to Ontario municipalities and Members of Provincial Parliament. I have copied them to this reply so they might also be aware of this opportunity for us to work together. I look forward to your response. Yours truly, #/?~ Robert A. Richards President and Chief Administrative Officer Copy Honourable Greg Sorbara Members of Provincial Parliament Ontario Municipalities MPAC Board of Directors Office of the President and Chief Administrative Officer 1385 Pickering Parkway, Pickering. Ontario L 1 V 3P2 T: 905.837,,6150 F: 905.831.0040 E: richarbo@mpac.ca www.mpac.ca Fcrm No. L70ìG.'. ~paè. MUNICIPAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT CORPORATION RECEIVED APR '1 2004 OOIJ~mOf~ ¡~W~jjSTAA1'M:~ March 29, 2004 To: Heads of Council All Ontario Municipalities From: Peter Hume Chairman, MPAC Board of Directors Subject: 2003 Annual Report and Financial Statements I am pleased to provide you with the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation's Annual Report and Financial Statements for the year ended December 31, 2003. These documents have been prepared as required by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Act for our members. Copies are also being provided to the Minister of Finance. Both the Financial Statements and the Annual Report are being posted on the Corporation's web site (www.mpac.ca). Yours truly, ~\k Peter Hume Chairman, MPAC Board of Directors Enclosure Office of the Chair. cj 0 City of Ottawa 110 Laurier Avenue West, Ottawa. Ontario K1 P 1 J1 T: 613.580.2488 F: 613.580.2528 E' patar..hume@ottawa.ca www.mpac"ca Form No. L5050M ~paè' MUNICIPAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT CORPORATION Financial Statements of the MUNICIPAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT CORPORATION December 31, 2003 ~ Oeloitte & Touche LLP 514ûYonge Street;Suite 1700 Toronto, ON M2N 6L7 Canada Tel: (416) 6016150 Fax:(416) 229 2524 www.de!oitte.ca Deloitte & Touche Auditors' Report To the Board of Directors of the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation We have audited the statement of fmancial position of Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (the "Corporation") as at December 31, 2003 and the statements of operations and changes in fund balance - operation fund, of operations and changes in fund balance - restricted fund and of cash flows for the year then ended. These fmancial statements are the responsibility of the Corporation's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform 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 estimat",s made by management, as well as evaluating the overall fmanciaI statement presentation. . . In our opinion, these financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Corporation as at December 31,2003 and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with Canadian generally accepted accounting principles. ~<Y1ducle LLP Chartered Accountants Toronto, Ontario February 13, 2004 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu MUNICIPAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT CORPORATION TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Statement of Financial Position ............................................................................................ 1 Statement of Operations and Changes in Fund Balance - Operating Fund......................... 2 Statement of Operations and Changes in Fund Balance - Restricted Fund ........................ 3 Statement of Cash Flows ......................................................................................................4 Notes to the Financial Statements ........................................................................................ 5-10 MUNICIPAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT CORPORATION Statement of Financial Position As at December 31, 2003 ASSETS 2003 2002 Current Cash and investments $ 45,907,545 $ 52,977,682 Accounts receivable 1,850,783 941,353 Prepaid expenses 1,432,009 1,512,424 49,190,337 55,431,459 Capital assets (Note 4) 17,646,007 19,466,109 TOTAL ASSETS $ 66,836,344 $ 74,897,568 LIABILITIES Current Accounts payable and accrued liabilities $ 18,575,423 $ 16,005,038 Current portion of capital lease (Note 5) 959,295 988,074 Employee future benefits (Note 6) 8,138,696 7,201,345 Long-term portion of capital lease 959,295 Total Liabilities 27,673,414 25,153,752 FUND BALANCES Restricted Fund Invested in Capital Assets (Note 7) 16,686,712 17,518,740 Operating Fund Reserve for Appeals 4,384,022 14,923,676 Reserve for Enumeration 700,000 2,500,000 Reserve for Restructuring and Technology 3,753,500 2,140,000 Reserve for Retirement and Termination Benefits 10,638,696 9,661,400 Reserve for Working Funds 3,000,000 3,000,000 22,476,218 32,225,076 Total Fund Balances 39,162,930 49,743,816 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES $ 66,836,344 $ 74,897,568 1 MUNICIPAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT CORPORATION Statement of Operations and Changes in Fund Balance - Operating Fund Year Ended December 31, 2003 Revenue 2003 2002 Municipal revenue $ 133,900,000 $ 130,000,000 Interest revenue 1,394,164 1,381,662 Other revenue 5,541,648 3,757,824 Total Revenue 140,835,812 135,139,486 Expenses Salaries and wages 78,544,564 81,710,750 Benefits (Note 6) 12,954,285 16,123,906 Data processing services 4,928,683 4,138,384 Office expenses 3,032,890 3,445,840 Professional services 15,126,655 15,669,054 Rentals Equipment 1,964,757 1,631,572 Facilities 10,640,849 10,745,346 Software licenses and maintenance 5,026,030 3,812,255 Telecommunications and postage 8,716,824 5,823,332 Other 3,885,523 3,204,383 Total Expenses 144,821,060 146,304,822 Deficiency of Revenue over Expenses (3,985,248) (11,165,336) Interfund Transfers (5,763,610) (10,507,027) Fund Balance, beginning of year 32,225,076 53,897,439 Fund Balance, end of year $ 22,476,218 $ 32,225,076 Approved by Board: Director ? õb 1 Ulli\-Q 0_( ~/ 2 MUNICIPAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT CORPORATION Statement of Operations and Changes in Fund Balance - Restricted Fund Year Ended December 31, 2003 2003 2002 Invested in Invested in Capital Assets Capital Assets Expense Amortization of capital assets $ (6,595,638) $ (5,863,836) Interfund transfers For purchase of capital assets 4,775,536 10,507,027 Repayment of capital lease 988,074 5,763,610 10,507,027 Fund Balance, beginning of year 17,518,740 12,875,549 Fund Balance, end of year (Note 7) $ 16,686,712 $ 17,518,740 3 MUNICIPAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT CORPORATION Statement of Cash Flows Year Ended December 31, 2003 2003 2002 Net Outflow of cash related to the following activities Operating Deficiency of revenue over expenses Operating fund $ (3,985,248) $ (11,165,336) Restricted fund (6,595,638) (5,863,836) Amortization of capital assets 6,595,638 5,863,836 (3,985,248) (11,165,336) Changes in non-cash working capital balances (Increase) decrease in accounts receivable (909,430) 377,900 Decrease (increase) in prepaid expenses 80,415 (250,805) Increase in accounts payable and 2,570,385 901 ,626 accrued liabilities Increase in employee future benefits 937,351 289,777 Decrease in other lonç¡-term liabilities (48,561) {1,306,527} (9,895,399) Investing and Financing Capital lease obligations {988,074} 1,947,369 Purchase of capital assets {4,775,536} (12,454,396) {5,763,610} (10,507,027) Net Outflow of cash during year {7,070,137} (20,402,426) Cash and investments, beginning of year 52,977,682 73,380,108 Cash and investments, end of year $ 45,907,545 $ 52,977 ,682 4 MUNICIPAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT CORPORATION Notes to the Financial Statements December 31, 2003 1. DESCRIPTION OF BUSINESS The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC), formerly the Ontario Property Assessment Corporation (OPAC), was created, effective January 1, 1998 by the Municipal Property Assessment Act, 1997, and is a special act corporation. The Corporation is responsible for providing property assessment services for municipalities in the Province of Ontario, All municipalities in Ontario are members of the Corporation. 2. SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES Fund accounting The financial statements have been prepared in accordance with Canadian generally accepted accounting principles for not-for-profit organizations using the restricted fund method of reporting contributions. The Operating Fund accounts for the Corporation's program delivery and admiuistrative activities. The Restricted Fund reports the assets, revenue and expenses related to the Corporation's capital assets. Investments Investments are valued at the lower of amortized cost and market value and are mainly composed of bonds, which meet the requiremeuts of the Corporation's investment guidelines. Capital assets Office equipment, furniture and fixtures, computer equipment and purchased software, as well as vessels, are recorded at cost. Depreciation is computed using the declining-balance method at the amortization rates disclosed in Note 4. Leasehold improvements are amortized ou a straight-line basis over ten years. The cost of developing in-house software is expensed in the year as incurred. Revenue recognition Income from assessmeut services is recognized when invoices are issued. 5 MUNICIPAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT CORPORATION Notes to the Financial Statements December 31, 2003 2. SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (continued) Î j Employee future benefits The Corporation accrues its obligations under employee future benefit plans and the related costs when these benefits are earned through current service. The cost of post-employment benefits earned by employees is actuarially determined using the projected benefit method pro-rated on service and management's best estimates of retirement ages of employees, expected health care costs and dental costs. Management estimates In preparing the Corporation's financial statements, management is required to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, and the disclosure of contingent liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenue and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. 3. CREDIT FACILITY The Corporation has an unsecured line of credit in the amount of $14,600,000 which bears interest at prime rate and is renewable annually. As at December 31, 2003 the line of credit was unused. 4. CAPITAL ASSETS 2003 2002 Accum Net Book Net Book Rates Cost Deprec Value Value ¡~ Office equipment 20% $ 2,628,853 $ 1,182,172 $ 1,446,681 $ 1,656,322 Furniture and fixtures 20% 3,946,474 1,501,096 2,445,378 2,299,125 ;I Computer equipment 35% 18,681,302 11,047,286 7,634,016 9,804,492 Computer software 100% 5,604,612 4,945,284 659,328 623,645 Vessels 35% 7,209 5,257 1,952 3,003 Leasehold improvements 10yrs 7,965,774 2,507,122 5,458,652 5,079,522 $38,834,224 $21,188,217 $17,646,007 $19,466,109 6 MUNICIPAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT CORPORATION Notes to the Financial Statements December 31, 2003 5. OBLIGATION UNDER CAPITAL LEASE The Corporation is committed U!lder a capital lease for computer equipment for periods extending to 2004. Future minimum lease payments are required as follows: Total lease payments $1,017,716 Less amOU!lt representing interest ( 58,421 ) Current portion $ 959,295 6. EMPLOYEE FUTURE BENEFITS All employees of the Corporation are part of a defined benefit multi-employer benefit plan providing both pension and other retirement benefits. This plan is accoU!lted for as a defined contribution plan in accordance with CICA Handbook recommendations. In addition, the Corporation has accrued an obligation for other post-employment benefits as follows: · employees who transferred to the Corporation from the Government of Ontario with less than ten years of service with the province will receive post-retirement group benefit coverage through the Corporation for their and their dependents' lifetimes. · employees hired by the Corporation on or after December 31,1998 will receive post-retirement group benefit coverage for themselves and their dependents through the Corporation until age 65. · employees who transferred to the Corporation from the Government of Ontario on December 31, 1998 with ten or more years of service with the province remain covered for post-retirement benefits by the government. · employees who transferred to the Corporation from the Government of Ontario are entitled to receive special ternrination benefits equal to one week of pay for each year of service up to a maximum of26 weeks at the end of their employment with the Corporation provided they serve a minimum of five years with the Corporation. · the Corporation is a Schedule II employer under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act and follows a policy of self-insurance for all its employees. 7 - MUNICIPAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT CORPORATION Notes to the Financial Statements December 31, 2003 6. EMPLOYEE FUTURE BENEFITS (continued) i ..,. I Information about the Corporation's accrued benefit obligations is as follows: -:~ 2003 2002 Balance, beginning of year $7,201,345 $6,911,568 Current service costs 668,633 518,720 Benefit payments during year (259,540 ) ( 242,962 ) Interest on accrued obligation 528,258 493,133 Curtailment gain Balance, end of year $8,138,696 ( 479,114 ) $7,201,345 The significant actuarial assumptions adopted in measuring the Corporation's accrued benefit obligations are as follows: Discount rate 6.50% per annum General inflation 2.30% per annum for 14 years, 2.70% thereafter Health care inflation 7.00% per annum for 14 years, 7.40% thereafter Dental care inflation 3.40% per annum for 14 years, 3.80% thereafter 8 MUNICIPAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT CORPORATION Notes to the Financial Statements December 31, 2003 7. RESTRICTED FUND BALANCE - INVESTED IN CAPITAL ASSETS Restricted Fund Balance - Invested in Capital Assets is calculated as follows: 2003 2002 Capital assets $17,646,007 $19,466,109 Less amount funded by capital lease ( 959,295 ) ( 1,947,369) $16,686,712 $17,518,740 8. LEASE COMMITMENTS The Corporation has commitments under various operating leases. Minimum lease payments due iu each ofthe next five years are as follows: 2004 $10,841,397 2005 $ 8,951,729 2006 $ 8,704,366 2007 $ 8,196,638 2008 $ 6,948,380 9 - MUNICIPAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT CORPORATION Notes to the Financial Statements December 31, 2003 9. PUBLIC SECTOR SALARY DISCLOSURE ACT, 1996 '¢ ~ The Corporation is an employer subject to the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act, 1996, which requires the disclosure of all employees of the Corporation who were paid $100,000 or more in 2003: Salary Benefits Name Position Paid Taxable Arthur Anderson Director, Municipal Relations $111,467 $ 299 James Andrew VP, Infonnation Technology $149,031 $ 6,152 Raymond Bowar! Sm. Mgr., Technology Support & Operations $100,279 $ 272 Lawrence HlillUllel VP, Property Valnes $148,693 $ 2,394 Carl Isenburg VP, Cnstomer Relations $165,965 $ 5,424 Jack Julien Sm. Mgr., Human Resources $100,277 Benson Li WAN Management Analyst $110,175 $ 166 Elaine McDonald Director, Customer Relations $105,019 $ 280 Eric Preston VP, Corporate and Hnman Resources $160,071 $ 9,436 Robert Richards President and Chief Administrative Officer $292,026 $ 9,808 Gordon Thow Director, Qnality Services $107,850 $ 310 Robert Tronco Network Operating Systems Analyst $101,327 $ 166 Dick Vreugdenhil Director, Finance and Administration $101,260 $ 3,774 " 10 OTTAWA OFFICE Room 658 Confederation Building House of Commons K1AOA6 Tel. (613) 990-7769 Fax (613) 996-0194 CONSTITUENCY OFFICE 499 Talbot St Sf. Thomas. Ontario N5P1C3 Tel. (519) 631-3921 1-800-265-7810 Fax (519) 631-8555 HOUSE OF COMMONS OTTAWA,CANADA K1A OA6 ST. THOMAS April 6, 2004 RECEIVED APR 'l 2004 The Honourable Tony Valeri Minister of Transport Place de Ville 330 Sparks St., 29th floor, Tower C Ottawa, ON KIA ON5 COUNTY Of UN :m~~~ ~ ..'. ta.~. .. . . _: ';:".:. 1'~!!\'f!TP,. "c '" .. .. Dear Minister: Enclosed please find a copy of a document outlining CN's agreement to proceed to install an automated protective device at the rail crossing on County Road 48, Ferguson Line, Elgin County, at a cost of$115, 720. The crossing has been identified by council as extremely hazardous and unsafe for drivers. The enclosed documentation, signed by Peter Gorski, public works officer for CN, indicates the work would be undertaken in 2002. There has been no movement on this project with CN informing Elgin County engineer, MI. Clayton Watters, that it cannot proceed because funding is not forthcoming ITom Transport Canada. I would appreciate receiving an update on the status of this funding, and any assistance you can provide to expedite this important project would be appreciated. *encl. c.c. Elgin County Warden Dave Rock, Elgin County Council, MI. Clayton Watters GK:smc THE HON. GAR KNUTSON, P.C., M.P. Elgin~Middlesex~London .+. OTTAWA OFFICE Room 658 Confederation Building House of Commons K1AOA6 Te1. (613) 990-7769 Fax (613) 996-0194 <¡j¡ CONSTITUENCY OFFICE 499 T a!boî Sl St Thomas, Ontario N5P 1C3 Tel. (519) 631-3921 1·800-265-7810 Fax (519) 631-8555 HOUSE OF COMMONS OTTAWA,CANADA K1 A OA6 ST. mOMAS April 6, 2004 RECEIVED The Honourable Andy Scott Minister of State-InfÌ'astructure InfÌ'astructure Canada 605-90 Sparks Street Ottawa, ON KIP 5B4 APR "l 2004 COUÑ1Y OF EtGl1 rD~m~1~TR~Tn,~ ~iæ Dear Minister: Elgin County Warden Dave Rock has made inquiries to my office regarding the timing and process of the new $1 billion federal Municipal Rural Inftastructure Fund which will allow smaller municipalities to seek senior-level funding for important public inftastructure improvements. I understand the federal government is currently in negotiations with the provinces and territories to finalize the agreements. Would you please respond as to when you think applications will be available for municipalities? Many of the smaller municipalities in my riding are working to finalize their budgets. I appreciate your response to this inquiry. Yours truly, ~ Gar Knutson, P.C., M.P. c.c. Warden Dave Rock, Elgin County GK:smc THE HON. GAR KNUTSON. P.G., M.P. Elgin-Middlesex-London .+. Municipality of Bayham RECEIVED Oþ ~~., P0l'funity IS"'¡'o P.O. Box 160,9344 Plank Road, Straffordville, Ontario NO] 1 YO Tel: (519) 866-5521 . Fax: (519) 866-3884 email: bayham@bayham.on.ca APR " 2004 l'o'r""'¡j~Mrum '" U~h \\,W~11 !~Df111t~~Sm'~r~ SEfWtCi:5¡ BAYHAM COMMUNITY HEALTH ACTION COMMITTEE April 2, 2004 Dave Rock, Warden County ofElgin 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas ON N5R 5Vl Dear Warden Rock Re: Doctor Shorta!!e and Community Residencv Pro!!ram On behalf of the Bayham Community Health Action Committee, I am pleased to advise that the Committee is in full support of the Middlesex-Elgin Community Residency program. The Committee was established in 1997 and their mandate is "to assist in providing quality health care to area residents". At the most recent meeting held March 31, 2004 the following resolution was passed: "THAT the correspondence from County of Elgin Warden Dave Rock regarding Doctor Shortage and Community Residency Program be received; AND THAT the Bayham Community Health Action Committee of the Municipality of Bayham supports the Middlesex-Elgin Community Residency Program." The Committee appreciates your leadership shown on this Program and supports your efforts to obtain the commitment from other levels of government. Yours truly, ~' Margaret Underhill Bayham Community Health Action Committee Municipal Staff Resource 2004-004 File S08.04 l~ Ontano Steve Peters, M.P.P. Elgin - Middlesex - London April 2, 2004 Honourable Greg Sorbara Honourable Harinder Takhar Minister of Finance Minister of Transportation 7"' Floor, Frost Building South 3'd Floor, Ferguson Block 7 Queen's Park Crescent 77 Wellesley Street West Toronto, ON 7A IY7 Toronto, ON M7A IZ8 sters: t~ I "~l J)W RECE'VED~ APR 6 2004 COUt~.::r~ ï.~.,...~·_~i'l:m1 i1n~~---- ,-,' -~-"--_itf;¡-j';~~t.~1 t~~u~~NiRmkT~~~.ffRo~. . ',' ·'<-"'-'~H'::':~-~~·t):nwrtJ~ Honourable David Caplan Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal 6"' Floor, Mowat Block 900 Bay Street Toronto, ON M7A IC2 Please find enclosed a report to Elgin County Council ITom the upper-tier municipality's Chief Administrative Officer, Mr. Mark McDonald. As you will read in the report, the County of Elgin has several concerns they would like our government to address. As many of these concerns lie within your ministries, I would appreciate your reviewing the concerns specific to your ministries and responding directly to the County of Elgin. Ministers, as always, thank you in advance for your time and consideration, Sincerely, ~ Steve Peters, M,P.P. Elgin-Middlesex -London Cc: The County of Elgin, 450 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas, Ontario, N5R 5Vl 542 TaJbot Street, St" Thomas, ON N5P IC4 . T - (519) 631-0666 TolI Free _ 1-800-265-7638 F _ (519) 631-9478 E - spetersmppco@iberal..o!a"org WW\Vostevepeters.com ltÆ '- Onlario Steve Peters, M.P.P. Elgin - Middlesex - London ;"""'E',",ðCW~CIVED R ¿~ APR 6 2004 G'JUï'fN Of amN ""'......,!:!mj\~¡;¡;~~ f"t;,~,~-~~!\?~~5~~n§ in~f.~ ~n'V.tI~ April 2, 2004 Honourable George Smitherman Honourable Leona Dombrowsky Minister of Health Minister of the Environment & Long-Term Care 12''' Floor 10th Floor, Hepburn Block 135 St. Clair Avenue West 80 Grosvenor Street Toronto, ON M4V IP5 Toronto, ON M7A 2C4 Dear~ers: ~~/~/ ~ Please find enclosed a report to Elgin County Council ITom the upper-tier municipality's Chief Administrative Officer, Mr, Mark McDonald. Honourable David Ramsay Minster of Natural Resources Whitney Block, 6th Fir, Rm 6630 99 Wellesley Street West Toronto, ON M7A lW3 As you will read in the report, the County of Elgin has several concerns they would like our government to address. As many of these concerns lie within your ministries, I would appreciate your reviewing the concerns specific to your ministries and responding directly to the County of Elgin. Ministers, as always, thank you in advance for your time and consideration. Sincerely, <:;t. Steve Peters, M.P.P. Elgin-Middlesex- London Cc: The County of Elgin, 450 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas, Ontario, N5R 5Vl 542 Talbot Street, St. Thomas, ON N5P IC4 -T - (519) 631-0666 Toll Free - ]-800-265-7638 F - (5]9) 631-9478 E - speters,mpp"co@liberaLoJa,org www.stevepeters.com ~ ...... Ontario Steve Peters,M.P.P. Elgin - Middlesex - Lond(m ~r:!fii'~IC !j'V": "I;; i"\ nh~fi'~!I1 !Iïïií.!I.# APR 62004 OOUNIVOFaGIN í! r,g¡A"""""~:'!Nf!"" ~'RVìC- i,1-_"i~f~éCH!1~t7;:';t"'¡\l" ª~,;~t:" .'. ,iF' .,' , ;~tt'j ~ ....~.- ~"-, ."~,,,= --- April 2, 2004 Honourable Harinder Takhar Minister of Transportation 3'd Floor, Ferguson Block 77 Wellesley Street West Toronto, ON M7 A IZ8 Dear Minister: Please find enclosed a letter from Mr. Robert Hill, a resident of West Lome who has concerns regarding the Emergency Detour Route (EDR) which is used by motorists who must leave Highway 401 when it is closed due to major accidents and use alternative roads through Elgin County. As you are aware, I have written to you once before on this issue (letter dated January 30, 2004) to bring you up to date on the concerns residents and municipal councils in this part of my riding have with the EDR and the negative effects to infrastructure by heightened traffic through their communities. Mr. Hill's specific concerns deal with damage to roads, mainly ones of municipal responsibility, that are not designed to experience traffic flows such as at times the 401 is closed in this area due to major accidents. Mr. Hill believes that by passing along some of the 'gas tax' funds to smaller municipalities, our government could help mitigate this problem. Minister, I would appreciate your reviewing Mr. Hill's concerns and responding to him directly. As always, thank you in advance for your time and consideration. Sincerely, 'St~ Steve Peters, M.P.P. Elgin-Middlesex-London Cc: Mr. Robert Hill, P.O. Box 522, West Lome, Ontario, NOL 2PO; County of Elgin; Municipality of Dutton-Dunwich; Township of South wold; Municipality of West Elgin 542 Ta.lbot Street, St" Thomas, ON N5P lC4 . T _ (519) 631-0666 Toll free - 1_800_265_7638 F ~ (519) 631-9478 E - speters"mpp,co@liberaloJa.org www.stevepeters.com Mr. Steve Peters, MPP, 542 Talbot Street, St. Thomas, Ontario. N5P lC4 Mr. Robert Hill P.O. Box 522, West Lome, Ontario. ;-- ~ !Ë~c;rE Ü\ J.~N 1 5 .2004 1¡f~iD) ¡ ; ¡ January 15, 2004. , ¡ . , L:----------~---j Dear Steve: On January 13, 2004, another large pile-up, occurred on the 401 in the West Lome section of the highway. That was the same day that your boss and our leader, was on a trip to visit London and Windsor. I am sure that he would have had to take the 'Emergency Detour Route' (EDR) which is routed through the centre of West Lome. Having a concrete example of a situation is the best way to exhibit its cause and effect. Village roadways are certainly not meant to sustain truck traffic. My point being, that surface and subsurface damage responsibilities have been down loaded, to the municipal level. We have tried to co-operate by taking the excess traffic during 401 closures. Passing along some of the 'gas tax' funds, would give the smaller municipalities some cash for repairs and restorations, in retum for their co-operation with the EDR. Mr. McGinty wants input ÍÌ'om the citizens. To continuously complain is not the way to go. I will state my case, and offer a solution and some reasoning behind my case. Our roads cannot bear the shock waves of hundreds of trucks and automobiles without suffering inherent damages. Safety. A fire could not be extinguished if a water main was broken!! Our road design standards are for a built up area - not an open highway. Yours truly, /:Jí/ / j/(b~~ Robert Hill 84/88/84 22:16:58 EST: ASSOGIATION OF?-) 519 633 7661 GLERR-EIyin GD Paye 885 APR-08-04 THU 04:09 PM 260 FAX NO, 416 971 6191 p, 04 £.bt_ Association of Municipalìties '" of Ontario For Your 6rrformation 3ú3 U nIYcrs.!ty A vcnuc. Su¡~e 1701 Toronl", ON. M5G 1EG Tet {418)971-~SSG' lax: (416) 911·6191 cm'óJ.\L p,mc@amo.munTCOo.I.r:om To tfw ,~ne¡¡lío of the Clerk and Council. For Inunedi,d(! AHeotil)n April 8, 2004 - FYI 04/007 ENVIRONMENT CANADA ISSUES FINAL ROAD SALTS CODE OF PRACTICE Issue: f'{cn,d Salts Code of Practice released in Part I of the Canada Gazette on April 3, 2004. B¡u:iq;jrmmr!: In 2001, roml salts were included on the Priority Substances List under the Canaäian Envimnnwntfl{ ProtDction Act (CEPA), The Federal Minister of Environment signalled his Intent to add rODd salt$ to Schedule 1 of CEPA, which is commonly referred to as a list of ';[oxic subslnnc0s". The Act requires the Minister to issue "measures" that will prevent pollution by listed substances. Environment Canada formed a Road Salts Working Group to genera!c recommendations on how road salt could be better managed. AMO ,)dvocat,J(1 strongly th8t the Minister adopt a Code of Practice for Road Salts (i.e. salt management plans) rather than strict regulatory requirements. Many Ontario municipalities have been SLJcCÐssrul at developing and implementing road salt management plans as part of thúir se.:-tsonRI road maintenance. At the end of the 18-month consultation period, Environment Ci)nada Qgreed to adopt a Code of Practice that would set out the requiremonts for ro;:¡d salt management plans. In if,) correspondence with Environment Canada, AMO has also asked that municipalities bo given [he 5-year period contained within the Code of Practice to "demonstrate their ability to ach¡eV(~ positive outcomes within a Best Practices framework before consideration of a more proscriptive approach". Although the 5-year review period is within the final Code of Practiçe, it should be noted that the Minister of Environment still retains the ability to list road salts as "toxic" undÐr the Act rhe final version of the Code of Practice is available in Part I of the Canada Gazette: IllìJJ;!,lgp !10çJnçJ.ß.y.f,}t(~{iC. c®...>1,rll/Z004/200404.9_=?/lltm I/notice-e. I1tml # i1 AMO Dnd ils Bomd of Directors wish to thank Larry McCabe, Clerk-Administrator of the Town of Godcriçl1 for reprcsenting AMO on the Road Salts Working Group and the Ontario Good Ro¡:;ds Association (OGRA) for their support. 7))Ís Ù1[(\f!tJ¿lkm is aVQiJ¿¡bla through liMO's sUbscripfion bDSOd MUNICOM network at ,!X!'fW.muni<;oft).c'2!l1. (''or In"''' ¡"r,1ft;;"fioIl CC>T/lM:t: Kate Zavltz, Policy Advisor, 416-971-9856 x 320 B4/B8/84 22:1&:87 EST: ASSOCIATION OF?-) 519 &33 7&&1 CLERR-Elgin Co Page 884 APR-08-04 THU 04:09 PM 260 FAX NO, 416 971 6191 P. 03 I I"" 0 Association of '. \'~'" : Munícip~Hties .. ..t t of Ontario ~-~.."" "r"wï~ é it - 393 Ulivcroity AVE"ue, SUilo 17Q1 Tcronto, ON MSG 1E6 Td: (416) 97t-9856' fax: (416)971-6191 ernai: ffi1o@1mo.rnunicam.coro ~~DI'M~'¡;''''''''' ,.~ i" ^ .- l'/'j Ow immcrJiiÛe t1ttentioll of the Clerk and Council AprilS, 2004-Alert 04/016 PROVINCE REVERSES DECISION TO CLOSE JUDSON Issue: Today, the Hon, George Smitherman, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, announced that the Judson Street Ambulance Supply Centre will remain open, and that "MunrçipaH1.ìf\S will continue to benefit from the expertise and discounts in the purchase of Dmbu!<JI1çO vehiclcs, supplies and equipment offered by the government's Ambulance Fleet and F::quipmont Section." A~l.ìon: AMO will work with the government to ensure that all the current benefits, pricing údv"mtf:iGos ancl services that Judson provides continues into the future. AMO h()~> Issuod the following Press Release. .........,..."._,~.fty., ,........______ Toron!o, Ont., April 8, 2004 - AMO is pleased that today the government has announced that the ,Judson Street Ambulance Supply Centre will not be closing. ",Judßon providCJs O~lr municipalities and their taxpayers with bulk purchasing prices for mnbulances aoc! equipment, as well as an array of other important services. We are pleased that our mmTlbers will continuo to benefit from the expertise at Judson and its lower prices," stU!'ùd MilO Pre$ident Ann Mulvale. "Municipal governments do not need any additional budnet:1lY ir'1¡Jads given the already high burden on our taxpayers," AMO vms disówpolnled last YC¡'1r when it Wi'lS announced that the Judson facility would be closing on Mmch 31, 2004. Besides its bulk purchasing advantages, Judson has provided contingcncy vQ!1ìcles, product warnings, technical assistance on equipment/vehicles, and a wfurhÎl;hing program and ensured that all of its products met provincial standards. Its closure would h:w,) been detrimental to all municipalities, but especially smaller ones. TiJI", inf()Jtllativl! is av"ilab/o Ih(()(JgtJ AMO's subscriptioll based MUNICOM network at www.mtlni~9JJ1.ç9JIl. Fonnorl!) in(oU¡J.1lIa(l, CQl'it~"t: Jeff Flshor, AMO Scnior Policy Advisor, at416"971"9856 eXt. 315_ 84/15/84 22:84:44 EST; ASSOCIATIOn OF?-> 519 633 7661 CLERK-Elgin Co Page 883 APR-15-04 THU 04:22 PM 260 FAX NO. 416 971 6191 P, 02 ~I/;if:\::'= .",' ~5'r".Þ'..r-.I\!(; For Your (:)'nforrnation £~_ Association or Municipalities -it of Ontario 3&3 Unlver¡¡ilyAvcnuo. Suil() 1701 roror¡!~. ON M5G 1E5 Tel: (416) 971.9&58 . (.n: (418) 971-SH\ 1 omai[" am ot1D <Jtl1 0 r'rIur\i(':r.)!!1"i=:!)n\ To t/ta atí<:ntioll of tiJe Clerk iJntl Council. April 15, 2004 - FYI 04/010 PROVINCE AMENDS ESA TO ALLOW FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE Issu{¡: Ulbollr Minister introduces Bill 56, the Employment Standards Amendment Act (F-amily MediCi¡/l.eHve), 2004. l3ac!QJn::mrnl: On April 13, 2004, tho Minister of Labour, tho lion, Chris Bentley, introduced Bill 56, which if passed, would ¡¡lIow employees (including part-timers) governed by the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (F;SA) up to eight weeks of job protected family medical leave, During this time, employerB roust continue to pay tl1eir share of any benefit, pension or health plans. ¡;:mploy[~oÞ must provide employers with notice flnd have "."a supporting medical certificate confìrming th'lt i1 rumily member has a serious medical condition wÎth a significant risk of death witt1in 26 weck!;." The f<1mily member must be a: ~ Spol!:,e (which would include a same-sex pmtner); c Child of tho employee or the employee's spouse; or ~ Pörcnt of the employee (child and parent includes persons in "step" or ''roster'' r0lntiQm;hip~ ), Uncler tho proposal, an at1dilional eight weeks of leave will be allowed if <¡fter the 26 week period, tho family mcmber is still "gravely ili", and a second medical certificate is provided. Currontly, the £$/\ allows ten days of emergency Gob-protected) leave during a calendar year if an employer has more than fifty employees. Eligible employees would also be able to take emergency < h:mve in addition to tho proposed family medical leave. It RholJld be noted that the Bill would require the family medical leave to be shared if more than one ol11ploycE: is taking it to care for the same family member. This applies whether or not these Dlllployees. ~lre working with same employer. A copy of Bill 56 ¡Ii; posted on Ihe Legislative Assembly website at )<~'~Ú!.V{.S?.i'!lJf1..Pn.·S~\{r\f1.Ç!.JnmntslBills/38 PariiarpenUS~ssion1/bQ.!iQ,ºdf, and further information on the Inn¡~\I¡lIiol) h> avai¡,ble on the Ministry of Labour websito at y{wV,{ ,<:JO.y., QI,1,ç<1IV~..f?Htn.9Ij!j'N.[1'.!wMm flnl. html. Tills !¡¡limll<1tiO¡¡ 1$ ilV/Jil.l/J/e /IJfOugh AMOs subsc;ription based MUNICOM ne/work a/ www.ml/nieo/)).com. Fonlwtf> J¡1!önIlMian, cou/,jct: Jøff Fisher, AMO Senior Policy Advisor <It 416-971-9856 ext 315 Federation of Canadian Municipalities Fédération canadienne des municipalités April 16, 2004 Memorandum to FCM Municipal Members CONSENT FORM The Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) 6ih Annual Conference will be held in Edmonton, Alberta from May 28 - May 31, 2004. The FCM Annual General meeting will be held during the conference on Sunday, May 31 $\ 2004 from 10:30h -11 :45h, which will be followed by the election of FCM's National Board of Directors from 12:45h to 14: 15 h. Applicable FCM By-Laws: Article II, Section 4 - Directors Eligible for Election or Appointment by Board Only persons holding municipal office in the municipal councils of the Municipal Members are eligible to be elected as Directors or appointed as Directors by the Board. Article II, Section 22 - Election of Directors All Directors shall be elected at the Annual General Meeting of the Federation and shall hold office until the end of the next Annual General Meeting. Any retiring Director is eligible for re-election if otherwise qualified. For a copy of the FCM election procedures please visit www.fcm.ca and click on "National Directors" under "About FCM". Please find attached a consent form, which must be retumed to FCM office by May 17, 2004. Persons who do not submit their consent form to the FCM office by that date may still put fOlWard their name during the election, however their name will be pre-printed on the official ballot. Should you have any questions regarding elections please contact Kelena McDowell a1(613) 244-1514 orkmcdowell(cì)fcm.ca ,€,,'. "'~ Jean-François Trépanier Chief Elections Officer JFT/co FEDERATION OF CANADIAN MUNICIPALITIES 6th ANNUAL CONFERENCE 2004 CONSENT FORM Confidential to the 2004 Nominating Committee. I, the undersigned, do hereby consent to have my name submitted for consideration as a member of the National Board of Directors of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. CONDITIONS: i) I am an elected municipal official holding office in an FCM Municipal Member in good standing. ii) I have secured approval that my municipal govemment is prepared to meet the cost of my attending meetings of FCM's National Board of Directors, or that when elected, I will secure such approval. NAME: TITLE: E-MAIL: MUNICIPALITY: PROVINCE: SIGNATURE: Retum under CONFIDENTIAL cover to: Chief Elections Officer Federation of Canadian Municipalities 24 Clarence Street Ottawa, Ontario KiN 5P3 (613) 241-2126 Fax All Consent Forms must be received in the FCM office by May 17, 2004. ., CNSF C_KoI_spom¡..II>;F............. 1xw ® Ontario Eà ~~ RESORTS ONTARIO The Steering Committee Ontario Family Fishing Weekend April 12, 2004 TO: APR 16 2004 N\liMy m:B..GîN ~y¡~ï _re":~~!,'¡ r¡\f:'i,~el.ª~~1~*'lij~~.'b ~nv~y,~£r,; ~,v~,->(>~~~,,->@ $ $~ All Ontario Municipalities SUBJECT: 2004 Ontario Family Fishing Weekend As you know, the Province of Ontario, in partnership with many nongovernment organizations like the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, declares one summer weekend (Friday, July 9 through Sunday, July 11, 2004) a licence-free'fishing weekend. This special weekend, now run in conjunction with National Fishing Week, includes fish festivals, clinics, or conservation and educational activities that may be held in your area. Would you please help us publicize the 2004 Ontario Family Fishing Weekend in any calendar of summer events you may participate in or publish. In addition, please consider "declaring" this date as Ontario Family Fishing Weekend. For further infonnation, please contact the following during business hours: Ontario Federation of Anglers and -Hunters Conservation Ontario Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Resorts Ontario (705)-748-6324 (905)-895-0716 (705)-755-2551 (705)-325-9115 Thank you for your assistance. Yours in Conservation, ~~~ Mark ~ousins, Committee Chair Ontario Family Fishing Weekend Steering Committee MC/rb FARm HOLDINGS CORPORATION 484 Richmond Street Suite 200 London, Ontario Canada N6A 3E6 Business (519) 645-6666 Fax (519) 645-7735 E-mail: fuc1ía1bellnet.ca Web-Site: www.fuc.ca RECEIVED April 14, 2004 ADQ ',Ç. .,,,'" . ¡. .... 4:uu«t Warden Dave Rock & Elgin County Council County of Elgin 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, ON N5R5Vl OOl.!fliTVOFaJB t~STRA"I1VESEfMCES Ladies & Gentlemen; RE: ELGIN COUNTY PIONEER MUSEUM I am writing to thank you for providing me, my assistant Patricia Verkley, and my associate, Ray Luft, with the opportunity to speak at your recent Council meeting on the future location of the Elgin County Pioneer Museum and the recently-released consultants' report that addresses this issue. While we had a significant amount of information to present, I hope we were able to convey that the Elgin County Pioneer Museum has thrived in its temporary downtown location, and would e~oy even more acclaim if this historic building were altered to accommodate the museum for a long-term tenure. The close proximity to the art gallery is also a benefit for those enjoying a cultural experience in Elgin County. The cost savings associated with utilizing the excellent improvements already made by my corporation for the federal government and its client cannot be disregarded, As funding for museums becomes more difficult to sustain, especially in a small community, the feasibility of this project should be taken into consideration in deciding the long-term home of the museum. In fact, the sustainability of the museum would be significantly higher if County Council made a decision to purchase this historic building at the price agreed-upon in the lease extension agreement. Finally, as I mentioned in our presentation, I am willing to attempt to negotiate stronger support from the City of St. Thomas to create a balance between the costs and benefits of housing the Elgin County Museum in its current location. Thank you again for the opportunity to present to Council. Sinc.erely, ~INGSCO /pv cc. His Excellency Jeff Kohler, Mayor ofSt. Thomas Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Ministre des Affaires municipales et du Logement Minister Responsible for Seniors Ministre délégué aux Affaires des personnes â 777, rue Bay R Toronto ON M5G 2E5 - Tél. (416) 585-7000 Télec. (416) 585-6470 www.mah..gov.on.ca APR 1 5 2004 777 Bay Street T oranto ON . M5G 2E5 Tel. (416) 585-7000 Fax (416) 585-6470 www.mah.gov.on.ca March 23, 2004 The Honourable Steve Peters, MPP Elgin-Middlesex-London 542 Talbot Street S1. Thomas ON N5P lC4 Dear Mr. Peters: Thank you for your letter of January 30, 2004, and the enclosed article from the Ontario Good Roads Association's (OGRA) Milestones magazine. I appreciate receiving your views about the effect of the Line Fences Act on municipal participation in supporting new uses for abandoned rail rights-of-way. I am very interested in this issue, and I assure you that I will be carefully reviewing the current legislation related to fencing of abandoned rail rights-of-way in light of the concerns I have heard. I understand that the Ontario Good Roads Association, on behalf of its member municipalities, has entered into discussions with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OF A) to clarify the issues related to fencing of former rail rights-of-way and to seek some consensus on what rules should be applied to fencing of municipally-owned, abandoned rail rights-of-way. I am also advised that the OFA and OGRA were contemplating holding further meetings, including the participation of other stakeholders, to further those discussions. Again, thank you for vvTiting to bring your concerns to n1Y attention. 1322(06/95) o U110ngas A Duke Energy Company April 7th, 2004 Mr. Mark McDonald Chief Administrative Officer County of Elgin 450 Sunset Drive St.. Thomas, Ontario N5R 5Vl R"''''''' E· '..(;¡"".è,....fjT·~·I·j1j\·V·· "E'" "¡;è'l'\i. '"' .""", m ·u;.~ , ß'!;t;, t4 . 'W .,....s.-;'jè~.. _,: APR 1;) 2004 r.orn ¡M'~'f fl.ï: ;;:¡ P-trd ¡;¡:w'i~!! >..If' ¡,'!o..'!;9¡' ""'.!!!~'¡I1:îí"'®~æ-I·''''~("...Ð ;~·,H.·Jf;1j,''!~~¥i1J~f ~ t'1\,~i ¡; ~'SJ¡;," ~tnv ilJ.f:>B' Dear Mr. McDonald: I am writing to inform you about a rate change that is taking effect on April 1 st, As you may recall, I sent you a letter in January introducing me as your contact for Union Gas on matters of interest. In that letter, I let you know that I would keep you informed of any items of interest such as rate changes that you may be asked about by your constituents As you know, there are essentially three parts to the bill that natural gas customers receive: · TransDortation - the cost to bring natural gas to Ontario from natural gas producing areas such as Alberta. This is a straight cost pass through to customers, which means customers pay only what it costs to purchase this service. · Deliverv - the cost to bring natural gas to your home and business within your community. This is the part of the bill that deals with Union Gas and where we earn our money. · Commoditv - the cost of purchasing natural gas on the North American market. Customers who purchase their natural gas through Union Gas pay what it costs Union Gas to purchase the natural gas as we do not earn any income on the sale of the natural gas commodity. We review the commodity rates on a quarterly basis. This ensures that customers pay a price that reflects the most current cost of natural gas and avoids any out-of-period rate adjustments. Customers who purchase their. natural gas from Union Gas will see a commodity-related rate increase in their April bills of about 4 cents a cubic metre in the gas commodity rate, from about 22 cents to about 26 cents a cubic metre, due to the company's increased cost of purchasing gas supplies. The rate change has been approved by the Ontario Energy Board after a thorough review, and following a commodity price decrease that occurred in P.O. Box 5353 Station A, 109 Commissioners Rd, W., London, ON, N6A 4Pl tel. 519 667 4100 www.uniongas.com Union Gas Limit€d o Lnlongas A Duke Energy Company January - the commodity price now is about the same as it was last year at this time. This commodity rate change simply recovers our increased costs. Once again we earn our income from our delivery rate, not on the commodity. We did apply for a change in our delivery rate for 2004, and will have more information to offer in that regard shortly. In the meantime, should you or your staff have any questions about our rate change, or on any other matter related to our operations, please do not hesitate to contact me, I can be reached at 519-667-4184 or through email at jokruckv(â>unionaas.com. You can be assured of our enthusiasm and co-operation, A/;~f) ~~ Manager, Operations LondonjSarnia jamj P.O. Box 5353 Station A, 109 Commissioners Rd, W., London, ON, N6A 4Pl tel. 519 667 4100 www.uniongas.com Union Gas Limited COUNTY OF ELGIN By-Law No. 04-11 "BEING A BY-LAW TO PROVIDE FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE 2004 BUDGET OF THE CORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF ELGIN" WHEREAS Section 289 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25, provides that the Council of each upper-tier municipality shall in each year prepare and adopt estimates of all sums required during the year for the purposes of the upper-tier municipality; and WHEREAS the Council has adopted estimates for 2004 as required for its purposes. NOW THEREFORE the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the County of Elgin enacts as follows: 1. That the 2004 budget of the County of Elgin setout on Schedule "A", attached hereto and f0l111ing part of this by-law, which incorporates estimates for revenue and for expenditures be approved and adopted by Council. READ a first and second time this 23,d day of April 2004. READ a third time and finally passed this 23'" day of April 2004. MarkG. McDonald, Chief Administrative Officer. David M. Rock, Warden. COUNTY OF ELGIN BY-LAW 04-1\ SCHEDULE A 2004 2004 2004 ESTIMATED ESTIMATED TAX EXPENDITURES REVENUES LEVY SURPLUS FROM PRIOR YEAR 270,186 (270,186) SUPPLEMENTARY TAXES 150,000 (150,000) TAXES WRITTEN OFF 125,000 .125,000 INTEREST CHARGES & INCOME 85,000 (85,000) FEES - KETTLE CREEK CONSERVATION 3,000 (3,000) HEALTH UNIT 1,277,950 1,277,950 COUNCIL MEMBERS & LOCAL BOARDS 239,666 239,666 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 316,851 316,851 FINANCIAL SERVICES 358,074 358,074 HUMAN RESOURCES 400,600 400,600 ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 468,966 256,796 212,170 CORPORATE EXPENDITURES 404,388 404,388 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 2,598,458 2,598,458 ELGIN COUNTY HOMES 15,019,387 10,680,506 4,338,881 AGRICULTURE 31,876 31,876 PIONEER MUSEUM 148,473 23,000 125,473 COUNTY LIBRARY 1,729,582 152,739 1,576,843 ARCHIVES 174,249 3,000 171,249 LAND DIVISION 79,700 79,700 EMERGENCY SERVICES 17,300 1,200 16,100 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES 551,249 551,249 PROVINCIAL OFFENSES 668,248 700,000 (31,752) AMBULANCE SERVICES 4,716,285 2,889,877 1,826,408 COLLECTIONS - POA 64,505 300,000 (235,495) SOCIAL SERVICES & ONTARIO WORKS 2,195,062 2,195,062 ADMINISTRATIVE FEE - CITY OF ST. THOMAS 361,815 361,815 CONTINGENCY FEE CHILD CARE 192,789 192,789 SOCIAL HOUSING 1,233,298 1,233,298 GRANTS 150,500 150,500 ELGIN TOURIST ASSOCIATION 35,550 35,550 RESERVE FOR MILL RATE STABILIZATION 50,000 50,000 RESERVE FOR WSIB 100,000 100,000 RENTAL INCOME (HEALTH UNIT) 402,395 (402,395) RESERVE FOR INSURANCE DEDUCTIBLES 11,250 11,250 RESERVE FOR PERFORMANCE EXCELLENCE 5,000 5,000 RESERVE FOR PAY EQUITY 75,000 75,000 PROPERTY ASSESSMENT 596,484 596,484 POLICE SERVICES BOARD 31,500 31,500 COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUND 5,841,000 (5,841,000) TRANSFER TO CAPITAL 5,680,212 5,680,212 TOURISM OFFICER 36,000 36,000 JOINT ACCESSIBILITY COMMITTEE 2,000 2,000 TRANSFER FROM RESERVES 394,456 (394,456) TOTAL 40,147,267 22,264,355 17,882,912 SPECIAL PUBLIC MEETING ELGIN COUNTY COUNCIL TUESDAY, APRIL 27TH, 2004 - 7:00 P.M. ~ ';J4- PAGE # ORDER 2. 3. 4. 1 5. 2 3 6 7 14 41 6. 16 18 20 21 23 24 28 30 32 33 35 36 38 39 1 . Call to Order Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof Summary of Process: Rob Lindsay, County Tree Commissioner (verbal) Next Steps: Mark McDonald, County Chief Administrative Officer (verbal) (¡¡¿fA'> , o (rJV~ \ DELEGATIONS: 1. Brent Clutterbuck and Ron Drabick, Elgin-Middlesex 1;72110/) Woodlot Owners' Association (to be handed out) 2. Fred Pilkey Jr. (see attached) 3. Gary Austin (see attached) 4. Don Watterworth, Director, Elgin Federation of Agriculture (see attached) 5. Brian Kington, Southwestern Ontario Loggers Association and Townsend Lumber Inc. (see attached) 5,d Iv.¡- 6. John Martyn (see attached) I 7. Jeff Davis (see attached) 8. Opportunity for Persons from the Floor to Speak Correspondence (attached) 1. Branching Out Tree & Landscaping Services Ltd. 2. Williams & Associates, Forestry and Environmental Consultants Ltd. 3. Steve Williams, Ministry of Natural Resources 4. Porter Lumber Limited 5. Catfish Creek Conservation Authority 6. Phillips & Associates 7. Municipality of Bayham 8. Don Fick 9. Ontario Professional Foresters Association 10. Donald M. McKillop 11. Municipality of West Elgin 12. Gene Pineo Logs 13. Dutton Beach Cottagers Association 14. Philip Reid 15. Municipality of Dutton/Dunwich 16. Municipality of Central Elgin 17. Township of Southwold 18. Mr. Richard Lanning '3' fìl..50 J.!{¿¡,) , ~ -,,/ "-:-j,,... '/. . 'I ' . !)éT0 ~!- .;;/..,~vJL ICÞ .5 ..,-- ,I i, I Dr:-- IV,-~t-.",- ¡&¿+H~ C~ C6J../__G2[ 7. Discussion 8. Confirmation By-Law 9. Adjournment ~ Report to Elain County Council (as amended) From: Mark G. McDonald, C.A.O. April 27th, 2004 Date: Subject: The Elain County Tree Bv-Iaw Introduction: It is my understanding that Ministry staff informed the County Tree Commissioner that a new County Tree By-law must be adopted prior to January 15\ 2006 in accordance with the provisions of the New Municipal Act. In order to meet this deadline, an active public consultation process was initiated culminating in a public meeting at Elgin County Council tonight. In the last few days, I decided to review the apparent legislated requirement to adopt a new Tree by-law and found the following reference: (the New Municipal Act, Section 457) "If, as a result of this Act or the Municipal Statute Law Amendment Act, 2002 a .,. County no longer has authority to pass a by-law or resolution that was in force on December 31, 2002, despite the absence of authority, (a) the by-law or resolution continues in force until its repeal, expiration or January 1, 2006, whichever occurs first." This means that the County of Elgin is not compelled to change the current by-law because it continues to have authority to pass such a by-law in the New Municipal Act. In other words, there is no need to make comprehensive and sweeping changes to the current Tree by-law as once thought. This interpretation is shared by the County Solicitor as well and has been verbally acknowledge by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Discussion: A great deal of work has gone into making improvements to the current by-law. A number of interest groups have come forward\Nith ideas on how to improve the document. Therefore, even though changes are not required, Council may wish to consider the expertise of the stakeholders and make "user-friendly" improvements to the current by-law. Contentious items such as user fees and the use of the words "to injure and destroy" should be eliminated from the by-law and the scope of the review. Other matters such as providing clear definitions and schedules should be examined in an effort to make the document more up to date and complete. · > 2 In short, the current wording of the by-law, even with the lack of fees, seems to be effective in maintaining tree cover in Elgin County. There appears to be no real need to change much of it, except in limited areas where it can be made more user-friendly. Conclusion: There has been a great deal of interest and public input into the design of proposed changes to the County Tree By-law. A level of expertise exists in the community that can be harnessed to make improvements to the document. Upon closer review of the pertinent legislation, it has become apparent that a comprehensive re-write of the by- law is not necessary as first indicated. Recommendation: That a working group consisting of the Warden and his designate, the County C.A.O., the Tree Commissioner and one member representing the Woodlot Association, one member representing the Ontario Loggers' Association, one member representing the Elgin Federation of Agriculture, one member representing the Christian Farmers' Federation and one Professional Registered Forester be appointed to said working group; and, That the mandate of the working group be to: 1) review the various written submissions on the proposed tree by-law amendments and make recommendations to County Council to improve the goals and intent of the current by-law; 2) suggest ways to make the by-law consistent with neighbouring municipalities, to the extent possible 3) clarify definitions and schedules 4) make other "editorial" recommendations as deemed appropriate; and, That interim reports be brought back to Council from time to time; and, further That the working group report back to County Council by no later than February 2005 with its recommendations on making the current county tree by-law a more user-friendly document. All of which is respectfully submitted, Mark G. McDonald, C.A.O. .. Elgin Middlasax Woodlot Ownars Association C/O Brant Cluttarbuck R.R. # 2 Port Stanlay 519-769-2789 bclubuck@axaculink,com RECEIVED April 15, 2004 Ms. Sandra Haffran Traa Commissionar County of Elgin 450 Sunsat Driva SI. Thomas, Ontario N5R 5V1 APR 15 2004 OOUNW OF a.w¡ AÐM!I\I~_œMCES Daar Sir: I am writing this lattar to raquast an opportunity for our Association to maka a prasantation bafora County Council at tha Traa By-Law discussion maating on April 27, 2004. I will ba making a ganaral prasantation on Traa Bylaws in ganaral and our conœrns with this draft bylaw, wara wa faal changas naad to ba mada. Ron Drabick also a mambar of our association would lika to than maka a prasantation on soma of tha tachnical concarns with our draft bylaw.. Ha is also an Associata Ragistarad Profassional Forastar and has baan involvad with and attandad many maatings of tha Forast Conservation By-Law Committea. This is a committaa mada up of forastry profassionals and by-law anforœmant offiœrs from across tha Provinca of Ontario. Wa will provida copias of our prasantations that avaning to council mambars and staff. Wa faaJ that thara will not ba any surprisas in our prasantation to council. Thay will hava haard most all thasa concarns alraady at thair local municipal lavaL ß4~ Brant Cluttarbuck Chairman Elgin Middlasax Woodlot Ownars Association " Presentation to Elgin County Council 2nd Draft of Woodlands Conservation Bylaw April 27, 2004 By Brent Clutterbuck Chainnan Elgin Middlesex Woodlots Owners Association Thank you for the opportunity to speak today about our concerns with the 2nd draft Woodlands Conservation Bylaw. To prohibit or regulatetb.e destruction or injnring of trees in the County of Elgin. I also have to thank you for allowing the comment period to happen in this time period of February 16 to May 16. This has allowed the people most affected by this draft to have public input and have the least conflict with the time constraints of their agricultural operations. Over the years, Ontario's municipalities have had the authority to regulate the harvest of trees on private lands through various statutes. Councils of counties and townships in southern Ontario were empowered to enact tree-cutting bylaws through the Trees Conservation Act (1946), Lite Trees Act (1950), and the Forestry Act (1998). In addition, municipalities with a population greater than 10,000 could forbid the cutting of trees under Section 223.2 of the Municipal Act. As a result, by 2001, there were 24 municipalities with tree-cutting bylaws, passed under the Forestry Act, and about a dozen municipalities with tree-cutting bylaws passed under the Municipal Act. However, these provisions were not applicable to all municipalities, and in particular, not to many municipalities in Northern Ontario. The new Municipal Act, 2001 (which came into effect on January 1, 2003) now provides tree-cutting bylaw powers to àn municipalities in Ontario. However, it will still be up to the municipality to decide whether a bylaw is required or even desirable. Under the new legislation, an upper-tier municipality will be able to pass bylaws for woodlots that are one hectare or more in size (as defined in the Forestry Act), while a lower tier / municipality will be able to pass bylaws for trees fomid in woodlots of less than one hectare. The municipality will also have the power to impose and enforce conditions on how trees in a woodlot are harvested, or to establish the qualifications of persons involved with woodland management. They may require that a permit be obtained prior to the commencement of any forest-cutting operations. A key point to be remembered here is the word MAY. You do not have to impose bylaws, pennits or fees, you may. MNR Discussion and Policy from their Website Approximately 11 per cent of Ontario's productive forests are privately owned. About half of these forests are located in southern Ontario. In the southwestern portion of the province, private woodlands represent in excess of 95 per cent of the total area of woodlands and thus have a special ecological and economic significance. '"'''''-i?~'f;n'":~,f'~':;,:4i''":?'':O;'2'?'j:' - - ~~ Eleven per cent of the wood harvested in Ontario comes from private land. Ontario's commitment to healthy forest ecosystems extends to these private forests, although it does not have the same direct stewardship responsibility as for Crown forests. The Ontario govemment encourages private land stewardship through information and incentives and by providing a framework for protection of resources at the municipal level. The landowner makes the ultimate decision of how private forests will be managed. A municipality's first priority should be to promote forest protection and discourage forest destruction through proactive education and voluntary mechanisms. In contrast to voluntary stewardship mechanisms, Forest Conservation Bylaws are a punitive tool that are used once the damage to the forest environment has already occurred. Up front proactive approaches to protection should be the first priority in a municipalities effort to protect forests. Municipalities can encourage good stewardship through Woodlot Owners Associations by either participating directly in their activities, or by providing general support. This used to happen in Elgin County. In fact when the County of Elgin first contracted KCCl\. to enforce the tree bylaw they had a Forest Technician on staff. His name was Fred Probst. Fred was an active member of our Associations. His successor Hugh Guertz was also an active member. Our association has always felt that the tree commissioner should be a valuable asset and valuable resource to our association. He through his duties is out in the woodlots of Elgin, in contact with land owners and loggers. He is observing what is happening in the / county. He also should be attending regional Tree Commissioners meetings to find out what is happening in other jurisdictions în Ontario. He would then in turn have been able to give us ideas as to where he felt there was a need to for educational opportunities to be provided to our members and the residents of Elgin. We in tern could offer workshops and training sessions that encourage landovlIlers to become more knowledgeable about forest and wildlife management. In return our association is a resource to the County and to the tree commissioner by providing an avenue to get County concerns and issues distributed to our membership and the citizens of Elgin. This could be accomplished at very minimal cost to the County since we are a volunteer group. The name of this draft bylaw Woodlands Conservation Bylaw. To prohibit or regulate the destruction or injuring of trees in the County ofEIgin does not accurately reflect what is happening in our community. Our woodlands are a valuable renewable resource. We are harvesting a forest crop and maintaining our farm land and forest, not destroying or injuring trees. The use of the land is staying the same, we stil1 have a forest after a harvest. The past bylaw was put in place to provide a guideline for the harvest of " " woodlots through a minimum diameter limit and thus limiting the ability to clear land, this is what society asked for. The majority of this draft bylaw is endeavoring to regulate how we harvest our woodlot, requiring us to ask permission to harvest our crop and pay a user fee for the right to do that harvest. We as woodlot owners do not feel that this is fair or equitable to call us the user group in this situation because the user is the whole society. Society has demanded forests remain in the landscape and gave municipal governments the tools to implement such bylaws that directly infringe on a landowners right to use and enjoyment of their property. It must be remembered that most landowners regard their woodlots as a renewable resource and a crop, albeit a periodic crop that is harvested on a rate of every 15 or 20 years or more, unlike our annual crops of com, wheat and beans. We feel that if you were to compare aerial photographs taken regularly by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources over the years you would see that the forest cover in t.1¡,e County of Elgin is increasing. This can be confIrmed by the fact that every year landowners plant many trees. They are utilizing programs of the various agencies that provide trees and advice on planting and species selection. Landowners in Elgin have planted 1,000,000's of trees over the years to provide many kilometers ohvindbreaks as well as block plantings that have returned fragile and otherwise unproductive lands to forests. If there were major bylaw problems existing in the County of Elgin the Tree Commissioner would have had to deal with more than 2 infractions in the last 3 years as he has reported. It could probably be found that most infractions of the bylaw have :resulted from property O'l'.'llers not even kno\ving that a Tree Bylaw even existed in Elgin County. The one positive thing that can be said of this draft is the education that has been achieved by this debate. Most woodlot owners are proud of their woodlot and try to do the best they can to manage them for today and the future. I don't think you will fInd a woodlot owner .anywhere who doesn't enjoy using their woodlot. Observing the animals, birds, insects that live in their woodlots, who isn't amazed at the diversity of plant and animal life that exists in our own back yard. If anything through the stewardship of these landowners we are providing a home and food for most of the wild animals and birds that society enjoys, usually at great personal cost to the land owner through crop consumption and damage by these animals. In this presentation we are going to outline some of the areas that we have identifIed as a concern to us and the use of our private property. I will try to work progressively through the document page by page. Wording directly from the draft will be in italics. In the purpose of the by-law you state (a) Preserving and improving the woodland resow-Ce8 qfElgin County through Good Forestry Practices; (b) pro11Wting good forestry practices that sustain healthy woodlands; -_··,·,··-····-¿:ê:'·:·./.·""'"·\:.~,··,·,..·,· " ,> (c) minimizing (fæ destruction or iT!jW'ing of trees; (d) regulating and oontrolling tlæ removal, mainter.anœ and protection of trees; and (e) protecting, prornDting and enhancing tfæ aesthetic values of woodlands; All of the above goals are for the betterment of the community as a whole. The words preserving, minimizing, regulating and protecting are all suggesting that the bylaw is in place to maintain the forest cover for society as a whole and by going with a permit and cost recovery system for the enforcement of the tree bylaw you are penalizing the very people who manage and maintain the woodlots in Elgin County. The only purpose that has any respect and benefit for the owners of the woodlots is (b) promoting good forestry practices that sustain healthy woodlands. This is the only goal that is similar to the personal objectives of most woodlot and property owners in the County of Elgin. 1. Definitions Please note there are 2 section (L) under definitions, these comments pertain to the section (1) starting on page 1 (l) "Good Forestry Practices" rræans tfæ proper implementation of harvest, renewal and mainter.onœ activities known to be appropriate fOr the forest and environmental conditions under which it is being appli£d and that minimize detriments to forest values including significant eoosys1ems, important fish and wildlife habitat, soil and water quality and quantity, forest productivity and health; and the aesthetics and recreational opportunities oftfæ landscape; the wording of concern here is and tfæ aesthetics and recreational OpportWlities oftfæ landscape; \\110 does the aesthetics and recreational opportunities most affect? We feel that this is a societal issue being forced on the landowner. This statement seems to suggest that our woodlots are the public' pa1ks and recreational areas. _ Also in Section (1) there should be some recognition that a Knowledgeable Landowner should also be able to do his own forest management plamring 0) 'Termit" rræans tfæ written authorization from tfæ Officer All referral to the word permit should be removed ftom this docwnent We have great concern with a pennit system. By going with a pennit you are claiming t..1¡,e forest resources as a public property. In the dictionary the word permit means give pennission, leave or license. We buy pennits for our cars to drive on public roads, we buy permits to hunt and fish, and we buy permits to camp or use conservation area_properties. In reality with a pennit and fee we are buying the right to use public resources. Since when is a private woodlot that landowners pay taxes on, mortgage payments on and care for, first a public resource and then if the appropriate fee is paid and a permit is issued, a resource that the land owner can make use of. (u) "Tree"rræansanyspeciesofwoodyperennk1!plant, including its root system, which has reached or can reach a height of at leas14_5 meters at physiologiml maturity. " - Our concerns wi1h this definition are: That as soon as a tree seed gernrinates it is a tree; because it has a root system and can reach a height in excess of 4.5m. And that 1here are many small trees that are early succession 1ree species. We are always in an ongoing battle wi1h 1hese trees in out fencerows, pastures, no 1ill fie1ds, non- cropped lands and woodlot edges. Some 1he small trees that could be included in this list are Staghom Smnac, ManitobaMaple, and 1he many members of the Hawthorn (1hom tree) fumilyto name a just a few. (w) "Woodlots" means land at least 0.2 of a hectare up to one hectare in area with at least: i) 1000 trees of any size per hectare; or This is just slightly more than 200 trees in about a half an acre. You could interpret this definition to include windbreaks and fencerows, especially if they join a woodlot. Harvest: you should clearly define what a harvest is in the definitions and then use the word Harvest where ever it is appropriate in the rest of the document. 2. General Prohibitions The wording under (a) is such that the only person who can mark trees for a harvest of your woodlot is a member in good standing if the Ontario Prifessional Foresters Association and he has to mark them to the diameter limits stated in Schedule "A". (d) A person shall not: (i) destroy or injury any tree that is to remain standing after the destruction or injuring of trees is completed; , This is an impossible to attain because when you harvest a woodlot you are going to injure other trees by the process of cutting the trees included in the harvest and skidding the logs. Through proper techniques this injury to 1he remaining trees can be minimized. 3. Exemntions Under this section there are numerous exemptions for developers, energy transmission companies, pit and quarry operators. There is also an exemption if you own a woodlot and want to build a house in it. There is no recognition in the exemptions for agriculture. Three very important Provincial Acts that are not recognized here and should be are; 1) Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998 S.O. 1998, Chapter 1 The exemptions should recognize that any activity that would be a nonnal fann prac:tice is exempt ITom this bylaw. Some examples of this would be cleaning fence rows, hawthorns in pastures, clearing trees that are encroaching on farm fields ITom woodlots back to historic fence rows, working no-till fields that are full of Ash and Maple -"C::"'*'?"'~""'W:"-'C;"'-""- ¡; seedlings and allowing pastured cattle access to a woodlot for protection from the weather. Tlùs list should not be considered complete. Here are 2 examples that affect my personal part time business directly, they are normal farm practices but are not recognized as such in this draft: I own a tree spade. In the spring and fall I move trees for farmers and landowners or dig basket them for tree nursery owners and landscapers. Through this process I am injuring those trees by cutting roots, some of the trees may even die depending on the year and the care that their owners give them. Most often I am moving trees from woodlots, windbreaks or plantations to create new shelterbelts and windbreaks. The way this draft is written and interpreted we may need a pennit to do this type of work. Some of my customers have raised concerns about our draft bylaw with me. They grow conifers and deciduous trees for the landscape trade and Christmas trees. The Christmas trees become landscape trees when they are too big for Christmas trees. They keep them pruned to be nice specimens. When they plant these trees they may be in demand for the landscaping trade but by the time they are a size to sell the demand may have waned and not all the trees are marketable. Most tree spades are capable of digging trees in excess Christmas tree size; some spades can dig trees in excess of an 8 inch trunk diameter. The size of their nurseries meet the definitions of a woodlot in our bylaw. Their conœrn is that with the way this bylaw is written they would not be able to clear the nursery of culls or over sized trees to start a new crop because there is no exemption for their business. The above examples are nonnal farm practices for certain parts of the agricultural industry whích are not respected within this current draft bylaw. I am sure that it is not the intention of the County to regulated the above examples iri this bylaw but this could easily be changed by county or the service providers enforcement policy. Tlùs is why we need nonnal fann practices recognized in this bylaw. 2) The Drainage Act, R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER D.17 all activities undertaken with the drainage act should be exempt. There is concern that construction and maintenance of municipal drains could be prevented or delayed by this bylaw as well as costs of doing such work increased. 3) Agricultural Tile Drainage Installation Act. R.S.O, 1990, CHAPTER A 14 Tlùs act allows a land owner to install field drain tile, If the only reasonable outlet is accessed through a woodlot there is no provision to allow for this. We need to have exemptions in place to allow landowners to access their drainage outlets , .' . , Possible Wording for such an exemption could be: the installation of a single main tile drain for a "drainage work", as defined in the Agricultural Tile Drainage Installation Act, is permitted provided the width of trees removed is limited to 10 metres in perpendicular width and taking the shortest reasonable route through the woodlot to the outlet using a closed tile. Also under exemptions (m) the owner of woodlands who has destroyed or injured trees which results in the production of less than 20 logs per year, and has notified the Officer in respect of the operations What is 20 logs, is it 20 trees, or is it 4 fifty foot tall trees bucked into 10 foot log lengths? Again quite a variation can be had by the interpretation 4. Council Exemption for Woodland C!earill2App!icaûons (a) In order to be consideredjòr an exemption to Section 2 the owner of the woodlands must apply to the Clerk for an exemption at least 2 months prior to the anticipated commencement of clearing of trees by submitting: The time fuune is quite long for the coun1yto respond ii) an application to clear woodlands greater than 1.0 hectares must be accompanied by an Em'ironmental Impact Study; This is a very dangerous clause because Council can easily change the woodland size requirement for an Environmental hnpact Study smaller at a latter date. Most all of the land clearing of 1 ha or more is done by developers, and they are given a exemption rrom this bylaw in Section 3 of this draft bylaw. (b) At least 21 business days prior to consitkråtion of the application for an exemption the Officer shall send, by regular mai~ written notice in the jòrm of Schedule "D" to the applicant and all assessed 0WI'I£1'S of each parcel oflond that abuts the applicant's Woodlands for which an exemption is being sougjlt and to such other persons as prescribed by Council. (b) The Qffìcer shall erect and display a public nofi.œ regarding the exemption application oJ the entranœ to the Woodlands in a position that ensures that it is clear and visible to all persons, and the notice shall be in the form of Schedule There are a lot of people out in the communi1y who have lots of time on their hands and feel that they have or should be provided with a right to provide input into our fanning operations. If this type of posting and advertising is put in place we will have to deal with people who think we should never ever cut a tree or clear a small area no IIlatter what the landowners reason. If the process was to become to cwnbersome because of nuisance public input you will have more people just taking their chances and clearing instead of following proper procedures. 5. Application for a Permit To Harvest. Destrov or Iniure 6. Annlication for Permit Process It is our contention that these two sections should be removed from the draft and be completely rewritten to reflect the Notice of Intent system. Through the notice of intent system you will still be requiring landowners and loggers to notify you the county that a harvest is going to occur. You will be given the appropriate infonnation so that the Tree Commissioner can attend the site of the harvest or contact the landowner to ensure that the goals and intentions of the bylaw are being complied with. It is our concern also that if the County used a permit system they would then become a party directly involved in the harvest process. This would give the county greater liability and increase the costs of administering the by-law. This liability would be inferred by the fact you are granting pennission to harvest with possible conditions on the harvest. In granting a permit you are claiming to be aware of all the conditions that may exist in the woodlot. To limit this liability the tree commissioner wòuld probably have to visit each woodlot before a pennit is issued to harvest. This possible aspect alone would significantly increase the time requirements and the costs of the tree commissioner's duties. In section 6(a)(3)it states that a pennit will not be processed unless a prescription is attached detailing Good Forestry Practices, The only wily to get a prescription is to hire a consultant who is a member in good standing of the Ontario Profussional Foresters Association. This section states in 6(aXv) that the permit will not be processed if the fee has not been paid in fuH, No user fees. This tree bylaw is being asked for by society. The Tree Commissioner is hired to enforce a by-law. He can not provide forestry advice unless the Tree Commissioner meets the requirements and qualifications to be a member in good standing of the Ontario Professional Foresters Association. He is hired to ensure the requirements of the bylaw are adhered to. The purpose of the Tree Commissioners service is to the community - as a whole and not the individual landowner. He is in place to ensure that the logger is harvesting within the requirements of the by-law 7. Anneals to the Ontario Municinal Board This section that handles any dispute that a landowner may have with the Tree Commissioner. This section takes all handling of such disputes away from the local level and takes you to the OMB. This section should be the last resort for any conflict that arises iÌom this bylaw not the first. All disputes should be handled locally through council first. 8; Orders to Discontinue Activitv If you have an infraction that requires an Order to Discontinue Activity you need to make every effort to serve that order. All orders under this section should be delivered in person or by registered mail as well a signage. By sending by regular mail and then deeming the order is served 5 days later is not a fair or equitable situation. By regular mail you have no proof of , . . '. , . " the party receiving the order, not only that but if you want the work to stop, you want it to stop immediately not 5 days later. 9. Enforcement Under this section we feel that you should be appointing individuals and not positions. This will allow the residents of the county to know the person they are dealing with. If a person becomes unable to perfonn their duties under this section council can quickly appoint someone else to perfonn the duties of Tree Commissioner by easily amending the appropriate schedule. Also the Ontario Municipal act requires an individual be named. Schedule "A" We have some concern as to where the nwnbers came ITom to make up this schedule. First if a tree species isn't listed here can it be harvested? Second we would like to see the science behind the cÎrcmnference nwnbers and the species placements in the charts of this draft docwnent. How were they arrived at? \\'here did the numbers come ITom? On first thought they appear to be increasing the diameter Iimit again. The nwnbers in our draft seem to be larger than some of our neighbors. The soils and climate of Elgin County are very diverse as you travel ITom the eastern to western county boundary as well as ITom south to north. Trees are not unlike the other crops that we grow. Some grow better on sandy soils that fine clay soils and vice versa. Raising minimwn diameter limits on first thought does not seem to be abad thing but if you bring in science and experience you will see that increasing diameter limits is detrimental to the forest environment. What happens if you increase diameter limits the trees have to grow larger before you can harvest them. Trees grow rapidly until they are almost mature and then slow down. If the diameter limits are in excess of the ability of the average tree to rapidly / grow to you slow down the whole harvest cycle of the woodlot. You will then get a forest of predominantly larger trees because you will start to loose the regeneration that is growing in the under story while the large trees are 1rying to grow that last inch in..cliameter. The smaller trees growing under these larger trees are out competed for sunlight and moisture. They either die or just stay there barely surviving and grow very little in size. You will now have a nice forest to walk in because you will not have all thoselittIe trees in your way. You wonld think also that these trees that do survive the competition and don't die are just sitting there waiting to rapidly grow when you finally harvest. This is also not the case, these trees are now just old small trees who are past there rapid grov.1:h age. Once you get to an even age structure in your woodlot you extend the harvest intervals to a greater time fuune thus lowering the overall productive value of the woodlot. Third the requirement of prescriptions for plantations, could a multi row windbreak or shelterbelt comprising of multiple rows of conifers be deemed to be a plantation? Schedule "B" COUNCIL EXEMPTION REQUIREMENTS! INFORMATION I Remove the requirement for an Environmental Impact Study III. The County has a "NoNetLossPolicy" statingthatfureve¡y hectare ofland cleared a hectare has to be replanted based on 1750 trees per hectare. Why are you requiring more trees to be planted than are required to be classed a woodlot under definitions you say a 1000 trees of any size per Ha makes a woodlot V remove the signage as explained else were in this document Schedule "F" Application to harvest, this permit application should.~ completely re written to a Notice of Intent. 1\11 wording referring to a permit should be removed. Below are some of the concerns specific to this page The application asks for roll number of woodland, this means 1 permit per property, The application asks for 911 of woodlot, woodlots don't usually have a number, can an application be refused for no 911 number In the chart in the middle of the page it asks for Volume Estimates: a volume estimate is a nnmber between you, your logger, accountant and revenue Canada and not the tree commissioners or counties business. The other numbers asked for species and number , are relevant to aid in verifYing a harvest. Schedule "H" Annointment of Officers Why so many, It is our understanding that the Municipal Act requires that specific individual be named and not a position. Schedule E and K These two schedules and the wording contained in the draft pertaining to the requirement to post signs should be removed. It is nobodies business but the property owner. Ifhe wants to harvest his woodlot or straighten a woodlot edge to make a field easier to work. By having to place signs at the road you are going to 'be giving everyone in the community a right to know a land owners personal business. By requiring signage you ,; are giving everyone a right to comment and be a part of the process, no matter what their knowledge or experience. r"'Z,. i , .~ , < ~ ;(þ'.. It has been suggested that the signs would let everyone know the name of the firm who is doing the logging. The thought is this would encourage them to do a better job because everyone would know who was doing the work. I don't think the landowner should have to pay for signage and if the Logger wants to put up a sign like other trades do, that's his business not the counties. Another suggestion is that it would make it easier for the tree commissioner to find the woodlots where the harvests are taking place. The notices all contain contact names and phone numbers as well as maps to the location of the woodlot. If you have roll numbers you can easily find any property on a municipal map. In closing our concerns with this document extend to fact that there are many places in this document that are subject to interpretation and changing policy by the county or the contractor who is providing the tree commissioners service. This document provides no respect to the contribution that farmers and landowners give and provide to the natural woodland environment around us willingly and asking for no remuneration. In fact as discussed earlier the forest cover in the county has been increasing because of the contributions of the people you so feel the need to regulate. The document treats us as if we are all out to destroy our woodlots, that our forests need protection from the landowners. This may be the case close to large urban centres but is proven not to be the case here in Elgin because we would have had a lot more than 2 infractions in the last 3 years as stated by the tree commissioner. I would even speculate that most infractions happen because most landowners don't know there is a tree cutting bylaw. Finally we encourage the county work within this draft bylaw, incorporate the comments received, work with the landowners who are going to be most a..~ected and in doing so, make a simple document that meets the requirements of the Municipal Act and is as effective and simple as the old bylaw. Lets not make this a behind closed door effort again. , It has been said that the discussion of this draft by-law has been good rrom an educational standpoint. It has made most landowners and farmers aware that the County of Elgin has a Tree Bylaw. What is most disappointing is that this process had to happen in such a negative and reactive way. Thank you for your time tonight. 04/~3/2004' 19:51 4850958 MEV PAGE 01 . "...-------- ---~--_!~)~º~{---_.._-----_. - ------- -' . __ ____.---- _~__1".ø.E_~.-<~p~!:=.1$~~~-r!ß.R.. -.-..-- - -- - -- --..--- ______ _ _- _m ___- __ Lß()f2.._JJ1\tSjfCf)-- --- --- --- ----. - - --- --- :::- = :-;fÇ-! ~IJJj:K~~:¡;;.~~J~:':;~-j¡;':= £.:Ó~~~·. .=.. <_.. _1\.,jJ>Ö __<,i-I"". th<__t;:.!oS L,,_CA ò-"":f t,<I y!1JÇJh --- .__ . "_ ~il<"f-- -I-h,,- .p~o:el%-e -'¡-';<OO,.."'-"- - -.. -. : = = =:: :1;~ ::;;':i;J-:¡;;-~Ü~;; :~¡;:';".¥¡.5:.¡.;,;:, . ..== = ._____ _.JbI-'" _;,W.1J..f'L'- ~- '" _í.f,c.51>O¡O>¿"'''<; ,,-. -...-. .._'--- __ ..__.b.f-,hb..t:.-::1>ê-"(--ç-.-C-O,=1Y-'J.l.S5'l~I1J~~(""--' --,,- - - ,,-.-- ..----.--~--- -" -.--.-.--'-- ...-",-,,- ,,-- --- ~----- -.-----.-.. -,,- - -' - ---- ____ _____1.b.-'C---f2.ð..5a..i-'e:-t:~C4-- ----- ------ -------.-"----- __,,----- ___wJ':\-j- _ _w.c,.--D;1:.:.e.&. _11- _(J..p.c.L:thor,...- --- --" - - - .. ~- - __ ___ __ __" _,þ~.£-t:lh.'-----..---- - - - - . ---- -'- - -- -' - - - - - - ...- .=_==:::i;,¡j~:.::.i;;,-;;..:-;-.;Ji,~X;.;¡~.;j=: == =-::: .__-----"'-IoD..-\-'--"'"''''---l2<:-ø-''''' _*".-1\.",[ p. - _.- . -... -. ". _ _ __--ø\Jç.e...-A<: _"'",.xLL 1'!11=-~"IJ-".. . . - -- . . ...____~-----D..6D-c;-_-d..9-t..J~--J~-9J.n3-~--------"---- - -- -" -.. ~:::__===--=-::fß:~.iL:e:ih;¿§j3¡;: -:=:=:==-:::=:.. ::: .. ________--:...-J?hP.P-t:..,.-..sI~L~- b.KéLd2-S-3-- --" -" - . -- -.-..-..-- =:==---::::¿t,§:-.-f[~ ·t.~:::::-·:=··-----=--_::-=· ,,_..- - - ------------.-.- -.-.----------.- - ----" ..-------.....'."" -- -..-' ---------- - .-------...-------------- ----------.- --. - .. - ---.-- --- --" ....-.- ------.-.-----------.---------- -.---- ------ - -'-- - ----... -" -- - - ~ . ø E L (:>1. IV COUf\!íY r11 I" C_ _0 _L1_1V C -::c L~ u_ _____ I [1 '1--- b-è.\. ~ e-- __L5_u t.c.:ed - ¡ZLLl{-£_'j_ ~V"!_ - ____I__Tlì-'~'_\l~_þ~-~ ~----l0'3-S -e~ -to r I-{:~__I"S-_ n jeI Y\ d.I.. 0 r-:eV:---u. '(2--0... ~() \..t '£'<1__10 3 ~ 1·...5- ----- __Lì0t 'V ___\A.Lhöle.__LLt_e_._____ -- --- ------------- '---C- _r1_'j_G_.f"..ß. ^ cÅ.k..\:J.:-e~_--wo...f,-- ~- \ o~-9~---- _~(l,'''\c\ -Y"\ ~-£:-cd_h.e_'" ~o-3-3-Ç>r ð...,,-L__ ~Q ~.--f' .. 6:\- C.:Í.. Q. ,) d, UJ (Y\. ì_LL__~'4---=:\d..-_:e_ .-- --- --- , , . _l_5 +_~~ f.f ceJ._V_L\1f'~QJ:..eÇL..-:Li'L._ ß Q, -'rl__6_ö_xY\._.______ _=-1 _O_~ ~C; h ¡up, __.._ _______________ ___ __ all_éc~____±_he.___ p.Q$±.--~<d-'dea. i':S__".I.-__ha.v e --- ____.5 e.en WO-ocÌ\ at- ú~,(' þLaocU.o-\- _t:... G Q'1 p-'- e.\:~ly-sk.uZJ1....+-er..e.A--CLD--(.L~ecs1:V"~-d- . ~ú.~-e. rd:_,+l:(" C L\,r~V\.+- 'b~ - lo-.w .. , i- ~ J 0 nrl__keJ ì e. \J en +-1..0 -\- ·hk ~ ___ . L\ i' I'" ~ ~-\- -b ~_.=:J ~ I. ) 1.1.1 cu::..ks~~Jo..e$..------- -~ªIl-'d .::\:1 ~_,_-~ O-rt-O-p -e ....- Lj--;- p-C-O_±C--G±:-___ð. r - .- -r~aln.+(\í n -\::hI": +U+t1re c¿¡ rð ,_t!+-h -r-0}-\-k.e- ---.----w (Joel Lo±s- ì_D E l&_JL\_.-C...ð.u'ð±:.=1_~__'_._ I .-l-- --~~~-----,. --....,..-.- --_.__.~. --- , -L \ h. 'G t'J t"\ I J-V:J oO-lio+sU-C.I + .kVé:..__ -_¡--bceCl--'P-~¡O~ I ~j _l.tú1k:e.C-L-u~:t-\-:er-h.â..-\l~---- ___þ C_£0 __~C-.cClJÅS -e---+ k-c ____L(;L Í"- cL 0 l.0 ¡I\ €.. ý' n ---- __ ¡ _Y' cßJL L\____ LQ..(l k:eJ .. ~J'1=-t:1'- +~_e{'-ew_QQcl..lg-c '- --- , ~ - ,-G\ _L' \ill \-'\1\'1 \ 7 1~04 -'-';:·:Ò~<t~\'>'~kY;:-'µ"- Þs ..~ ~, ~ --.... -.. -.-- - --- IY"- o-lh.£cCó..Le5__ J-kew o_odJols_____ --- w·~~e.--- t 00 k..ecl ó -t±£v~ __b~j'__ r:: £..Ç r e c.-t Q,bl__e-__ ...._ , J09-9 .ce_c£__J,J \-. ö__ Clj'J_-c..._-ß66cL~-cÞ _ _ _t!l-_o. tL k L~____ ___I C,t¥'\(L-C-b-t-HuLrl5--_±h..e--W-.D-Oc.l"S---D-C- tb__ - ---- _ _m: ç o_~_5~:tr~_----=c.ech()_~Gl:c.LY:L _log K:e..d__ö".:.±:+- ~_ __ ---I .±:1..-e~_~D OJ1D-\-:!-----~---------I_--_- ---- __1 ---Ch-e..c:..e.....'^--.'Le,.. -.-:f.....e.....\,,0 e v- ~Y:::'CL± ~W-~\I"_ __ I .. J cLc_L-..e.o::Ì:-_ L\-!.D_ðÀ lQ1-s_..leIJ. _hC:-C.CLL1~e__ o£:____ I -I CUJ___e£'_c.._.l.-\c_J-L; <"\:5--'--_&& -. tðÞ-s---QS-+- ~_:e__ - -- -- __J_el4f I'---c..~± _ \:, ;j--==--L~_l....L£' +d.:JS- -{-he S (l.I'\>.. ~ ____~ -D-.I'ì.L':::J_-Ce,{'±a.'\ ~__~º-o.dlCLt:$ \.V.~ \ Lb:e____ __ ____ ._1 JOQ\'\ ~d__~j~=b-o=_~___~_______ .- --\::---~---- ~- - u":"-S- -~ ç Qd--h-Gò--~e.----cx---- __1. b-o_w_~-O± h-e-V\.--f'f-QP-e~+-;--:e_S-c..1.o..h9-:e - -- --th.Q"h--cÌL.-Cð ncL---w-~ -+ l~ h-e--p-=er:..S..Qj~·L_h~. ... -t S-P-£c-1î_+ a L;£.-clì~t6 (') k I~--D 4-kv- fC\ Y\~_J.t:'S:+ c-CL'jd---h-'1.A::h -e- r+e..¿-f-- ~--_-- _L_o w n.£; t". __ _ __ _1__ F o~-e.L(Ã \C!1tº\.e....: __d- h. -e-±'C-i-r.rY'._a... -i- 'l-:-1 ~__ I . , ~_Ln.-I-e- ('~ e C+~n_nk- --'±£'-~J- o....Vl.cl C f2ðLr+o....1tA- -.l 'Th IS +1ÃY'r'l""> wo.-ç '" wI"'--'€..cl b\j___ _I. Q ð f\J __e..,^~þ n - . -------- ---- I , --T- -.- ---------- .-- ---- ------------.- .------~------.- ------ .. - I ~t - ----------- ~-....-.-----~--~- ---.------------..-----+--- , V ¥' ,; I Ps' ê~ê8 I I .u~ __ ._'m. n._ _.___ n_ =r. i?~~.~\~~oJs._e.c1___O-±±~~b\~~ .1»oo.ol1c;\- -t~~.h er. f' ,cJ-~i~k." L".b-7..$--.w..D-Od lo..+ -¡-we>. .s~ Jus.·t- \ L~.~A.Lk.~ n¿, -I-b 1':'..i?....IA.L ¡_à_p'i" I oI)5-W-LCt\- 'U" ..£~V"' k... . _[____ -W1-e '" 4:l e ~a..cro.~----±o..lz..-e v~.--D_~r ! -t ~.:e . b 1\£ \._w..a..J_-,S£Jcl.A-b..d.-J~~-r2PV'.OlL~(l+,..J:1__ ¡ J'J óo '~{'(:eS-.w-eL-e.. G u+ ~-~d 6.b...Q.~ . I i lE..C2IL.::...lB.oCL_ ±QC:e..__C.Ds..dS__O-j:__~¡ f"_e V~L06_c.l_ _ I n-L~~.s__e..u. + 0 >á..t.D£:_-±k__kps.~__ ..__.____ _ __1-... J. \.( t\Æ..W~--~ O"""\Å..~.e -:¡"'~m LeA-\-: *-'h ~... _ _ ±L~e...W-ôcd-Q,.. ~t'Ùt..-±~_l.QS-ð--e ('- 5 J ~..4::-\- _ ___ __G... \<'L-c\......-G, " ," Lcl_..:~ .±:: \::, t' t l e \J e...._ h_L~\..t . . _m +-h -e ~cLe Q.I"Ó ~_~d.}lt' ~~6.CLs-~- ---JJ" l.C; ~(}~S . Wo.. C, L--U...-~\r-D...~ ---l-lLId~S ~~-~ + \.U~, LLPLohc.J~.l.!"J be l'l yI "i-h-e..1' ::J.5-';j t:':'" irS .be~C'e +he../"-t> __ _tb-~~~-\- ~ .~+r-e.e5--.~-._~a...LGn_h +~ c\..\. ó.§-CÁ¡.n· . . .-. lh.ís L.p-pe--b.eLkcCLLL~ e Cl~oS± ~,e('~e.-e. . ..,' Vi. ....:!::he- \.AJr'iO-~u"L.ü..$ -~- 19-£..n..CLCLS Lh:.d ---G.-.Lt--:t-_d \" ~-..Lq,S____ ¡ 1 ~ 0.. l s....í 7 £......_ I ! -.-..-- t Pg. \ '#<\ , \ \ \ - \ .... .. ________ Í:L:L£QJ __n1\v::e.~ _ -~- ---------------------------.- - ~- , . -T~ -----~~ ____ kLe.-___...xLe.J.?"L_±D- hCÙH~.Jk __bo..5-o..._L_ , ~f(Àv'~ o.Me (" t_().._p_~\.Le.L!\- -\.00-04Jo+<>· __-.L±= 'f'() rY'- \:, e. .; ru:J_CdJ _èJL.L,-,~b-e..-c-eL\Js...e-tk e..... _~__Ç... L\.S_('-.í:..-..-ò::_ }~ 'j_=.t..c..-~~4-P-~...L'-e,.~$' __'.+ ree&~s~'Lfl9-Ç L.\,+ \..Lnc1-e..¡- ·-t-h-e. \ eiJC1 \ S I~~________n-_- , ______=·O:\-t:c__6'LScJ_A t'e.~t::\10I'l-j___'lA_u±h - --~-- _ _+-ke:._ c -V' c l4_W\-+e í"-eú ce __c-..J-t___w.tLe 1'J-º"Ptº~- ---id:--óø.e:-\- Ae..- =-1u0-I..lJcL--p-Y'_-€,.tLe-~__~6~±s. _. f_f: ð VV\. be.\r:L5_..íL\.Le..{'..c..-w:L.£'Æ-fLe.-C_lC\..~\~_I- (ì ___ __\'Lò...ò.d1_o±s _l..,.,ll._ecc::....__-thi-fe-í S___·_V€...LI",.\_ ----=-~~ - . ~ . I~ Ol.lY'l~}£r 9',f\O'¡,J+\'" 'be c-Q~e __~ ð 5-\ ó..-t+- "- -e _±~_~s-___~_e..-L€-g__c..i_ - ! ~ I 7.. e:. Ó'l' _ b ì 9-§'--~"'-<-- , ! ----~-_._-~------_._-----------_._-- , , , \ ~-- _L_._ . X ý\ 0.. I e 10 ".."..,,.,. --\-a \ 1") ,. _ _ . _Q\r- t·. __ --I_L~-IC\ ~' '^- -i-P Y"ðPR.I'" ~ N".5+ c (") U PI/" ~ on £:: \&-1 .,." _~_~_+-~!'" B~c...L-ß:l'é'QI n F: eel-s --t +~ :r~l~À.dol~L+. :t-h<, C <.lr-f'C""+ l-- -r --I-- I -I I , , I I , I I ------------ ----- ~--------~~---~ --- ------ ---------- . . r Pg~:f5 ~ .. j=_s~~~~~ . d-b~'; "'~"5""s.. -hh~+- -=: -= J~ ·~~L() \ÅlcL~'~ \(-e <; Çf_d..~ .\-0_ --fbneJ p___.ì m_p_~~_+-~ f. Gl.\. ("f':.e.t:} ±-_..~_~~tQ...\...L _.:.__ ~_é-\~e___()..s ...}:c l \Q....~~ _J '- Ii . __ _¡LrL...-rh.e- 6 c....s~ " ~G...LC~. ~epl"ed _ .__ -+~--_·1"'--Þ.c.e \ -ego.. \ ..s' I /- f r: 0...\.5 ·ed 0", _ _: '^-\\.. ho..~J \.0()r.J.Ç \'ncLLAd~V\.j__ Wh~i-ePt.n.r-,- __.YQ q." '.S'ÆL.=+ £3\- o..._~m~_r'l.J~~\.V"O____~__.. _13_L'Ú-~t'"'c;:, Ö-'J'ðù..~cL. Lß~I+6._±-h.:e__~___._ _.. y2.Ç>~A-1_ ot___ŒJ~.s_\M':e.c::\:~~-\- _-d---___ __ _CQ0..hes --ëJ:'_h.~\9-bÌ--f' rt)~ +h-e G I"o..\-~. n ., + \ .- .' ~ n--JS..4IS\.~._~-f....~_oJ_ ð-L'2_e_W Q..;.J..cLa...~ .~. ._ - helf2~t:t \ "'+IA \ ~ a.....~e~c- ~ö{\e~-\- c.. ö \J e.l' . ~®-'T("f-e~ r--¢lO-+ -h? ~ecJ +ð b-~~--1o.1 6(" \-6..; '-" - _~_~I +0... \ r'\--,-.bSli f'Ã '±"'-e~@ ¡_~_ C (.+ do-. r· L"-'j"\: 1..1_ \l-l--E-Pf¡ .\-\.-, . . ,h:e.eC', 0 (' \ ºØ ~ +J,·""e¡.J (',,- \ 0 ()O-cLlo4:---.- -~ c..ClÚ~S_.±h--€-. _ Ì'Y\.ð s+ CL:>-..W\(",S,£> 2-("') +h.e ¡ ~ ' \. \,. I k. ; y- f' ;'Y\..~_ fj--'Þo u...rr1.. ~ "'-0 c. k. I ^ 5'- e ¡ b CA..V--_~ o~ _ò!" k ~.o..( k. \ "'~~.Q UC'\Ð ~".... .__ _.L ~ r-~_e.s....__ ~LQh...~.5 +-ke.J::- f' b eLr:5-tº _UJ .leJ _~.l- bel.L_ ké".- W o.ods. L._.__..______. ~~._,'_~._._ .'-"':'$"'':'''';;'''ic.,,- ~~ .:~< . ~ " ... " . , - ----,- ::r -\-L\",,- k±he~~ì>{y\\A~_J~J,.,,~±-k __ -I 5~o \...\..\cl_ ... b e.c.: h~,; \Cb-s"et:---\-=.\::~-<Å.~ ~\:::L¡:L~L__ cul_ :5 ~± .e.:e..-\-.... ~).-\-h +\'2.~__C:u~ L.':J_ex~c.~f2+ i ? V\. ¡be. '^5\.~Û -..b~-\A.S£__eu:,,£.._Ç\;.r-~~J.t8 f\ t> -L.£ 0 c_ b~d.~.o__. ÞoJe_~_L____ __ ._. ._.u. ______ +~- n_______ --!-..-- _-V1~·tf'e___S__Ÿc(2P Q.r4__l1..bJ' ~_~__ +-_ª__±h~_ I ~ , _,__.5 r-,~ -t:._ _. Co ro. P:'\......J ~S_LOrL-e~_ ,____.___. ._ _'u ___ __ ! r . . --1- ..:- 0,-\ fJLecp-.e n.ß\,.t. beS-__toL__ -(,Lh--a/--ecQ;t,(t-l-¡"Ó- . -- . --_9 C_ .__f.J:C....ke .s-.S'L\C£._flL::L,1ch º'-j.e.-- .o!. º/'J_£...... __.._.______ ___ -----.-.-..-...-.---.- ---------~~..__.....- ---~..._~~-_. .,.- -_..._--~-~. ...._.~---~- ~L.. _~___, I ..... ,. "----.--- --.--.-.--..-- - . ~-_.... ----.. ---~.._.._._-----_.._._----- 'A~ --j--- .---- -_.._~---~_.__._._.._-- "-"'..' ._~--~-_._------_._~--- , .---- - ..-----.--- .---.---. .._~---~-- ..-.....-.. --"'--~-~---_.._.__.... ..----.. ----~-_.- -_..~.- --_.,------~-- i -1-- --...--- _.__...__..~--_._----- ..._....~~-_...- _.._----- .---- --..---~-----~---..----. ~.----.. ..---__.______ ·.__u -~~------ _ _.. __.. '_'_m_ _._~_._ ____._....._..~_____ .__.. _____ "'__.__.._~__"'____________.___------._------'- .~ -------.......---... ._------- _.~-- -~~-- -- -- --'---.. .._._~ --~---_.._--- -.. -_.. ..------.. ._-~._--- ---.------- --~.._-"----'- ._~~._... .-----...-...----- ----.- --~- --.-.. ..--- ---~---_.._._. ..__._-----_.._-_._-~ ---- ~~..-..-.-- -~_.~_.. ·___.__u__ ..._____~.~. ..~__~__ __._~___.. _________._______._ ~---- ~~--- --..--..-- -- _...~ j------ -- ¡-----. i -~-~~-- ....--- -- ._.._-_._~._-~ _...._-_.._~_._..- .--.-..--------.---.---...---- - .< . J .¡,;. Pj _~o .- . , , J___ ~::rhe--- "LCe.:e._C.o-~\S 5 LQ~ u_ ..---- +- ]'\5-:, --~~ ~-~\; ó~~-~-I-k<?-b~-,,-~- k~ ~ 5' V"\. .I=} ~l.d..L~ c,... "',.} e.. V\.. cÀ ~_ûrPð\~ ('OtA-",,·\-e<;'. ~_t-<3-Þ ¡ .. r ~LC'.>-tj1:>~(' '\ ..\,-\....,... -\- h ~..e..r-...-..e VI ~J-. ~ I \1 LlO.j , \ -' - . -+ 0--12 {' (}. (',+ I C. -e he-=l::±e--~1-D-9-'j-W-::S-c...... V' (" ~ v ' I A , ù V" k \ ~ I Y"\ \::;: \lj I..... C (') LÅ rl~-" , . ______ ·-Lh_e..-:r~.e.e:~CCL~ ~~SS'..l.o .'\.£'C...._V\.eed£--. _--=±.õ~c: .ó '--l-\- ì"" . ±~ +. ~e.1d___~~_mu..(' k. c..... S r ð S ~I € +~s:.ep e ¡Gr. d=..L~_.-W h. ('.-t- '\ ~.- ±"- I J -- . 1--5 -J':\ø-(t(1 ~ ^- ~.n.tJ~I- 1'\- - e. WCìß.c.A--L--\:s )-b~ r'.......-~ _t> ~I-¡...(': (', cl-· . > , .±-.. (_h./1 "{)-eJ ~r:e_.f"'t'),éÁ.d>e -t-o -t-kE? b 'j.=lo. \".J + (',. I ~p.r<lJ.J e (.,.0 'ü , I ~ oA.r>lJo-\--<; v-e.. ('.. +1::.\......¿- :I r-~e_ c..ð~.\'». 1$ <j I r-. f)'e',r hCL +0 ha UF+"'--e. 5',-, pr eM o~ \,. (" G:L~ 1'\ t- ~...he--EJ-9 \.b-c..ò_u..h~_ . r : \ + D '¡~" ~Q.t'.o.r ~ 1-\"""-r ~ J I t"A Ld . ,. R--P-\ -e, -t- h. -e yTl-": y\;', s 4- f" ~~Q -Þ- . (\) ð-:'L.l.!.Y'_a.J 12. e5 0 "'" (' e-e ~ $; ...\-. e> p-p.e.ei--tf'\ a... II" k-l-~ \,,0.)00 J L>+S+'0r l~vd. o-'.bL(L~-,,-ÎI~....:e... 1iwL~S 'h ': ö ,,~ . .-\-b.a. -\-. k..Ll'A S C,,- 1'),,<:,, A-,,~) CLf\.- b, Q ç pa, ...-\- J-±klL -\- \ ð..",J ó \-0 ~-if.$. Cou..\d +\.ÀY'~ +-0 .. ^ ,. ';'-,,,,,~'j':~%t'_;;"~,'" < PEr"" "'. ~'.~' -':. . I I -.f-- - -------~----.--- -..--... ---. -,,--- ----,- -- - _______H - ---.------ L__Î b~_'1~e:<:- __(_l2r'" >",::"..$SjQ'",\~ __(_0~'d jJ:=- c.__±:h"-'.±_'P_1è.J"'S'_C20 .! .----~------- ------ _1____ ~ìe........ - M,':LO_;'¿\d...~1C\-C> t b ~_-b:"\Qk~::---5------ .__<hl\.. ø_l\ej.~£C:...ot~""±h~ __~º-ºdJ_º+s__.~ Y\.cl.________ -- -_'-<..':CJ-'-ÁJcl--S-~iXkfL-Í--j-- t?c....- +h~~_e-,--- -t-CL__ __! S_i cnr-1l4 n::U't-~ .<:; t..\ r-e+ha+ \..00(", 'Ã Lo+s· '. ( . l ...c..;...W ~~_beL"'§-.p I^Df2e£'\~-lº-S'-5,ed---pe.v" ¡'cd ~ ---- ---~------_..,,-~-- _._----"~,~-~-"----_._-----"----"-_.,._-'- ,. , _ Ih_-e~_í~..-e~CDß1.~..££.__..J...0~-<:¿\..\..td_- __¡._(À\..Ç~_.k..""--DL-~ I. ) ko~~~ _ 6- _~.ep~..±:c..b1-e-- - +\"1,-1- ~ NÂ 'Áll~;d ~_f¡cMal 1_ ~ CL -- ..la5SJ'V\ð-L_::¡h--e.c:~±oJ'- e.. --~r\-:J--..:-- ..... _. \ A,,~- @' A} ~e'" +\"'<A.~ \ A' fLS ' ~~__L£\ k \ ~ ____OT \_O~-S-lA5~ LJI'J¡'ct ~__cu,Jç) ~V e .. SO..L¥'\e.-Cuq-€-·· +-~~~..n..-.k__1-J h..o__ +..h£..'j .t:... <~ L\.-Ltl-:I---t': ~ __.L:_"__ '._-, --' . -,----_.---,--~--_._'-~".- -h~ 'fret'.' C C>,n-. IYtIS.S;Of\-(':1"" needS_ !,,:,or-~ S ù Qeør'1- ìn'ð"Jer +0 '\ n·h:wc.e \ +h E' C.\.tff' e Q+ b" -laIA) ( {" i..h -e C ~~"e 5 +- h 'M I' r 6 ~ m (À,cl...e.. +-6 í rn f&a-ve _,A\~¥""+I.\./'e~ 'b~- Lc>\.l.V<;. 7~-e.r--R ho...S -/-.0. 6p _¡-h~~L!ble.r- (.2..-L.o (l,j+-"p sSe. r~l:JjJ"\ Þrfd..LJ:;ð'"5 .l~cv1.¿ 0 i' .0.", 'j .p-cf' pçç; LI t> d a.ffi Q§--:E-cl 01' of? ~ : CÀ \,vuoeL I ð>-r . ~~ (-J~d ~~ · ,../' c~ /L/ dC/õ<;/' ç 7 r RECEIVED ç' /~-../ /' // V I\fR 16 iÐ04 '-../ ð ¿¿dm~ --<--1 ~;;r-(-r.;:;.,vc.eV?'\.-. (J , ~~ç¡:~~:e:œ5 c/~c-£I~ X ~¿¿~ ¿/~~ c-T7 ff~ ,;l7~ 7" ~~L ~7~---7~ ¿;;¿/<7-&~7~~~ 4-J~ /Vb OL,/ /. /-::2~ A ~ 9L ~ C2--ð-~' ~. /~4~ (a,J dn ~(CJ ~d ~Lv, 3. ~fd~~~.~~----~~, ~ -:5=-¿~;if~ C3~~ ~ ~ ~#b ~-;ÆŠ ~~, 1./ 'JAar, 30, 2004; 2: 15PM1CilTOWN OF AYLMERct Meeting MAR 1 52004 No,3863 p. 2/3 . Gary Austin .../"" Representative ofElgjn County Woodlot owners Association (50 members) ,/ The current By-Law must be replaced prior to 2006 since the Trees Act under which it was approved has been or will be revoked. A strong, sound new By-Law is required to help protect: our trees for the benefit of all County residents. This proposed By-Law is a good step in that direction. The Proposed Woodlands Conservation By-Law is a good, positive title, however the next line is a very negative statement. All that needs to be done to improve it is to add the word "Harvest" in front of destruction or injury, and then do the same throughout, Thìs would also make it consistent since harvest is used many times elsewhere. \ !ffuier GENERAL PROmBITION 2{~, as prescribed by: (a) a Registered Professional Forester; Of (b) a member in good standing of the Ontario Professional Association and ,/'" needs to add (c) a MNR completely certified tree marker In general there are fewer RPF's or members in good standing ofOPFA but there are many more certified tree markers with many years of experience. Often the cost to the landowner is less to have such a marker do the work. Under Schedl\le.~ A; Group.R Speeies ASKpnmpkinis a species at RISK and because of the nature of ~~. the ottom section) is shaped like a puntpkin or b&Tel. Point of Measure of S 30 c u1d not reflect the appropriated diameter at 1 \oS meters. It may only 30cm or mches, not a very big tree to cut for lumber. ~ I just point this out to show there are some errors that need proper review by some . experts such as Foresters and Resource Technicians that are members of the Woodlot Owners Association. ADMINISTRATION rSSTTRR ~ The County of Elgin allocates something in excess of$30,OOO.Oo f" ~ Kettle _ Creek Conservation Authority to employ a tree commissioner to administer the By-Law. Under Schedule 'H' there are 3 KCCA staffmembers appointed and only 1 County representative. It would seem unnecessary to have so many ftom the authority. The proposed application to destroy or injure costs $75.00. Is this for administration by the county or KCCA and what does it cover? Under the present By- Law Ii letter of intent costs nothing and works well. Most woodlot owners will have to TOWN OF AYLMER " . ~ 3Aar,30. 2004 2:15PM . l-.iÞ-/ No, 3863 P, 3/3 . pay emugh to have their trees marked let alone pay an application fee. Marking a woodlot could cost $300.00 and up, depending on the size ofllie woollot. . The By-Law is fur the benefit of all residents and should be ,,<im;n;,qered at the expense of all residents. What Audit processes are in place or will be in place to deternûne what the County is getting for its money. Etc. - number of applications received and approved . number of :field trips and reports - number of violations and actions taken - advertising to landowners, loggers, and markers of approved change There are other issues concerning GOOD FORESTRY PRACTICES and the APPLICATION of BASAL AREA. The Woodlot Owners Association is asking that a 6 month window of opportunity be provided to make this the best By-Law it can be, that would still leave 15 months for approval by the County to inform concerned people about the new By-Law. Prior to these council meetings that opportunity was not available. Open houses, workshops, committee or any other forum for input would serve to improve this By-Law. Thank you for your time ( 04/19/2004 09:35 , 5197592151 EFA-R.SILCDX PAGE 02 <. .c/" Elgin Federation of Agriculture's SUBMISSION for ApriI2"?, 2004 Meeting I . Very few infractions p1Ißued under "Notice of intent" so why change something tha.t is working well. 2 - This by-law appears to be a method the conservation authorities can use as a revenue source down the road. 3 - Posting of signs appears to be a hot button so it would likely be wise to remove that stricture. 4 - Cutting tops down to a 2 meter height must be rescinded from the by-law because of the prohibitive cost and non-existent benefit. 5 - A local logger makes the claim that leaving some species, especially ash to the 22 in. diameter is wrong. They experience dry rot and do too much shading of the younger trees. 6 - Experience of a. logger cutting a bush in the City of London. 7 - In drafting the new and improved by-law, be sure to enlist the input of wood-lot owners, loggers, saw-mill operators as well as tree commissioners. Submitted by: Don Watterworth, Elgin Federation of Agriculture Director, Municipality of West Elgin Telephone: 519-768-1657 ,..-c Elgin Federation submission to County Council on Forestry By-Law Thank you for this opportunity on behalf of the 1400 Elgin Federation members to have input on this very important subject before it goes to fmal draft. We were told during the preliminary hearings that only 5 serious inftactions over the last few years have come forward. A proportion of these were also caused by ignorance of the existence of the by-law. It would seem at least to a layman that a better approach to this problem would be an education program to remind the citizens of Elgin of the existence of the forestry by- law. Elgin County is legitimately proud of the tree cover left in the district. Why change a system which is obviously working so well? It is our understanding that as proposed, the by-law will not be administered by the conservation authorities. However, we are concerned that down the road the CA could be asked to administer the program and it could be regarded as a revenue source for the authority. A conservation àuthority with restricted funding could become overzealous in its enforcement of this proposed by-law. Posting of signs at the harvest site is particularly onerous in the rural community. Farmers harvest com without posting signs, why post signs when harvesting a tree crop. Posting signs is seen as simply an opportunity for neighbours with only an imagined interest to feel they have some rights over the harvest of a wood-lot in which they have absolutely no interest or concern. This issue should be viewed as an opportunity to emphasize the rights of ownership over the demands of the noisiest minority in society. As well, if one is required to post signs 5 days before commencement of harvest, we will be faced with a possible situation where a crew will have to sit idle for 5 days waiting for the time to elapse. If a crew is working north of London and it rains 4 inches it can move to another area where there has been no rain and resume operations. If the signs aren't posted the crew would be liable for a ticketable offence_ The crew will move in and take their chances. My point is that an unenforceable law is better not on the books at all. The provision in the by-law for cutting tops down to the 2 metre height must be taken out of the by-law. At first glance this provision doesn't appear too burdensome. However, a logger acquaintance tells me it would take at least 2 men with saws following the feller to keep up with the sawyer felling the trees. The costs of this will be borne by the wood-lot owner, not by the log-buyer. Furthennore the 1 . . '. ~ fIrewood left on the ground in a few months becomes valueless making it impossible to recoup any benefIt_ Another aspect which we haven't mentioned is the liability and safety of having 2 more men working in a zone where trees are being felled. Please remove this provision ftom the by- law. This same logger acquaintance has some concerns about the changes in minimum diameter. In his experience, especially in ash trees, dry rot sets in before the tree reaches 22 inches in diameter, drastically reducing its value. Another aspect of the question is the fact that a tree left to this size shades the younger trees too much, restricting their growth. When the larger tree is removed it will take at least 60 years before the next harvest can be conducted. In his experience a 16 inch max. diameter is more conducive to sustained production. To give you some indication of the lengths to which we could be subjecting ourselves, let me relate the experience of another logger I have talked with. After being called to look at a bush in the former Westminster township he realized that he could be working in the amalgamated area of the City Of London. He called the Middlesex tree cornmìssioner and he confmned his worst suspicions. Bear in mind at this time he already had the wood-lot marked. The City of London requires the employment of a forester to mark a wood-lot before anyone can proceed. The forester charged $1200.00 to essentially confIrm the work our buyer had already done. With the forester's prescription in hand our logger then goes to a young lady in the Planning Dept. Of the City. She has final say over which trees get cut even though she has neither forestry training or experience. One of her chief concerns is that weed seeds form the fIeld will be dragged into the wood-lot by the log skidder. After being assured that fIeld weeds do not do well in a bush environment she acquiesced. However, she did notice what she took to be a hawk's nest and demanded that a 250 foot radius of a no-cut zone be instituted to be sure that this hawk would be well protected. Furthermore she demanded that no cutting take place between April and July 31 to protect the nesting squirrels and raccoons. After 3 months of delay they fmally got their approval. This is the type of minefIeld which I hope we can avoid in Elgin County. In closing I would like to implore you in drafting the new by-law to enlist the input of wood-lot owners, loggers, saw-mill operators as well as tree cornmìssioners. Thank-you again for this opportunity to have input in the drafting of the new by-law. 2 · , From: To: Date: Subject: "bkington" <bkington@execulink.com> "Sandra Heffren" <sheffren@elgin-county.on.ca> 4/18/04 6:52PM Re: Presentation to County Council Sandra, Since I'm representing the Southwestern Ontario Loggers Association and Townsend Lumber Inc (since I work For Townsend), tyhe outline of comments J will present are those that Townsend Lumber have sent to Rob. I will also be backing the draft by-law with the changes that I outlined in the Townsend letter. Not all suggestions may be mentioned as you have these in writing, but some to help to calm the seas, so to speak. The only thing new that I can think of right now would be the fee of $75.00 for the application to Harvest be lowered to $25.00 to match Oxford Cty's fee. Brian Kington ----- Original Message --- From: "Sandra Heffren" <sheffren@elgin-county.on.ca> To: <bkington@execulink.com> Cc: <rob@kettlecreekconservation.on.ca> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 9:19 AM Subject: Presentation to County Council > Rob Lindsay forwarded your request to address Council at its meeting on > April 27th to me. Would you please forward me your brief and/or an > outline of the comments you want to raise with Council. This will give > Council and staff time to review and research any questions you may have > so that we are better prepared for the meeting. Please have the > documentation to me be no later than Monday, April 19th at 1 :00 p.m. > > We'll put you on the agenda and we are allotting approx. 15 min. for > each delegation to speak. > > If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. > > .' Townsend Lumber Ine.. President David Townsend R.R. 2 TILLSONBURG, ONT. N4G 4G7 (519) 842-7381 FAX (519) 842-6122 www.townsendlumber.com ÑfltfCh 27,2004 Elgin County Tree Commissioner c/o Kettle Creek CQllservation Authority 44015 Ferguson Line, St. Thomas, Ontario N5P 3T3 Dear Rob, Thanks for the opportunity to comment on your draft Elgin County Tree Conservation By-law. It's good to see that Elgin County is following other munic~palities in helping to conserve woodlands and promote good forestty in their updated tree conservation by-laws and I back your endeavors. In yOur covering letter: 4) a "woodlands Clearing Permit" could be approved by the County of Elgin's Tree Commissioner............. I believe that any approval to an application should be approved or not approved by the County Council. This would prevent any perceiv~'bìas on the Tree Commission~part. It would also prevent any real or perceived conflict with the Tree Commissioners duties. Draft County of Elgin Woodlands Conservation By-law No. 04_ WHEREAS the Council has determined that it is desirable....................... (a) Preserving and improving the woodlands................. "Preserving" should be changed to "Conserving". Nature is always moving forward and we cannot keep the trees "from harm, injury or decay" (Dietionary's defmition of preserve) Definitions (v), (w), (x) Woodlands, Woodlots, Woodlands Why is there three definitions of "Woodlands"and "Woodlots"? This is confusing Suggestion to change "Woodlands means land at least 0.2 hectares and up in area within the County ofElgin with at least:: i) ü) iii) iv) etc MODERN BAND MILL AND COMPUTERIZED DRY KILNS 2. General Prohibition (a) Except as provided........................ (i) ..........Good Forest Practices................... (a) a Registered Profession Forester, or (b) a member in good standing......................and (c) has the accompanying documentation..........................AND (ii) the person who is destroying or injuring trees, has only destroyed or injured those trees which have attained, at the specified point of measurement, the circumference prescribed.................. .... The way this reads is that even though an RPF or a member in good standing of the OPF A can only n;ulfß: trees according to the circumference specification of the by -law and no others can márk trtès. The word "AND" should be changed to "OR" so the RPF or member of the OPF A can mark to good forestry practices and a timber buyer can mark trees to the by-law requirements. (iii) ................................, where trees have been destroyed or injured below 14 m2/ha. There is no diameter size restrictions that is used to make 14 m2/ha. Therefore trees an inch in diameter can be counted.. It's suggested that a minimum tree diameter of25 cm. be used to calcID\lte basal area. I would also like to suggest to raise the minimum basal area to 16 m2/ha. (c) No person through their actions or through the actions shall destroy or injure a tree located in an identified SENSITIVE NATURAL AREA............................... If this definition is passed as is, then no harvesting for any reason can take place_ It is suggested that "UNNECESSARlL Y" be added before "destroy or injure a tree". RPF's, Associate Members of the Ont. Professional Foresters Association, timber buyers, tree markers and sawmills as well as land owners in these areas will have to have maps of these areas from the County in order to know when they are in a sensitive area and have the trees marked accordingly. (d) (iii) leave a top which can be safely trimmed and not scheduled for fuel wood operation, higher than 2.0 metres from the ground to the highest branch; This will cause an increase in costs to the logging industry. Also the chances of accidents will increase. When accidents increase, the WSIB rate goes up, lost worker days can result or even death due to kickback. This all adds up to a more costly, monetary and life, workplace. Cutting the tops down to within 2.0 metres of the ground is for aesthetics only. Most woodlots are far from the road and can't be seen by people from the road. Any trees in a woodlot along a road could be cut down to 2.0 metres if this condition was put on the permit. Tops that are left as is after the harvest are good for wildlife as refuge from predators, perches · and food. The Norfolk County Tree Conservation By-law allows tops to be left not higher than 3.5 metres above the ground. Why should Elgin County's by-law not be consistent with neighbouring municipalities to make it easier for loggers? 3. Exemptions (1) the owner of the Woodlands (includes woodlots as per the present definitions?) that has destroyed or injured trees for his or her own use where the owner has been the registered owner of the Woodlands for at least two years prior to the date of commencement of the destruction......... .......... ........... The two year ownership for personal use was in the first by-laws to prevent a person from using "own use' as a disguise for cutting all the trees and then clearing the land. With the present by- laws on tree harvesting, this I believe is no longer required as it prevents a landowner from harvesting trees for fuelwood for their own use or harvesting trees to produce lumber to build building on their land for two years. At least a person should be allowed to harvest within the two years if the woodlot is marked and harvested using good forestry practices. (m) the owner of woodlands (which includes woodlots as per the definitions as stated?) who has destroyed or injured trees which will result in the production of less than 20 logs per year, ..... As written, this is unfair to the large woodland owner because a person who owns 0.3 hectares of woodlands can harvest as many trees as a landowner who owns 20 hectares of woodlands. 5. Application for a Permit to Harvest Destrov or Iniure (b) Any person who has obtained a Permit.......................shall erect and display a sign five (5) days prior to the start of operations and leave the sign in place until five (5) days after completion of operations................................ To make your Tree Conservation By-law more consistent with neighbouring municipalities, the erection of the sign should be "prior to commencement of operations" and not taken down ''until after the completion of operations and all logs removed" This will be less confusing to timber buyers and operators and there will be more compliance at the start of the by-law taking effect. (e) Such application shall be sent by first class mail or hand delivered to the Officer during named business hours. Why can't the Application be faxed to the Officer also. Other Municipalities allow faxing of an application or Notice of Intent. This speeds up the process and has no chance of the mail getting lost or delayed due to strikes, holidays and weekends. This way the Officer can inspect the woodlands when he/she receives the faxed application. If there is a fee, then the fee along with an application can be mailed. .'i} . 6. Application of Permit Process (c) When denying a Pennit the Clerk must notifY the applicant There is no limitations on how long that this notification can take place. How long will it take to receive a denial? 8. Orders to Discontinue Activitv (b) An Order issued under this section may be served personally or served by sending it by mail to the last known address of: i) and ii)...... Suggest that this should be sent by "REGISTERED MAIL" not just mail (e) If the person to whom the Order is directed......................by personal service or " REGISTERED MAIL" to the Officer Suggest changing "certified mail" to "registered mail". Schedule "A" Species List Covering Circumference Listing This list is the same as Norfolk County's list and is not totally indicative of the growth of species in Elgin County. The species to note is Hickory - Shagbark and Bitternut. When hickory grows in a woodland setting, it is subject to competition. When a tree is suppressed due to competition, it becomes week and thus subject to insect and disease attack. Many shagbark and bitternut hickory are wormy due t() the hickory bark beetle which attacks weakened trees. Also it is rare that these trees will growto the 173 cm. (21.67" dia.) at 30 em. (11.81") height above the ground without being hollow or very wormy. The only trees which will grow to the size limit in Group B are tree growing in an open enviroImlent, either in the woodlot or in fence rows. It is suggested that Shagbark and Bitternut Hickories be placed in the Group C Species list. This will up the circumference ITom the present by-law and still have a les~ Ï1).sect damaged tree or trees with heart rot. .. . . The Silvicultural Guide to Managing Southern Ontario Forests unfortunately doesn't have the size of trees at maturity, but the USDA Forest Service Silvics of North America Volume 2: Hardwoods does state that these hickories only reach approx 24' DBH on the every best sites. Also as you have probably noted, Shagbark and Bitternut Hickories ave dieback problems similar to white ash in certain areas, thus a lower circumference would help utilize this specie before it starts to have dieback. Schedule "F" Application to Harvest, Destroy or Injure Trees The list of Species should have more space as most woodlots will have at least 14 species marked. Instead of having volume estimates for every specie, (for what reason does the County need to know?), have a total estimated volume for all trees marked as other municipalities. Good to see that both the contractor and the landowner have to sign the application. This will better infonn the landowner. A copy should be mailed to the contractor also so he/she knows that the application was approved. Suggest to add to the application that trees are to be marked on two sides at eye level and also on the stump below the cut line. This will help the landowner control the harvest of the "sold" trees. Schedule "G" Fee Schedule Application to Destroy or Injure $75.00 This proposed fee for the application must go to the County of Elgin ifit is made mandatory. The fee must be used to educate the public, timber harvesters, etc on forestry or forestry related subjects only, or even roadside planting, and not go to the County's general coffers or the Kettle Creek Conservation Authority as the Authority, as I understand it, receives a set amount for contracting the tree commissioners job already and if this proposed fee goes to the conservation authority, then it would be double dipping. The landowner will have to pay this fee since the application and pennit will be in hislher name. When a timber sale is complete the landowner will be advised that he/she will have to write a cheque to the County (?) for $75.00 for the application. If the Application to Harvest, Destroy or Injure Trees is rejected and refused, will the landowner receive hislher fee back? , " . ~ , < . Some landowners and loggers will refuse to pay this fee if this part of the by-law is passed. They will harvest trees anyway as this appears to be another user fee. Schedule "K" "Form C" Since the Occupational, Health and Safety Act states that all cutter/skidder operators must be trained and certified as to the qualifications prescribed, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board states that all employees must have insurance coverage, and the property owner should be protected by having a harvesting crew have adequate public liability and property damage insurance, it is strongly suggested that these be incorporated into the by-law, or at least be a condition of the pennit. One of the greatest dangers to a wetland or lowland woodlot is drainage. It is also suggested that an addition to the draft by-law that states all drains running through or in the near vicinity of a woodlot must use sealed tile. This will help keep the water table as near to normal as possible and protect the woodlot ITom being drained and thus changing the composition of species. The Lambton County and Middlesex County Tree Conservation By-laws have incorporated this into their by-laws. These comments are made for your concideration and I hope they are useful to you ITom the woods indu prospective. They are not made to criticize any part of this draft by-law. I Yours truly, J () au ¡,p¡~/ David Town en~ President Townsend Lumber Inc. ¡;., RECE'VED Mr. Mark MacDonald, County of Elgin, 450, Sunset Drive, St. Thomas, Ontario N5R 5V1 /l.PR 19 - OOU~WOf~~ ?1n~~\iß1R4\~Æ - ~ POB 34, Sparta, Ontario NOL 2HO April 17, 2004. Dear Mr. MacDonald: Following a brief telephone conversation with your office on Friday, I am submitting the following overview of the course that my comments on the by-law will take. I have yet to flesh out the details. Any relevant material that you have as regards current practices would be much appreciated. In particular I would ask you to provide me details of the operation of the current by-law. What enforcement has occurred and what shape has that enforcement taken? Yours truly, ~~7?~~. sallf"Mar¡{yn - 7'-'- Remarks Reqardinq Elqin's Tree By-Law 1. Introduction (a) Relevance of the update (b) General observations 2. Value of the Forests (a) Water retention and water levels (b) Global Warming and Associated Factors (c) Unique Values of our Carolinian Forests (d) Monetary Values and Long Term Profit 3. Current Practices 4. Conclusions Remarks Regarding Elgin's Tree By-Law 1. Introduction: a. Relevance of the update Times have changed and we are more knowledgeable about the importance of trees than we were in 1987 when the previous by-law was enacted. The current by-law does not appear to be effective. I know of no single enforcement of it in our area. b. General observations Carolinian species are under stress, and we are the only area in Canada where these species flourish and are indigenous. When reforesting occurs, conifers are planted due to the ease of care and maintenance. Hardwoods are far more difficnlt to establish. When woods are logged, they are often high-graded and often eve!)' mature tree is removed without leaving prime seed trees for future regeneration. The Ministry of Natural Resources used to offer a free service of marking trees and advising on the seed trees to be left, but this practice has been dropped, The new by-law was developed through the co-operation of several counties and their conservation authorities and took a great deal of work and research to prepare. It also appears to be enforceable which is a necessity as not all "harvesters" respect and understand the absolute necessity of maintaining a level of tree coverage for the health of the land and water in Elgin County. Special incentives should be given to those who practise sound forestry procedures. 2. Value ofthe Forests a. Water retention and water levels Understanding all aspects of the hydrological cycle (water cycle) will reveal the absolute necessity of trees and in particular deciduous trees. Water evaporates readily if exposed to wind or sun light before it has a chance to percolate. Heavy tiling of our fannlands also gets water away before it has a chance to get to the underground aquifers. Irrigation also encourages evaporation and the draining of underground aquifers. Current farm practices have decreased the amount ofland in cover crops (forage, hay etç.) These parties also expose more surface area to erosion and evaporation. The water level in wells has dropped in our area as a result of these practices and many people are just digging deeper wells. It is also known that the water in many wells is unfit for human consumption due to pollutants and high nitrate concentrations. The rapid runoff of water causes flooding in the spring and pollution of our streams all year. Trees provide wind blocks ifleft dense enough, preventing wind erosion and evaporation. They also shade the soil allowing water to stay on the surface long enough to percolate into the underground aquifers. As a teacher at Sparta Public School, I used the first- hand example in the community to teach the students about the value of trees in water retention. When Sparta was first settled in 1813, three water-powered industries were immediately set up- a grist mill, a saw mill and a taune!)'. As more people settled in the area and cleared the forests for farming, the level of water in the steam that powered the mills decreased so that by 1870 there was not enough water in the mill ponds to run the water wheels and the mills had to close. As intelligent human beings, it is important that we learn from our past so that we don't 2 make the same mistakes. We need to retain the Carolinian woods that we have and increase them where possible to help with the current water problems we are experiencing. b. Global warming and associated factors As we all know, trees use C02 through photosynthesis to produce oxygen as well as filtering out pollutants in the air we breathe. Since the industrial revolution, humans have been producing C02 (Carbon dioxide) and CO (Carbon monoxide) at far increased levels and particularly since the invention of automobiles. As more and more countries seek to live at our living standard, more and more C02 and CO will be produced Trees and green plants are the best method we have of dealing with these hannful gases. Deciduous trees have up to 1000 stomata per leaf that perfonn this function. Global wanning is accepted as a real threat to our existence by the over whelming majority of scientists today. Such famous scientists as David Suzuki (Canadian geneticist) and Edward O. Wilson (American molecular biologist) have been working diligently to infonn the population about the need to reduce these gases. Global wanning will bring not just wanner temperatures but flooding and desertification due to rapid evaporation and wind erosion. Preserving our forests and increasing our tree cover will help to reduce these gases and the effects of global wanning. Wind erosion is already increased in our area and on windy days "blow sand" ITom these Norfolk Sand Plains we live on is moving rapidly and destroying our topsoil distribution. Whole fields are moving. Deciduous trees produce compost in the fall which builds topsoil. They keep the areas cooler due to shade and transpiration through their leaves as well as blocking the wind. Timber from mature trees is also a benefit to the land owner. c. Unique values of our Carolinian forests Southern Ontario is the prime source of hardwood lumber for Canada. As you are aware the Sweet Chestnut, an excellent nut and lumber tree was wiped out in the 1930's; the White Elm is almost wiped out, and now the White Ash through the Emerald Ash Bore and Sugar Maple through Acid Rain are threatened. In Killarney, near Sudbury where the Group of Seven artists often painted and worked, most of its hardwood trees have been destroyed by acid rain and its lakes are considered dead due to the high acid content where no fish can survive as none of the oxygen producing plants are present. Our area is an excellent source of Carolinian species. When the White family gave the Ministry of Natural Resources the woods at Jaffa (now looked after by the Catfish Conservation Authority) it was a prime example of an unlogged mature Carolinian forest with White Pine trees with a diameter of up to six feet. In 1980, the MNR felt the need to raise funds and had the area logged depriving us of an untouched Carolinian forest which had been used for teaching purposes. Carolinian forests contain over 75 different hardwood species, but many of these are now difficult to find in Elgin as they have been destroyed through logging practices and clear cuts. · ;e ~ .:> d. Monetary values and long term profit If woods are responsibly logged by size leaving prime seed trees, they will be a continuing source of income for the property owner. Prime seed trees must be left for future regeneration. Would any intelligent fanner breed cows from the genetically weakest bull? Responsible sawmill owners favour a strong tree bylaw becanse they need sustained yield or they will go out of business. Consumers also have a desire for a strong tree bylaw to continue to be able to purchase hardwoods for flooring, furniture, panelling, veneers, etc. Many industries depend on a stable supply of these woods. 3. Current Practices Voluntary following of "good forestry" practices does not work. Due to financial strains often experienced by farmers, they will sell their woods to the highest bidder not the careful logger who practices the "Good Forest Act". One bad steward in a family or on a farm can wipe out all the work of generations. We have a prime example of this near Sparta. For three generations, a family preserved their woods and were very proud of their conservation efforts. The fourth generation sold the trees to the highest bidder who harvested everything including all the prime seed trees. (Lot 22, Concession 6, Central Elgin). Loggers use skidders when the land has deeply thawed; these vehicles destroy the undergrowth and debark many of the remaining trees, ruining them for the future and opening up wounds to disease. This occurred on Lot 26, Concession 2 in Central Elgin where the steep slopes were logged in spring creating erosion, destroying the under-story and blocking the steam with tops. Nothing was done to enforce compliance with good pratices. Some fanners also clear off all timber unscrupulously before selling their land. This occurred at Lot 26, Concession 3 in Central Elgin. Every tree that would make a 2"by 4" was removed. This area may never be a prime timber area again as no seed trees were left and it will be 50 years or more before anyone would know if some seedlings of prime trees survived. These examples show how the current bylaw is not being enforced or is not enforceable. These practices have to end and the new bylaw will assist with this. 4. Conclusions We must not continue destroying our forests. The new bylaw allows huge exemptions already. We know road widening and hydro right-of-ways create wind tunnels. Many municipal work crews have no knowledge of proper forestry practices. We know also more about the benefits of deciduous trees and realize that it takes 75 to 80 years to grow a good hardwood tree. This is not the first time this issue has come up. In the late 1940's, a Royal Commission on Forestry was created due to the crisis of disappearing forests. This commission was enacted by a Progressive Conservative Government, and resulted in the fonnation of the Conservation Authorities to deal with the problems. The past government under Mike Harris systematically reduced the role of both the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Conservation Authorities. They sold off the tree reproduction facility at St Williams; it provided a cheap source of trees for · "'. 4 farmers for reforestation projects. The group that took over the facilities have not been helpful, leaving no cheap alternative for land owners wishing to do major reforestation projects. If we care about future generations, we must enact strong regulations to ensure the future of our Carolinian forests. This bylaw is a good step in the right direction. Its provisions do not unduly restrict landowners' rights, and should lead to better forestry practices in Elgin County. This public consultation should result in better forests for all of us. Thank you, Sally Martyn f -=-,. c::p?e.~/¡4æJ~ v I 04/20/04 08:33 FAX 1 519 837 1674 141001 /þ¿ I » , . '-----..- 'ß...~- "-~ '7 ~ q~-~"_ ~-;>/-.-/~./Æ/Oc)·"-- ¡:;;':---'-~.e-.)I ¿)~;;I"~----"--"'- ?L"¡jj""~(5'~'/ . .. -.......... . .&t·~;~ø- ~r. I:~.' ~~,,/ rJ ?j/__-_~.~~J,,~/ 'Ø0-_.-.':_ :.¡¿ "'1-,<,-<-.. .~7'¡'.'~.."'- .. .... .. ..-.. ..--- - .. -.-.. . ON .." _ _ - ------- .. .. .. ....._--". -~."'rJ) ~f---::~~~~~{) y~..-·c17~ ~_.._~~"dJ-.___ .......... ~ -~..--..-/~ ~ J:;-~n- . -L.7·-·· ...._ ~. ._ ..._.. ~ /' ~. .....m. . ..__ ____" __ _.. ..ø._." ".__nn___~__... . _ ~~~__(i)._·ii .... "C~-' _j%r- ..·~_~:--W--d~_____ .' .:.,,_.~-_~ 1i. ·~~/Æ ..~2?!;.....~/ ~._.:_~_~- ..----~-:...~=--~--.~ ~ ;;r~--..~~ ".-;;~ -~~~~~_~.?J~'-:_~_:=_~ ..-----..-..... .. . .. . ---....------........, ... -----7--·-.. . - .--- ------....... . . Æ-...~~ ~ ~-~-0--~~-u.. _.... .._...___.____. , ~ . . ...._____._._._.. _. ...-.-.----____._0..__- _ . ..._ .."......_...._.__.___...._". ·.·.·..·.-.·-(J1~..0~.. ~..:-.~.:;~.:-=~~;;~J-- ~_.-;;z----- . -...-=~-~~.;). Þ4 ~_u______. . ..----1------ "---'---ª7::~T- . .. ---- -----~~ ~- -~---- ".. --....------...-.. -- -.-------------.. ---------------------- --. ---~_~--·-ø-..~ s..._.:::---~.-~.~ .L_.~-~~__ ;/-2-~-¿-~---=--..-..---- ----.------..- ... ~ ~-~ . .... -- . ..;Þ?~ .. .-.----. -.--.~~~ ~.---.-- .--..------.-.-... . -..--.--.-----JR: 7 ~~ 04/20/04 08:33 PAX 1 519 837 1674 141002 ~/é Z , ...--./ --.---.-.---- -- ..._---.... .. --.-. .. ....,'-,...-----.- ó"'- J , ..&-ò ~ ~ ~ =Z:::-~;£~;r"'-'-- ~ ¿'--....- a--~' fn-...n_.. -nt?/--Þ-~--.,_.__~_ ...-----...-- ........-.-. /':i PÞt./~ /' ___H. ··_______.._nn___._' ,_ n...... .. "M.'-~ . ~--':~~=I----'--''C~ n. ,_ .~ -..--_...._-~-:-_~-¿:r--~ --..~ ~~,.o~.r ;;>. -L77?--~ ~--';;:;--~~-' ~ ? 7-- /. 0V'1..L. ~ ~t.,~M ;i&- - - -,. . -.-.. ""- ~--- .. ... .. . -- ~_._-~--- , -- ~- -" -'"~~-, ----- -----.--. .. ---_..~ ...........- .-......... ------...... --.,-" ..........~.,,---'""'" ..........---.---... ",_.... . _,___. N.' _~....."_..._____. . "... ,'-. - ,""_.__,_,,.,_..,_. ,.. ,,", _h.____ --.---.--..... ,,-..-- ---... _u_... ._ .....-.-- --.....--".. . -. " ' ~-' .-. ,---.-,"- -------.-. ---------- . ._.._.__~-.--nu----....- ___n_ .. . - "__ _, __ __ ~ - _00_"." _ .,~.13-04 10 :36 AM WINKLER ~. . ;1." 5196410722 P.01 .:< .Branching Out Tree & Landscaping Services Ltd. "Specializing in Trees & Shrubs" 25 Queen Anne Circle. London. Ontario N6H 4B6 Rob Lindsay Elgin County Tree Commissioner c/o Kettle Creek Conservation Authority 44015 Ferguson Line St. Thomas ON N5P 3T3 February 13, 2004 Dear Mr. Lindsay, I have been reviewing several proposed County Conservation Bylaws and it is nice to see one that is straight forward and without pet peeves. Keeping in mind that it is easier to criticize than it is to create, there are a few things that you may want to éheck: GrdItlmar · Definition (e) - closing bracket needed. · General Prohibition (a) - If I understand this clause correctly, the 'and' at the end of the line should be 'or'. It might then make more sense to put the 'or' on a separate line between (i) and (ii) to physically differentiate the two paths. If this were done, then (v) would need to be repeated in (i). · Exemptions (m) - Replace 'less' with 'fewer' · Application for a Permit Process (a) - Rewrite end of first line to say , reviewed or a Permit issued... ' · Application for a Permit Process (vi) - To make it clearer, (vi) needs to be reworded to say that the Application will be returned. · Basal Area Calculation (i) - Check spelling at the beginning ofline three. Basal Areas I am more concerned about the Basal Area calculations as this will cause everyone the most problems. ' A few words on the Basal Area calculations (ii): · It should be made clear in Schedule "\" that when calculating Basa! Areas, only live trees that will not be cut are to be counted. .- FEB~13-04 10:37 AM . WINKLER 5196410722 P.02 .~._"'.... .~ · Because Basa1 Area readings win be different at any other location in a woodlot. all inspection sampling will need to be taken at the original spots. Other readi ngs would not stand up in court. Therefore, (ii) should specify that the centre points for the original readings must be clearly identified so that they can be found laler. · Forty meter spacing is a good distance. This would mean that trees smaller than 56 cm DBH (22 inches) would not be double counted between two samples. Since most bigger trees would be cut, there is little chance that a residual tree of more than 56 cm would be left to be double counted, thus artificially inflating the residual average Basal Area. · To have the minimum spacing of 60 meters from a dripline and 40 meters from the last sample point, a rectangular woodland would have to be a minimum of (60+60) x (60+40+40+60) = 24000 square meters or 2.4 hectares (6 acres) It would be impossible to get the mandatory three samples into woodlands that are smaller than 2..4 hectares, yet the bylaw covers woodlots down to 0.2 hectares. If getting a minimum of three samples in as many woodlands as possible were still the goal, then the minimum distance to a dripline could be changed to 40 meters, and the minimum feasible size would be reduced to 1.28 hectares. Small woodlands/woodlots have lateral lighting issues - weeds, lateral branching, etc. They cannot be properly managed with Basal Areas, so Basal Areas are not nceded in them. Other The first part of Exemption (1) is a throw back to a time when other safeguards were not available. New landowners should be able to practice good forestry on their woodlands without waiting for two years. I have concerns about the legal aspects of non-OPF A members approving tree cutting permits.. I checked and the position of the OPF A is that anyone can approve an Application for a Permit based on ensuring that the Application has been properly complèted. Only a member of the OPF A may prepare/approve the siIvicultural prescription It appears that there wiH be no pre-cut inspections as there is no requirement to pre-mark trees. Is that the intent? If so. then you should keep the Notice of Intent system and not charge a fee. There is no provision to identify and preserve trees with stick nests or nesting cavities Have fun. ;,.;',"." I,' ;~..'~ . y -, ~.~;:::- ...: /;'<?> ~(:'';';- d .ií~è.¡./{}tJ¡20 '):\:.:'~- ,..., ..~ - , \AV tiC/) _, rJ\ q ~i..ø J A WlNKlI'.R t: ';. J II -, . . - . \\\.1.J r Ë ,'cÇ. ~ k' \~. Olf¡ARIO / ;:.' ¿<¿..J ORES~' ~-,~....... Jack Winkler RP.F. ~ßot ~: Williams and Associates; 519-856-9728; Feb-24·04 2:39PM; Page 1/2 ~^,.:;! . WILLIAMS . & ASSOCIATES Forestry and Envíronmental Consultants Ltd. . 5369 Wellington Rd Z7. R.R.#I. Rockwood. OS NOD ZKQ Tel (519) 856-tZ86 fa. (519) 856-97'..8 * * * * Website www.forstar.ca Email forstai.(¡¡stn.net February I 9_ 2004 Elgin COlillty Tre~ Commissiom::r c/o Kettle Creek Conservation Authority 44015 Ferguson Lin~ St. Thomas. On MP 3T3. Re: Draft Tree By Law comments I am a tòr~stry consultant who ù'ccasionaiiy works in F.!ginÜmnty. I'an¡ also th\:-Chair orlhe Waœrloo Wdlington Woodlot Owm::rs- Association and th~ Private Land Forestry Network (an OPFA committee). and have been involved with bylaws through private practice and updating the Wellington County bylaw. My assumption has been that Tree By Laws are to help assure the public that torests are being managed and harvested appropriately_and natural values are protected. I have becn disturbed by an increasing trend tor municipalities to increase the documentation/paperwork requirements tor landowners whò want to manage their to rests according to good forestry practices. appreciate that Schedulc "F" requires a reasonable amount of information in comparison with some other jurisdictions. While in most cases. using good forestry pr<;lctices represents the best t1nancial choice tor landowners: they do not always realize it. It is dinìcult at times to convince owners that their forests should be managed using good torestry pral1ices; particularly if they may be partly convinced that they are paying lor things that loggers will provide tör free. and that they ,may not get all the money they could through a by-law cuI. The proposed by law requires that an OPF A member mark the trees and have additional documentation to quality lor the Good Forestry Practices exemption in contrast to the diameter limil cuI. If an OPFA member plans and marks the sale. the owner should not be required to pay the permit fee or perhaps even require a permit (e.g.. Town of CaJedon). There is no legal or pmetieal reason why the County would require additional documentation. The additional paperwork and tee are a direct disincentive tor landowners to use good ìorestry pn¡ctices. I f the work is prescribed by an OPF A member. the County must be satisfied thai the work is being conducted according to the prescription. If the marking is being supervised or conducted by an OPFA member. the onus is on the member. to ensure the work is planned appropriately. This ethical obligation is assured by the OPF A Act. If the County is concerned that the OPF A member is not working within their ethical responsibilities at all times. a complaint can be filed wiù, ¡he OPFA and the Association will be required 10 investigate the maUer. If the work is planned by a non-OPFA member. then the County would be better justilied in requiring enough inlorrn.ation to assure that the work is appropriate. As well. the pennitting requirement and basal area documentation could more reasonably be required tor the -diameter limit' typ" cut where a logger or landowner is selecting the trees without eom;em tor good forestry or lorest health. Sent B)~ Williams and Associates; ?" ',' . ~ 519-856-9728; Feb-24-04 2:40PM; Page 2/2 ~-, Williams & AssvchJII!~' Specitìc Comments: In th.: General Prohibition section 2. (a) (i) (c,l.I believe there is a type-a:. Sine.: (I) refers to good forestry practices and (ii) and (iii) retèr to diameter limit restrictions. I think the last word in (i) should be "or" rather than "and" Section 2 (d)(i) - Injury should be Injure. It is impossible to harvest trees without damaging some unintentionally. As well. trees damaged during harvest are often felled. This clause could be used to say that loggers cannot cuI perhaps dangerous trees bent ovcr during harvcst. Section 2 (d)(iii) - There is na lòrestry reason far a requirement to cut tops down. This is purely an aesthetics issue that represents an unnecessary expense to landowners and clmtractors. ¡¡,..trees" was added to the list in Section 2(d)(ii) the dause would cover concerns with 2(d)(i) and Sections 2(d)(i) and (iii) should be deleted. Section 5 (b) requires people to post a sign in the fonnat ofSehedulc ··D". which is a notification to ncighhours. The whole section is unclear. Schedule 5( e) should allow for laxed intormation A permit and tèe should not be required tor section 2(a)(i) - good torestry practices by an OPF A member. However the notice of intent should be. Schedule·r seems to be the method used by the County to assess basal area. I don't think it is mentioned in the bylaw. Schedule E - perhaps "unrestricted access "should say "permission to enter property" Please contact!llc if you havc any questions about this' letter. ~ Peter A. Wllhams. M.Sc.. R.P.F. Consulting Foresteri Arborist. ~-::-...:.":":-::"~", /' PP~'" /" ,,\') "f.J~'i::... " \(. ~'1''.'' (l/.' (/ 1408 ' '~r') :1..; __.. - " , -. ! c: P. A, W\lL.IAMS ! '¡ ~u~ .r::,' '.(,:... \""2%') \:.. "..N'ARI0 - ../ ":\. , ....1.", .:;1 " .- " T ;", "'Hi'.:\:j"\'Ç.../ "'....-:...?:....:;;;:;-:... ~- "'- Page 1 of2 Rob Lindsay From: To: Sent: Subject: <steve.williams@mnr.gov.on.ca> <kettleca@execulink.com> Tuesday, February 24,2004 10:06 AM I: Forest Conservation Bylaw Just a few comments. I expect you will have received Ken Elliott's comments that he gave to both Oxford and Middlesex. If not, let me know and I'll forward a copy to you. He covers many of the issues with the current wave of bylaw revisions and they are worth noting. For dbh measurements, I'd use 1.3m rather than 1.37, It seems to be the standard. In the bylaw under 2 - Prohibitions, I'd suggest you highlight the two methods being sanctioned namely Good Forestry Practice 2a (i) and the other, Circumference Limit 2a (ii) with a residual BA of 16m2/ha (AGS and UGS). 2a(i)b should read 'an associate member in good standing whose scope of practice includes tree marking. You should also sanction under Good Forestry, those who have obtained full certification for marking under the OMNR program. While this certification is only a requirement if one is marking "crown" land, the fact that one has obtained this certification, and marks on private land, has imbedded in it the obligations to adhere to standards and guidelines (silvicultural) and a code of practice that addresses the health and productivity of the forest. You will then need to define certified tree marker in definitions. Under Circumference Limit, trees should also be marked but in this case it would benefit the landowner in that (s) he has the opportunity to see just what is being removed prior to harvest. Much of the concern over the new bylaws has arisen because landowners feel their rights are being impacted by what is being proposed. In fact, they still have the same rights as before, they can harvest under circumference limit or good forestry. Essentially, the only additional feature that has been added is the residual BA of 16m2/ha in trees (AGS,UGS) over 24cm which is an attempt to insure that there is some structure left after the harvest. We don't specify that it has to be in certain diameter classes so we could in fact get all the BA in one diameter class e.g. 26c36cm. Its interesting to note that the Silviculture Guide for Managing Southern Ontario Forests does in fact call for 16m2/ha in size classes> 26cm but of course this is in AGS. Steve Williams, BScF, MScF, R.P.F. Aylmer District Forester Ministry of Natural Resources 353 Talbot Street West Aylmer, Ontario N5H 2S8 Tel: 519-773-4757 2/24/2004 ....J . PORTER LUMBER LIMITED R.R. #1 - PORT DOVER, ONTARIO NOA INI Tel: (519) 583-1678 Fax: (519) 583-0853 March 2, 2004 Rob Lindsay Elgin County Tree Commissioner c/o Kettle Creek Conservation Authority 44015 Ferguson Line St. Thomas, Ont N5P 3T3 _~ _._", r.>-' ..'~..._,. ,-:...,...·,'fì'Ç;., À ~=''fi ill 'II \iJ¡ "., '(\' \0· . '''.,,'.' i.J I \,}è.' r.'..I·. ·ê:;:2V'.i.A I~ \J '---' i> F - f; I, "U, IJI1 t'iÀ~ I ~ lO~ l;Ù _..""",.~~ Dear Mr. Lindsay, My name is Shannon Porter. I am an owner of Porter Lumber Ltd. in Port Dover. I am writing to you in response to the proposed by-law changes for the County of Elgin. I would like to start by saying thank you for allowing myself and other members of the forest industry to provide our input in the proposed changes to the bylaw. It is this industry that must deal with the law on a daily basis and having our opinion taken seriously is very important to us. With this in mind I would like to offer some of my comments. I will follow the order of the by-law with my comments. The first topic that I would like to look at is in Section 2, subsection d, iii. The section deals with the height of tops left in the bush. A maximum height of 2 m has been suggested. I would like to ask why is this? Every time a person is required to run a chainsaw he is putting himself at risk to injury. A chainsaw is a dangerous piece of equipment and should not be used unnecessarily. The tops are the most dangerous cuts to make because of the large amount of tension on the branches as a result of the felling of the tree. They spring quite easily and is an invite for a serious accident to happen. When a top is allowed to make contact with the ground it will start to decay quicker. If a person decides to go into the bush to harvest the firewood at a later date, the material will be no good after about two years. If these tops are allowed to be left intact, then they will last longer, thus allowing it to be harvested. According to the proposed by-law, if a person indicates that the fuel wood is to be harvested then the tops do not need to be cut up. Therefore every person should indicate that the fuel wood is going to be removed and then the tops will not have to be cut. Section 3 deals with exemptions to the by-law. Subsection 1 needs to be discussed. This subsection deals with the grand fathering of the current by-law for bushlots that have been purchased prior to the passing of the proposed changes. In this exemption it states that it pertains to instances where "the contract was signed within one year immediately preceding the date on which this by-law was passed". What about contracts that were signed more than one year prior? These contracts are paid for on a per tree basis. If these contracts are signed and paid for it should not matter is it was six months or six years prior. In some instances, trees that are paid for based on the current by-law might not be allowed to be harvested under the new rules. The purchaser of the timber is not going to be able to return to the land owner and ask for some money back. There is a very good possibility that the money has already been spent. All existing contracts should be exempt ITom the new by-law. ·. f -i. . .- , Application for a permit is Section 5 and a couple of points can be made is this area. The first point is about the five day waiting period prior to the destruction of trees. I believe this is two long in some instances. Sometimes a person is approached to harvest a bushlot while he is harvesting the neighbours. It might not be profitable to move to another location to work for five days while waiting for the five day period to pass. One way to deal with this is to offer a shorter waiting period if the person applying is willing to pay an additional fee. This would allow the county to generate some extra money and would also be worth while for the logging contractor. According to the proposed by-law a fee is to be charged for every permit to harvest trees. The question I pose is what do we get for this fee? Currently a notice of intent is ftee. If a fee is charged there should be some service associated with it. One service is that all bushlots should be inspected prior to harvest. If the tree commissioner sees a potential problem with the trees that are marked then they can be addressed before the trees are destroyed. It will be a lot easier to work with a contractor before a harvest then to have to go through the process after a valuable resource has been destroyed. '4i1 A notice of timber harvest sign is going to be required under the new by-law. If a fee of seventy-five dollars is going to be charged for the permit, the sign should be included. This sign is going to be required to be posted five days prior to the commencement of harvest. Some of the properties to be harvested are a two hour drive for us to get there. It seems like a large waste of gas and time to take the better part of half a day to just go and put up a sign. A solution to this would be to have the logging contractor erect the sign as soon as the equipment arrives and leave is posted for at least ten days after the completion of the job. The proposed fee is to be mailed or delivered to the county office. To speed up the process, a simple means might be to fax the permit along with a payment using a credit card. This would allow the five day waiting period to begin sooner. Section 6 deals with the application for permit process. It states that a permit is good for a term of one year and that it must be renewed for one year. This permit should not expire until the harvest of the timber is complete. Why is there a time on it? When a permit is filed the first time a seventy-five dollar fee is to be paid. What is it going to cost to renew the permit after the first year is over? The current practice followed by Porter Lumber is to file a Notice of Intent as soon as a contract has been signed with a landowner. The Notice is then resubmitted at the start of every new year. This is done to eusure that the five day waiting period prior to the start of harvest is never a concern. What this also allows is for the staff of the tree commissioner to have ample time to pre inspect all notices when their timetable allows. Most of this work can then be done in the off season to help reduce some of the strain during the winter months. If these permits are only going to be good for one year then the contractor has to guess when he is going to be able to harvest a bush and submit the permit accordingly. I believe that there should be no time limit on the permit. Once again I would like to thank you for the opportunity to submit my comments to you. If you have any question for me please feel ftee to contact me at 519-583-2788. Shannonport~__ ~~/ CATFiSH CREEK CONSFRVATION .AUTHORITY 04·50"GEN. CountyofElgin Tree ComnrissiÒner c/o KettleÇreek CQhservation Authority R.R.#8, . St. Thomas,'Qntario 'N5P 3T3: ATTENTIQN:Rob Li11dsay SUBÆCT: DràftCountyTræ ßy-Law COUNTY OF ELGIN staff of The Catfish Creek Conservation Authority (CCCA)' appreciate the' opportunity to reviewed the above noted draft by-law and would like to provide the f~llowi11g co~ents. . The Cotintyof Elginshouldbe cotlWlejldedforundertaÍcing this review Of theformer Tree Cutti11gBy-law and developi11gthe strategies outIi11edi11 the new "Woodlands Conservation By-law'. - , . - ',' - , . Under.'GeneråIProhibition', it appears that thei11tent of the ßy-laW is to reqllirð 1lll1downers to harvest tr. ees i11accor. dance with "Good.. F or..estry. Prach.·. ces". ori11 a.. cc.. . ordan. ce .w. ¡the the minimum "C.. irc. umíì. . er.enc.. e Measurements". If this is the case then yOU _may wish to change the "and" at the end of Sec. 2(a)i(c) to 'OR'. ." In Section 3 (~) (page 3) 'Ex~mpti()hS To This By-,Law'; it is our opinion that Conseryation Authorities are a "local board of a municipality", thereby afforded an exemption to the, requirements of this by-law, This . poi11t cOuld be clarified by listing or i11c1ùdi11g"Conservation Authorities" at the end of subsection (a), In order to cOver some of the species that are notlisted i11 Schedule 'A', such as Tulip (Liridendron tulipifera) and Sy¡)amore (J.'latanus occidentalis), the County may,wishto i11clude a general statement thát "all other specieswiU (aU intocategoryW measurement requirements''. Also, there maybe some typO's with respect to some of th~L~ti11 Names, e.g. Eastern C9tt9nwood (populuS deltuides) and . American Beech (Fagus .gran!lifQIia). Pleåsefeel free to forward anyfurtlier revisions or questions on this matter t9 the undersigned at this.offiée.. ~~~.. ResoÍ1rcePlanni11g Coordi11ator . ......... ... ..w·.·n 8". 1'0. W.'~ iTl~ \n.. íf;.1lli\r..\. .. '. ..' . ... ..... .. J~. ~<'.V.'fi. i_'-'.'c L'\, I~. \I.... ... .. .... .... .- --" '" \.-¡' --- .' . ,', ,-- '" ,- - . " -', ." '. " 8079 Springwate~ Rgaq", R,8. ~,Vi\ylrner; Ont. N5.H 2R4 (5í9)77~"9()3'7 , Fax: (519)765~1489 E-mail: ccca@execulink.com Websi¡e:, wWw.execuIiI.1K.com/-çcça "". ~.J..' "¡-, ";-' PHILLIPS & ASSOCIATES Real Estale Appraisers, Broker & Consultants Phone:519-866-3816/ Fax:5] 9-866-3924 Straffordville C. RON PH1LLlPS, ARA, ALC Box 91, Straffordville, Ont NO] 1 YO March 5, 2004 Kettle Creek Conservation Authority RR # 8 St.Thomas, Or.. N5P 3T3 44105 Ferguson Line Atten1ion: Rob Lindsay Re: Elgin County Proposed Woodlands Conservation By-law Dear Sir: I am writing as result of attending a public meeting held in the municipality of Bayham on March 4, 2004. At the meeting I made several comments concerning the by-law on behalf of the Phillips family who have farmed and managed woodlands in Elgin since the 1930's. First we commend the county in attempting to improve the by-law used to enforce the conservation of woodlands in the municipality. in my experience one of the first things the politicians & bureaucrats who write by-laws must do to be successful, is to get the stakeholders (farmers, wood lot managers, forestry specialists, timber harvesters, sawmill operators, firewood harvesters and the general public in some cases) to "buy into" the intent of the by-law. It appears to me that it is going to be very difficult to obtain support from the industry stakeholders for this by-law as written, The intent appears quite acceptable to most but the wording is poor and in some areas the wording of the by-law will unnecessarily aggravate the some of the stakeholders. ,--c-~,' ,~ ~,':; ..\'.!;.crq\~",,:\\\ _____ ~5Ç¡\)" ,/f'Z Þ'~."~I-_ ì'~~,j\~~,; - -~\ ,,\\'\ \ ~.'-); - - o:..v:\\~\-\ \'J.' ~" .~. \.-t"~-. i-':;j'.'''¿-p;...,'J~i.·,",. '1\ " . l\ \ \ \ ~.¥<\~ ''.::Ji <?? --- 1) \~i\\\~ % J~~ '. ~ .f. or' Example Our family has been managing several large tracts of wooded land in three townships in the municipality for numerous years, all under the direction of professional foresters. This by-law indicates that I now have to obtain a permit to destroy my tree crop. This wording really sticks in my craw If the wording was changed to "an intent to harvest, injure or destroy must be filed" It would be far more acceptable. A clarification of what areas the "notice of intention to harvest or permit" would cover also needs addressing In our case, where harvesting is an ongoing almost annual operation at some location on our farm properties, we would require numerous permits for the various sites. I also have a real problem with paying a fee of $75 per permit, per site, per year to be able to harvest our crops . Especially when I get absolutely nothing in return. I am a believer in "fee for service" but there is little service involved here. If the tree commissioner attended each site and gave me a report as to the quality of my operation and indicating where problems might exist if any, then a fee for the services could be understood (similar to a building inspector) but to pay the fee strictly as an administration cost is not acceptable. I am already paying professional foresters fees to prepare a report allowing the harvesting or destruction "permit" to be issued. Any costs required to operate the by-law should be paid by the taxpayer as it seems this by-law is written to protect the forests (as it should. be) for the good of the population in general, not for the gain of the owner of the woodl8nds, Some specific areas of the by-law that require addressing are 1(a) Change this definition wording to better reflect the intent of the by-law to "controlling the harvesting, injuring or destruction of trees" 1 (u) The definition of a tree includes any sprout of a tree which could reach 4.5 metres. No-till farming practices creates many areas along the edge of wood lots which would have sufficient tree sprouts to qualify the area to be classed as woodlands. Strict compliance with the by-law could force the farmer to leave this area to regenerate into a forest otherwise he would be destroying trees. " ;.( .. ... Some reference to exceptions to the bylaw must be made for agricultural operations 2 General Prohibition (a) (i)&(ii) This indicates that all destruction off trees must be carried out in accordance with good forestry practices AND in accordance with the minimum circumference requirements I would hope this "AND" is a misprint and should read "OR" otherwise this by-law should be completely rejected as the whole idea of forestry ;nanagement as taught in the past years has been disregarded during preparation of the by-law. (d) (i) needs clarification I read thi& to mean that during the harvesting process if I destroy, injure or damage any tree which was not marked or designated for harvesting that I am in violation of the bylaw. Considering the description of a tree I had better not break a sapling or run over a scrub tree with my equipment or for that matter step on a seedling during the operation or I am in violation of the by-law. Possibly the insertion of the word UNNECESSARILY would clarify the intention of the by-law Exemptions 3(m) needs clarification as to the description of a log (should it read tree) also why do I have to notify the tree commissioner for an action which is exempt from the by-law under which the tree commissioner has the authority to act 6 Application for Permit (a) (i) my vacant land does not have 911 numbers which is a requirement in the application process (iii) I understand that the intent is to limit harvesting either to "Good Forestry Practices or a Circumference or minium size cut where a forestry management report would not be required. ~ " \;,). I \.- '" 7 There has to be a better way to resolve differences than the Ontario Municipal Board option This should only be the "last resort" as it is a ver¡ time consuming and expensive process. Schedule "F" requires an estimation of the board feet to be removed. In my opinion that volume figure is no ones business but the owners. The "volume removed" has nothing to do with good forestr¡ practice whereas the volume remaining is a far more relevant figure. If the county wants to know the volume removed have their tree commissioner come and scale the logs, as it appears that he has the right. In summar¡ the intent of the by-law is good but as written real problems in administration could result The tree commissioner and the current players in the industr¡ may well understand the intent and could proceed with little difficulty in resolving issues as they arise but this by- law in the hands of someone who wanted it followed to the letter could shut down eve'''! forest harvesting operation in the municipality. There are those who would try if they thought they could succeed. o comment CRP cc Municipality of Bayham County of Elgin .>I . :0 Municipality of Bayham çr:¡ <7 'iÎ jj' '@ rr\\ ~'ß(C~1i:£¿ \OJ !ill Aili i / N(i4 ~ Op ~~,. :ÞOl'funity Is....o P.O. Box 160,9344 Plank Road, Straffordville, Ontario NO] 1 YO Tel: (519) 866-5521 . Fax: (519) 866-3884 emai1: bayham@bayham.on.ca March 10, 2004 Rob Lindsay Elgin County Tree Commissioner c/o Kettle Creek Conservation Authority 44015 FergnsonLine St. Thomas, ON N5P 3T3 Dear Mr. Lindsay, Re: Draft Woodlands Conservation Bv-Iaw Thank you for you delegation to Council March 4th, 2003 regarding the draft new Woodlands Conservation By-law. The Council appreciates you agreeing to take questions from both Council and members of the public at that meeting. Council has considered the draft, and comments received from Bayham residents both at that meeting and in direct contacts. Those concerns are summarized as follows: There appears to have been few issues with tree cutting and the need for any enforcement. Therefore, is there any evidence of a need for this by-law? Compliance with the current by-law using the "Notice of Intent" seems to have been effective, given the information that few enforcement issues have arisen. Is there a need for the inclusion of fines for non-compliance as contained in the draft new by-law? Enforcement, collection, court costs etc may then be incurred. Is there a real need for posting of signs as proposed, when neighbours are already circulated? Some loggers may have concerns with the notice resulting in increased vandalism to equipment. The need for and amount oflicence fees may be excessive especially when the view that the owners of woodlands are being required to obtain a licence to essentially harvest a legitimate crop. The definition of a tree, and the provisions of the draft By-law identifYing that only trees of certain circumference may be cut, may not promote good forestry practices. Fence rows and headlands on farms must be clearly exempt, particularly where farms abut woodlots that may have its new growth encroaching into the farms fields. , '. '1 ~' ,. Minor incidental damage to other trees not being cut may be inevitable and should be recognized. It would be appreCiated if these comments and concerns would be taken into consideration by yourself and County Council in the review ofthis draft By-law. Thank you for your consideration. / .' , ·.ÞV~ ~/w ~7L _ /lAd )1/ . J~~~~¡ß~1J~; /, ~~~4f1f t/~?~~"~f;f7k ;t~~~- y&u-~ /¡~,,~~~j/A I-:' 'é/~"~ 1 Jc.;(/-~M,-~-~J¡, ~ 01 £4n r Ik~ll .. 2 ¡¿~ f~"--A~r ZÞijdJ"1 ~1/4/ðh~~-~~r- . ì. ."" J ~ ~ A/":f . .' ,¡!/difA, "rw 7ç¡L ~~/ " --7/;ÞLJI ? - ~.kd~-r~~- ~~11f:~~)r-/~ id~, ~ "d'~", -'rr¿¿~? ~~.~(~~~~~' 5 ~Øl£~~$~ ~- lLð~~~~# ~~ f '. '~~ ~ -;Ii 9, ~.&d--4~~~~~~~~ ~~~-J,~M?I2-¡ß~~~ ~~-~~1~;:6/~~~~~ ~ ~ 7k (~~) r:;/ð' ~ ~j¡~ Wþ ~ +~~;¿~- (tÞ?~:J~ ~r~r~ ~~- - ~ » . '~~~/~~w- II/JJ},/ . cJ.~~~~tß~~~; . /. ß~~~~ t/~?~~"~f¡i7k j-~~7/1- y~~~ /¡~(I-~~A. ~ ~ ~1J4:t/-~Ü~/}I1AM-M~-~'~ ~ d! ~þ '~J4-¥11 . . 2.;Æ~ f~"--A~~ 1Þj/hJ"'1 ~1/4/rh ~~ -ÂM<-?r- _.i . _.2 h¡~~ . .' ,¡t/difr"~ ?Ç"'- ~~ IV . r -wcl!~~~ ? ;¡Ø~Aæd~-J~~- ~~1¥:~~)r~~ -d ~.! ~ 7:d~ALbJ1 ~ ~r~~ ~ -4.'~ (.d/~~(~;,.-/? 1 ;:kßU~~£~ ~- /L ð~~~~¡£ k~ f , ¡- . ~~ ~ . -/t 1/ ~&d--4~þ4~~~~~~ d-wr~ ~ -J2~~ß@¡ß~~~ ~~-~~) ~;:::6/~~~ ~~ ~~/k (¿?V;JµJ)~ß'~~Ji~ ~~ +~L2~- ;;¡þ?~/~ ~r~r~ ~~~ _ enr-&1' > < ~ ~~/7?fr ¿ . r.~d;~. ~~ ~~ ;r;o:Z~ 7L ') /Îli/~~µ ~~A ~ ~; M~¿_dßcP2R~ I~-r~~ -r/L£Æ ~~~ ¿. }r~ z ~ ~ ~ þ' ~ ~ ~ k =+}~Z~~~~ :/;;;::: ~:t::;#:!t; I~ ~~ ~/~~r?V~ .~ud~.~ +'c2 J.r/L k¡ -r! , ßðh V· ~r /Þ þr_11 March 24; 2004 Mr: Rob Lindsay 'qlgiri CountyTr\3eC;oq¡rnissiönér c/o Kettl\3 Cr\3ek Conservation Authority 4401SFerguson Line·' . -.' . St.Thomas, Ontario N5P3T3·· ... DearMr. Lindsay, ..;. .. - -'. '. . ....: -:. ,.:, .. ...... .-:< Thank you for your letter of Februåry 16, 20Ù4andthe opportunityfo comment on the Elgin County Tree By,law. I hav\3 revie,^,e¡dthe by-law from the standpoint of the requirements of the Profes~ional FOrE~stersAct2000and I ~o notse¡eany. inconsistenciesþetweenthe. two.... I understand.that you have cornlTlentsfrom Mr, Jaqk WinklerR.f>.Fand he has commented on some of the more technlc;al asp\3cts of the by-law (\3;g;basala~ea). . .. - . .' - " - - - - VlJjthrespect to 6f the approvaloftreecutting permits, this is the responsiþiHtyof th.. ede.s.igna. t.e. d mu.nic.ipafo. ffi.cia. Is.;. Given that the. 'applic;ation'm.u.st..inc.lude ¡:¡ prescriptionapprovedl:>y a member in good standing of the Qntario prof\3ssional - . Foreste¡rsAssöciatior1,approv!:iIConstitutesapProval. oftheprescriptic>n developed by the gpFAJ11emb~r.1 would sugg\3stthatif tl)erearequestions ¡:¡bout the· prescription and. the consistency with good forestry practices,the¡se guèstionsshould þe discussed with theOPFA q¡emberconcemedbefore any changesaremade to the. prescription.' .. . ..' :. - . Thankyouagainfor.the.opportunity tocömm~ntanå ityou have any qLJestions please do nofhesitate to give me a call. . . . . . Yours truly, /<~ ~ . - Rick Monzon RP.F Executive Director. iCe ,t~ \K\ ~ '\\~\:j\V '¡"-\ ~,=<,:", -.i; ":'-;", ~~0~~\~\:~~ \5-) ..~ K~\<. \\8~OÖ'~ONi:;E S+., UNIT#3,INNISFIL, ()N.,L9StL5TEL:(105) 436-222.6 FAX: . EMAIL: OPFA@ON;AI8N.COMWE8SITE: WWW.OPFA.ON,ÇA ........--- ._~-: (705) 436-1151 ~~ ".~, d ~ :l."'1Il> ~/jÞr¿iJ1e. R.R.#2 West Lome, On NOL 2PO March 26, 2004 Elgill County Tree Commissioner c/o Kettle Creek Conservation Authority 44015 Ferguson Line St. Thomas, On N5P 3T3 Attention: Rob Lindsay, Tree Commissioner Dear Sir: Re: DRAFT BY-LAW - County of Elgin Further to your informative presentation to the West Elgill Council and interested residents attending on March 25th in Council Chambers. Concerns regarding the Draft By-Iaware as follows: I. Wording of "destroy and injuring" are used numerous times over the mention of "HARVEST". As you are ~ware there are considerable differences. Is it nece~sary to use them together? By-law wording is more of a restriction to cutting of any type. We all know a wyll managed woodlot is a source of"F ARM INCOME' so badly needed at present day conditíons especially to preserve the "fAMILY FARM".' The overall wording is difficult to comprehend - hopefully it is not intended to be so. Words such as "cadastral surveying" 3( a), "basal area" page I I (b) need to be explained. (Who defmes basal area? Schedule I is most difficult if one is not a qualified "forester"). 2. Reference to top clean up - 2 m high. Cost involved here could exceed value of harvested log. Cannot the land owner assume responsibility for such clean up? Do you govern other crop harvest clean up? 3. Be mindful that woodlot areas differ from County ofElgill to other Counties in Ontario. One uniform By-law would be great but almost impossible. Some areas are flat, gullied, different soil conditions, etc. , . .- '-' 4. Note changes in measurement areas in Schedule "A" 6" off ground difficult. 10" to 12" would be better with circumference adjusted accordingly. 5_ Recommend input and guidance to this By-law rrom- (a) Elgin-Middlesex Woodlot Association (b) Elgin Land Stewardship Council ©) Horticultural and Nature Clubs in Elgin (d) Is it possible to get input fÌ'om our schools throughout the County? This would be a great project. 6. The West Elgin presentation on March 24th was an excellent example of':grass roots" irlvol;vement. Mayor Warwick and his council are to be congratulated and you as Tree C6m\nissioner, for your interesting and intelligent presentation. West Elgin is in a very high "Cår'ólinian" species area which we are proud of as is all of Elgin County for their well c~d for wood lands, Respectfully submitted ']J,j/Y}. Md.k ILL. a P- c.c. Municipality of the County of Elgin c.c. Municipality of West Elgin '<irlp;~ JRunicipalit1J nf ~£zt ~lgiu April 1, 2004 Elgin County Tree Commissioner c/o Kettle Creek Conservation Authority 44015 Ferguson Line St. Thomas, ON N5P 3T3 Dear Sir: RE: DRAFT WOODLANDS CONSERVATION BY-LAW Thank you for attending the Council meeting held on March 25, 2004 and providing input into the draft woodlands conservation by-law. As noted by our Drainage Superintendent atthat meeting, the Municipality of West Elgin requests that the Drainage Act be added to Section 3 - Exemptions. Other acts are referenced in the exemption section and this should be applied to the Drainage Act as well. Further, under Section 3(h) Council may grant exemptions. While this would apply to County Council, drainage matters are approved by Municipal Council under the Drainage Act. Should you have any questions please contact the undersigned. Yours truly, ~J~ Norma I. Bryant, HonBA, AMCT Clerk ,~ _·-··_-..·~~'r~\ .,-'(C~"'" 'íì ,\\17,'\1' :("ì\ 'ê, '~' 1.i....,.f" ì~ \\\ ~.'; <'"-1)\ : \ \D" L0- .', i .' . '11 ' , ",_.. ):U! \' , 1K('J>í?j~'~ . \. \ . .~w .,.\\¿ -:r~)""'- i " >,:,~f',' , üÐ 22413 Hoskins Line, Box 490, Rodney, Ontario NOl2CO Tel: (519) 785-0560 Fax: (519) 785:Q6A~:.;"''''-~~ - -~~,._~" : , ~ ~ , Elgin County Tree Commissioner, c/o Kettle Creek Conservation Authority. 44015 Ferguson Line,St. Thomas, Ontario. N5P 3T3 Attention Rob Lidsav Re: Tree Bv-Law 87-6 April 10, 2004. Further to our conversation I wish to submit my observation concerning the proposed tree by-law. After carefully considering the contents of the by-law I would like to see more control by the Elgin County Council and the Conservation Authorities concerning the activities of the Registered Professional Foresters. This includes the R.P.F's obtaining authority from the Council and the Tree Commissioner before landowners and cutters may be reqnired to appear in a court of law. I would like to see any notice of intent to cut to be filed by the logger. Very few landowners know the species of the trees on their property. In regards to tree sizes the by law should be left as it is. A veneer log losses its value if it becomes too large and it may subsequently be sold as a saw log which would reduce its value to the landowner. I do not see the need for the RPF to be involved between a vendor and a purchaser, nor the vendor having to pay someone who is not a party to the sale for their opinion unless they are requested to participate on behalf of the vendor. Currently some land owners request Registered Professional Foresters to view their woodlot and prepare a list ofharvestable trees and then send this information to loggers for bids. lfthe land owner wishes to bear the costs of this service it should be at his discretion, not reqnired by a Municipal by-law, I consider woodlots as an agricultural crop. Woodlots are a valuable asset to landowners, and if managed properly the woodlot will remain intact for many generations and provide income to the landowner. The by-law should regulate harvesting by species. Harvesting by species ensures that the landowner receives the most financial return. Cutting maple when there is no market for maple is not making the best use of valuable assets. Clear cutting all harvestable trees at the same time is a wasteful use ofthese valuable resources. Sincerely, Gene Pineo, President Gene Pineo Logs a Division of 468005 Ontario Inc. R.R. #3 St. Thomas, Ontario. ~ =:rn;1f (em If. ~J7 ~ ~W-.Ï'\.."..\ jR¡ ß¡D, 1,) "'" i" lID ~~-1 ; 2904 V! - , .. \ ~-<-?~~ r , I I ""' ~ . . . General observations about Elgin Coun1y Tree By-Law 87-6 This edition of the proposed by-law is cumbersome to read. It is written in a quasi legal! academic s1yle. Words used in the by-law are not commonly found or used by the average person. This makes understanding the intent of the by-law difficult. In the defInition part the authors do not identify what certain words mean. E.g. what does "injure" mean. Without a defInition of this word it could mean anything from placing spouts for tapping maple trees to placing a nail to hang a no trespassing sign to a car sliding off the road and damaging the bark of a tree. The by-law does not distinguish between a landowners woodlot or a tree or trees in an area near or around a home. The by-law requires that all land cleared that is a hectare in size be replanted at the rate of 1750 trees to the hectare. It does not say who will plant them, who will bear the cost of doing it, what type of trees will be planted nor provide a time frame for when this work will be done Schedule F is not realistic. How many land owners could identify the species of trees in their woodlot? If this schedule is included it would require the services ofRPF'rs. Who would earn an income from the service he provides the landowner. I do not feel that Coun1y Council wants to place land owners in this position. A further phrase used in the proposed by-law in need of is a clarifIcation is the difference between the words WOODLANDS and WOOLOTS, This may by common knowledge to the authors of the by-law but to anyone not as knowledgeable it is confusing, The by-law is silent on a loggers right to prepare a road into and out of a woodlot nor how the cut trees should be skidded and stored while awaiting trucks to haul them. This could not be done without some damage to smaller trees. Does the prohibition of injuring trees apply in these circumstances? The bylaw provides that Counsel issue a permit within two months of an application, and may demand an enviroumental study. Is this good for development in the Coun1y, are there other provisions under the building codes that cover the same matter? Is it really necessary for a landowner to pay a fee for merely making an inquiry about uses he can make of his land? If they RPF are involved in the writing of this proposed by-law and they stand to benefIt from the enactment of same are they in conflict of interest. Can anyone on counsel fIll out all the forms the by-law proposes> Joseph P. DeBruyn Duttona Beach P.O. Box 10 R.R.#1 WallacetoWD, Ontario NOL 2MO (519)762-3935 DuttonaBeaCh COttagers Association··· I www.duttonabeacILca I R EIVED To; The Warden of Elgin County and members of County Council APR 14 2004 C/O Mark McDonald Chief Administrative Office COON1Y Of EI.W1 ~~mA1f*~ Dear Mr. McDonald Please accept this correspondence as a fonnalletter of support for the proposed amendments to the draft tree-by-law and forward my comments to the warden of Elgin County & members of county council .I have been monitoring some of the discussions surrounding this issue as reported in the local press. As much as I agree that farmers are truly the stewards of their lands, I also believe that far too often trees are cut, woodlots are harvested and adjoining lands are damaged under the guise of good stewardship. Elgin County continues to be a wooded rural community and is the envy of other counties that have foolishly over harvested their indigenous forests. Essex County is actively planting trees in a belatedattel11pt to increase their level of forestation. They have recognized the importance of balancing human, environmental and economic needs in developing a healthy environment for plants, animals and for the people of their county . . . As a 17 year resident of Elgin County I have had the good fortune of living fuIltime in a cottage cÒtnmmrity n~Stledin 68 acres of Environmentally Protected Carolinian forest bounded by the sandy shores of~ake Erie. We have creeks and wetlands that host a number of migratory and pennanent avian visitors annually. Flora and Fauna abound and the natural beauty of this 100 year old community is cherished by all the residents of Duttona Beach. Our cOlnmunity and our natural surroundings are currently under siege. A developer has been able to purchase 48 acres oftlùs area and is currently in;the process of demanding a Dutton / Dunwich Official Plan amendment that will allow him to fill in wetlands divert waterways and for the mass cutting of our unique Carolinian trees. We as a community need to stop the senseless destruction of our natural habitat and protect the flora and fauna that can't speak for themselves. Let the battle with the Emerald Ash Borer be a grim reminder of the need for stron ealthy, diverse woodlots and for the ongoing need to protect our natural environment J Joseph P DeBruyn CC: Dutton Dunwich Municipal Council C/O Ken Loveland Tree Commissioner Steve Peters MPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - ;;-,..... ,c.· . 1 A 5 April 2004 Dear Counsel, After reading the Draft County of Elgin Woodlands Conservation By-Law No 04 and consùlting with Rob Lindsay I determined I must reply to the draft and make my voice heard. Under General Prohibition 2(a) most landowners are exempt if under section 3(L) they are cutting wood for their own use but not if they are selling the firewood. This by-law is supposed to improve the woodland by sustaining healthy woodlands, regulating maintenance and enhancing aesthetic values of woodlands. But if you are selling the wood (firewood) you must get a forester to come up with a plan before you cut. Can you include in the exemptions - A landowner and family may maintain his woodland provided he uses "Good Forestry Practices", but is exempt rrom ILi(d) ifhe is doing the work himself (family). If the landowner hires someone or contracts someone to do the work then I Li( d) should apply. I asked Mr. Lindsay about dead trees - he says he has no authority over dead trees and trees that have fallen over because of wind and ice. Could we have that in writing. A landowner should also be able to remove trees 1(L)i(a) that are damaged by disease, insects, wind, ice, fire lightning or other natural causes without getting a permit or notifying the Officer in respect of the operation as long as he or family are doing the work themselves. Again if someone else is preforming the work then the by-lay applies. This by-law as it stands now will hinder any improvements made to woodlands because any landowner who does not bum wood who wishes to remove a dying tree or a crowded tree or wishes to trim a tree to make a better log will have to get a professional foresters report and a permit or be fmed. I know, I for one will say to heck with improving my wood lot because after paying land taxes, permit fees, professional forester and paperwork what is left for me but a lot of work. I will just let the trees die and stand there to fall unguided on to other healthy trees, that will look really aesthetically enhance. There should be a provision for the land owner to prune a tree (you call it injure) without a pennit. The by-law does not make any provisions for exemptions for the landowner to trim back woodlands that are encroaching on crop land. Having 10,400 feet (2 miles) of encroaching woodlands under management between me and my Dad I feel this is ~~ 1< \i 7 ~. W concern. ~'c;'iF'!;.¡ 'II \J: ~ \\\\\0'\ / r\) \'''" l\....;. ),--,~ 1-'> u ¡ U -~~'--" u ~L1 ,,-PR 1 S 2.604 - '- - Uñder General Prohibition -Section 2( d)(i) A person shall not destroy or injure any tree that is to remain standing after the destruction or injury of trees is complete. Have you ever cut a tree? If the tree is not standing by itself in the middle of a field you are going to injure other trees, even if it is only a sapling (Delli (u) Tree) when it comes down. This wording has to be changed. 3) under Exemptions If you pass this by-law why shouldn't the by-law apply to section (a) through (k). So they have to pay for a permit to clear some trees before they pay for a permit to build a house, road survey, utility, ex. It is the cost of doing business. You do not mind throwing the cost on to farmers. Section 5 5(a) Should read - Every owner of woodlands or his agent (logger) ...... You are making the owner liahle and responsible for the loggers actions. It is one thing to deal with bad work from a logger but then be fined for it too will make a lot of small land owners refuse to have their bush logged. $10,000.00 will cut deep into any income that may be made by selling a few trees. The fine and charges must state that it will go only to the person or company who is doing the work. The majority of wood lot owners only sell trees once or twice in a lifetime so you have to trust the person performing the work. You can have the logger do the paperwork but that will come off the value of the trees (the price of doing business I guess). Section 2 d(iii) Trimming the tops so they are no more than 2.0 meters after harvesting. I have been told this must be done in order to prevent loggers in the future from creating a new skid way around the old tops. This is a lot of work with no benefit. If you just cut the tops down to 2 m and leave it, the loggers will still go around the tops. You have to remove the bigger branches completely (firewood) and that is a lot of work. Granted you can sell the tops, but the payment you get does not warrant the head aces that occur. I have given wood to people. They only want to come when it is wet and they can not do anything else. So I have been cutting my tops left over from logging my bush for over 2 years and I am still not done. I can see this section turning off older land owners from selling trees. I know I have rambled on but I believe the sovereignty of the land owner over his land to do what he thinks is right to improve his woodland or crop land is very important and every time a bureaucrat picks part of his rights away we all become less of a nation to be proud of and inch closer to 1984. Your Truly, P~M Philip Reid 633-6451 MAYOR Bonnie Vowel 259 M¡ny street Dutton, NoL 1Jo 9WunicipaCity Of IDutton/IDunwicli Box 329, 199 Main Street, DUITON Ontario NoL 1JO Telephone: (s19) 762-2204-FaxNo. (519) 762-2278 Clerk Treasurer .At1mini~trator Ken Loveland DEPUTY MAYOR Cameron McWilliam 28740 Celtic Line RR# 1 Dutton, NoL 1Jo COUNCIlLORS Elizabeth Kornaker 1 Uons Road, Box 214 Dutton, NoL tJo John Yokom 32543 Pioneer Line. RR # 1 Jona Station, NoL!Po Dona1d H. Page 7949 Coyne Road RR # 2 Wallacetown, NoL2Mo April 23, 2004 IF~~~[Q) RECEIVED APR 23 2004 County of Elgin Mark MacDonald 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas,C>ntario NSR SVl .NIl,!>..'1'\!' '''if: r;:' tm1 ;¿UUf~, , \u, i::!..'mt, þJ)M!~!sr¡:¡f~1!1!Æ srffiJl(;tS Dear Mr. MacDonald, Re: Draft County of Elgin woodland Conserv~1:io~ By:'l~w The Council of the Municipality of DuttonjDunwich discussed the above mentioned Draft By- law at their recent meeting after receiving a delegation· of woodlot owners at their recent meeting. After review of the draft by-law, there appears to be numerous concerns, which need to be addressed before this by-law should be adopted. You will find attached a copy of the concerns addressed by the woodlot owners. It is therefore the opinion of Council that a ~OIDmittee should be formed, which includes representatives from woodlot owners. The mandate of this committee should be to start the review process in an attempt to draft a more acceptable proposal. If you have any questions concerning this matter please contact the undersigned. Y~0, Ken Loveland Clerk Treasurer Administrator KL:ht Encl. I . Presentation to Council Thank you for the opportunity to speak today about our concerns with the new draft Woodlands Conservation Bylaw. To prohibit or regulate the destruction or injuring of trees in the County of Elgin The name of this draft bylaw does I!ot even accurately reflect what is happening in our community. Our woodlands are a valuable renewable resource. We are harvesting a forest crop and maiJ1tjining~faim land; not destroying or injuring trees. The past bylaw was put in place to provide a guideline for the harvest of woodlots through a diameter limit and limiting the abiFty to clear land, this is what society asked for. The majority of this draft bylaw is endeavoring to regulate how we harvest our woodlot, requiring us to ask Pèti'!Iission to harvest our crop and pay a user fee for the right to do that harvest. . We as woodlot owners do not feel that this is fair or equitable to call us the user group in this situation because the user is the whole society. Society has demanded forests remain in the landscape and gave municipal governments the tools to implement such bylaws that directly inftinge on a landowners right to use and enjoyment of their property. It must be remembered that most landowners regard their woodlots as a renewable resource and_a crop, albeit a periodic-crop that is harvested on a rate of every 15 or 20 years or more, unlike our annual crops of corn, wheat and beans. We feel that if you Were to compare aerial photographs taken regularly by the Ontario Ministry ofNatura1 Resources over the years you would see that the forest cover in the County of Elgin is increasing. This can be confinned by the fact that every year many landowners plant many trees. They are utilizingprograms of the various agencies that provide trees and advice on planting and species selection. Landowners in Elgin have planted 1,000,000's of trees over the years to provide many kilometers of windbreaks as well as block plantings that have returned fragile and otherwise unproductive lands to forests. . If there were major bylaw problems èxisting in the County of Elgin the Tree Commissioner would b.ave had to deal with more than 2 inftactions in the last 3 years as he has reported. It could probably be found that most infraction of the bylaw have resulted ftom property owners not even knowirig that a Tree Bylaw even existed in Elgin County. The one positive thing that can be said of this draft is the education that has been achieved by this d'ëbate. Most woodlot owners are proud of their woodlot and try to do the best they can to manage them. I don't think you will find a woodlot owner anywhere who doesn't enjoy using their woodlot Observing the animals, birds, insects ect that live in their woodlots, who isn't amazed at the diversity of plant and animal life that exists in our own back yard. If anything through the stewardship of these landowners we are providing a home and food for most of the wild animals and birds that society enjoys, usually at great personal cost to the land owner through crop consumption and damage by these animj18. z. . \1)~cµ..t. In this presentation "him going to outline some of the areas that we have identified as a concern to us and the use of our private property. I will try to work progressively through the document page by page. Wording directly from the draft will be in italics. In the purpose of the by-law you state (a) Preserving and improving the woodland resources of Elgin County through Good Forestry Practices; (b) promoting good forestry practices that StJStain healthy woodlands; (c) mìnìmizing the destruction or ir¡juring «trees; (d) regulating and controUing the remaval, maintenance and protection of trees; and (e) protecting, promoting and enhancing the æstheticvalues of woodlands; All of the above goals are for the bettennent of the community as a whole. The words preserving, minimizing, regulating and protecting are all suggesting that the bylaw is in place to maintain the forest covèr for society as a whole and by going with a pennit and cost recovery system for the enforcement of the tree bylaw you are penalizing the very people who manage and maintain the woodlots in Elgin County. The oruy purpose that has any respect and benefit for the owners of the woodlots is (b) promoting good forestry practices that sustain healthy woodlands. This is the only goal that is similar to the personal objectives of most woodlot and property owners in the County of Elgin. 1. Definitions Please note there are 2 (L) under definitions, these comments pertain to the section (1) starting on page 1 (I) "GoodForestry Practices" means the proper implementation of harvest, renewal and maintenance activities known to be appropriate for the forest and environmental conditions W1der which it is being appliedand that minimize detriments to forest values including significant ecosystems, important fish and wildlijè Jiabitat, soil and water quality and quantity, forest . productivity and health; and the æstheticsand recreational opportunities «the landscape; the wording of concern here is and the aesthetics andrecreational opportunities «the landscape; who does the aesthetics and recreational opportunities most afrect? We feel that this is a socie1al issue being furœd on the landowner. This statement seems to suggest that our woodlots are the public's recreational aÌ'eas. Also in Section (1) there should be some recognition that aKnowledgeable landowner should also be able to do his ownforestmanagement planning 0) "Permit" means the written autlwrizationfrom the Officw All reièmlI to the word permit should be removed from this doctnnent. We have great concern with a permit system. By going with a permit you are claiming the forest resources as a J> . public property. In the dictionary the word permit means give permission, leave or license. We buy permits for our cars to drive on public roads, we buy permits to hunt and fish, and we buy permits to camp or use conservation area properties. In reality with a permit and fee we are buying the right to use public resources. Since when is a private woodlot that landowners pay taxes on, mortgage payments on and care for, first a public resource and then if the permit is issued, a resource that the land owner can make use of (u) "Træ"meansanyßJJeCiesofwoodyperennialplant, including its root system, which has reached or can reoch a height if at least 4.5 meters at physiologilXll maturity. Ow- concerns with 1his definition are: That as soon as a tree seed germinates it is a tree; because it has a root system and can reach a height in excess of 4.5ID. And !hat there are many small trees !hat are early succession tree species. We are always in an ongoing battle with these 1rees in out fencerows, p¡stures, no till fields, non- cropped lands and woodlot edges. Some the smail1rees !hat could be included in this list are S1aghorn Sumac, Manitoba Maple, and the many members of the Hawthorn (thom tree) fàmilyto name ajusta few. (w) "Woodlots" means land at least 0.2 of a hectare up to one hectare in area with at least: i) 1000 trees of any size per hectare; ar This is just slightly more than 200 trees in about a haIf an acre. You could use this definition to include windbreaks and fencerows, especially if they join a woodlot. 2. General Prohibitions The wording under (a) is such that the only person who can mark trees for a harvest of your woodlot is a member ingoodstandingifthe Ontario Prqfessi1Jnal Foresters Association and he has to mark them to the diameter limits stated in Schedule "A". (d) A person shall /'l!)t: (i) destroy or Í1yiJry any tree that is to remain standing after the destruction or i1ýuring if trees is completed; This is an imposibble to attain because when you harvest a woodlot you are going to injure other trees by the process of cutting the trees included in the harvest and skidding the logs. Through proper techniques this injury to the remaining trees can be minimized. 3. Exemutions Under this section there are numerous exemptions for developers, energy transmission companies, pit and quarry operators. There is also an exemption for if you own a woodlot and want to build a house in it. There is no recognition in the exemptions for agriculture. Three very important Provincial Acts that are not recognized here and should be are The Agricultural Practices Protection Act, The Drainage Act and the Agricultural Tile 1- . . Drainage Installation Act. These are both critical activities that are important to production agriculture here in Elgin County. 4. Council Exemntion for Woodland Cleariw!ADDlications (a) In order to be consideredjòr an exemption to Section 2 the owner of the woodlands must apply to the Clerk for an exemption at least 2 months prior to the anticipated commencement of clearing of trees by submitting: The time ftame is quite long for the county to respond ii) an application to clear woodlands greater than I.O hectares must be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Study; This is a very dangerous clause because Council can easily change the woodland size requirement for an Enviro11I!1.enta1 hnpact Study smaller at a latter date. Most all of the landowners who wil1 want to clear areas of this size are exempted ITom this bylaw under section 3 already (b) At least 21 business days prior to consideration of the application for an exemption the Officer shaD send, byregular mail, written notice in the form afSchedule "D" to the applicant and all assessed owners af each parcel afland that abuts the applicant s Woodlands for which an exemption is being sought and to such other persons as prescribed by Councû. (b) Ihe Ojfiçer shall erect and display a public oottce regarding the exemption application at the entranœ to the Woodlands in a posiJion thot ensures thot it is clear and visible to all persons, and the notice shall be in the form of Schedule There are a lot of people out in the community who have lots of time on their hands and feel that they have or should be provided with a right to provide input into my operations. If this type of posting and advertising is put in place we will have to deal with people who think we should never ever cut a tree or clear a small area no matter what the landowners reason. If the process was to become to cumbersome because of nuisance public input you will have more peoplejust 1aking their chances instead offol1owing proper procedures. 5. ADnlication for a Permit To Harvest. Destrov or Iniure 6. ADnlication for Permit Process It is our contention that these two sections should be removed ITom the draft and be completely rewritten to reflect the Notice of Intent system. Through the notice of intent system you will still be requiring landowners and loggers to notify you that a harvest is going to occur. You wil1 be given the appropriate information so that the Tree Commissioner can attend the site of the harvest or contact the landowner to ensure that the goals and intentions of the bylaw are being complied with. " . , ,.. :. ~ . 7. Auueals to the Ontario Municiual Board This section that handles any dispute that a Iandownermay have with the Tree Commissioner. This section takes all handling of such disputes away nom the local level and takes you to the OMB. This section should be the last resort for any conflict that arises nom this bylaw. All disputes should be handled locally through council first, 8. Orders to Discontinue Activitv If you have an infraction that requires an Order to Discontinue Activity you need to make every effort to serve that order. All orders under this section should be delivered in person or by registered mail as well a signage. By sending by regular mail and then deeming the order is served 5 days later is not a firir or equitable situation. By regular mail you have no proof of the party receiving the order, not only that but if you want the work to stop, you want it to stop immediately not 5 days later. 9. Enforcement Under this section we feel that you should be appointing individuals and not positions. This will allow the residents of the county to know the person they are dealing with. If a person becomes unable to perform their duties under this section council can quickly appoint someone else to perform the duties of Tree Commissioner by easily amending the appropriate schedule Schedule "A" We have some concern were the numbers came nom to make up this schedule. First if a tree species isn't listed here can it be harvested? Second we would like to see the science behind the circumference numbers. On first thought they appear to be increasing the diameter limit again. The nwnbers in our draft seem to be larger than some of are neighbors. The soils and climate ofElgin County are vet)' diverse as you travel nom the eastern to western county boundary as well as nom south to north. Trees are not unlike the other crops that we grow. Some grow better on sandy soils that fine clay soils and vice versa. Raising minimwn diameter limits on first thought does not seem to be a bad thing but if you bring in science and experience you will see that increasing diameter limits is detrimental to the forest environment What happens if you increase diameter limits the trees have to grow larger before you can harvest them. Trees grow rnpidly until they are almost mature and then slow down. If the diameter limits are in excess of the ability of the average tree to rapidly grow too you slow down the whole harvest cycle of the woodlot You will then get a forest of predomin:mtly larger trees because you will start to loose the regeneration that is growing in the under story well the large trees are trying to grow that last inch in diameter. The smaller trees growing under these larger trees are out competed for sunlight and moisture. They either die or just stay there barely surviving and grow very little in size. You will now : , þ ... have a nice forest to walk in because you wont have all those little trees in your way. You would think also that these trees that do sUIVÍve the competition and don't die are just sitting there waiting to grow when you finally harvest This is also not the case, these trees are now just old small trees who are past there rapid growth age. Once you get to an even age structure in your woodlot you extend the harvest intervals to a greater time fiame thus lowering the overall productive value of the woodlot Third the requirement of prescriptions for plantations, could a multi row windbreak or shelterbelt comprising of multiple rows of conifers be deemed to be a plantation? Schedule "F" Application to harvest, this pennit application should be completely re written to a Notice of Intent. Below are some of the concerns specific to this page The application asks for roll number of woodland, this means 1 permit per property, The application asks for 911 of woodlot, woodlots don't usually have a number, can an application be refused for no number In the chart in the middle of the page it asks for Volume Estimates: a volume estimate is a number between you, your logger, accountant and revenue Canada and not the tree commissioners or counties business. The other numbers asked for species and number are relevant numbers to aid in verüying a cut. Schedule "R" Annointment of Officers Why so many, It is our understanding that the Municipal Act requires that an individual be named and not a position. In closing our concerns with this document extend to fact that there are many places in this document that are subject to interpretation and changing policy by the county or the contractor who is providing the service. This document gives no respect to the contribution that farmers and landowners give and provide to the natural woodland environment around us willingly and asking for no remuneration. In fact as discussed earlier the forest cover in the county has been increasing because of the contributions of the people you are so wanting to regulate. The document treats us as if we are all out to destroy our woodlots. If this was the case I think we would have had a lot more than 2 inftactions in the last 3 years for the tree commissioner to deal. Finally we hope that you will encoumge the county throw ont this draft bylaw and start over and work with the people who are going to be most affected by the document. To make a made in Elgin document for our community. Thank you for your time today < rrhe Corporation of the 9vfunicipafity of Centra[ 'E[gin 450 Sunset Drive, 1 st Floor, St. Thomas, Ontario N5R 5V1 Ph.519·631·4860 Fax 519'631'4036 April 27th, 2004 Mark McDonald Chief Administrative Officer County of Elgin 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, ON N5R 5V1 Dear Mr. McDonald: Re: Draft County of Elgin Tree By-law Please be advised that Councii discussed the above noted matter at their meeting dated Monday, April 26th, 2004 and the following resolution was passed: WHEREAS: Council held a public meeting to hear the concerns of Central Elgin residents respecting the draft County of Elgin Tree By-iaw on Tuesday, April 13th, 2004; AND WHEREAS: Concerns respecting this draft by-law were identified by Central Elgin residents; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT: The Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Central Elgin recommend to County Council the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee of Stakeholders to address the$e concerns and report back to County Council in 2005; AND FURTHER THAT: All correspondence received by The Municipality of Central Elgin respecting the draft County of Elgin Tree By-law be forwarded to The County of Elgin for their consideration. CARRIED. Further to the above resolution, please find attached correspondence received at our office respecting the proposed draft County of Elgin Tree By-law. If you have any questions or concerns respecting this information, please do not hesitate to contact me at the municipal office. Yours truly, _ ~~ Dianne Wilson Deputy Clerk Attach. r'" . RECEIVED Mac Ferguson RR#2 St. Thomas, ON N5P 3S6 631-4435 , APR 1 9 2004 .\ \ Munici:~ Central Elgin ". PER: IME: ; April 12, 2004 Dave Rock, Mayor of Central Elgin This letter is in response to the "Draft" County of Elgin Woodlands Conservation By-Law No_ 04-. My interest is as a landowner, farmer, tenant farmer and farm manager in the Municipality of Central Elgin. I believe the draft by-law must be struck down. Our businesses regularly have woodlots harvested in compliance with the existing by-law. The current regulations work! The suggested permit process; Section 6 simply creates fees for consultants. The proposed penalties, Section 9 are outrageous. What are the additional costs for landowners with Schedule F? There is no reason for the proposed fees in Schedule G - $75 each time a landowner wants to trim a tree on a different property. As farmers, we trim trees when limbs and/or new growth in&inge on fields. Typically, every 10-15 years field edges are trimmed back. 'This work is done for two reasons, (1) to maintain field size and (2) to prevent machinery damage :from encroaching limbs and new growth. This work is carried out when time is available and environmental conditions are suitable. I find the proposed by-law Orwellian. It is ridiculous that we require a "permit", knowledge of and compliance with "Provincial Silvicultural Guidelines", that the trees in question are marked and cut as part of a woodlands management plan approved by a "Registered Professional Forrester" and provide notice to the tree commissioner simply tò clean up low hanging limbs and new growth along the edge of a field. It is my sincere hope that the Draft Tree By-Law is struck down. Yours truly, t~-= CC members of Council 04/27/2004 14:40 ¥AX 519 769 2837 TUWNSHl¥ U¥ SUUTHWULD Ií!IOUl .¡. 1- TOWNSHIP OF SOUTHWOLD 35663 Finga! Une Rngal. Ontario NOL I KO e-mail: twsouth@execulink.com Telephone: (519) 769-2010 Fax: (519)769-2837 Date: ~;I... Ii ~oo4- To: ~~~Qd/~ ú)b;i.......: I?u.t. I :. ..o~d Fax. No. ~\q) lo3\~ ~Od..1o Number of Pages: a (illcludes this page) MESSAGE: . . j ~ ~C.T~~~Ø. ~ ~ rkltul AOlÑ.!h.b. I~ ¿-~ . '. ~ 400 n~ M<I~ ~,.iJ---k.~".. Sender: David Aristone Scott Woolley CAD-Clerk-Treasurer ¡:¡¡.... Roads Superintendent 0 Tena Michiels Lorne McLeod Deputy Clerk 0 Building Inspector 0 Michele Drewitt Ralph Beharrell Assistant Treasnrer 0 Drainage Superintendent 0 Ida Martin Other: Accounting Clerk 0 0 04tZl/~UU4 i4:41 ¥AÅ ~i~ (n~ Zð31 TUYH'I:).I:U.t' Ul!" :)UUTlnfULlJ ~uv~ ~ ,_ <0; Public Meeting March 8th. 2004 Draft County of Elgin Woodlands Conservation By-law Comments bv Council Do not see the need to hav<;: a Pemrit when current Notice of Intent seems to be worJdng adequately. Why is a 2-month waiting period necessary for obtaining an exemption? Why is signage, 5 days prior and 5 days after, necessary for harvesting activities? Comments bv Public How does tbis by-law affect trees that are damaged or destroyed under activities of the Drainage Act? Are trees planted for the purpose of windbreaks regulated under this by-law? Ifso Why? Why is the permit only good for one year? What about clean up work that you cannot get completed because of weather etc. ie tops of trees could take years to fully finish. Why is $75.00 fee necessary? Why is a permit to approve what I am going to do necessary when notice of intent seems adequate? If pemrit is used will Tree Inspector have to visit every property because of due diligence of process? Should there be a fence viewing approach to the tree inspector's duties? Is logging a bush just a normal fann management practice? If a bush is over more than one property roll number is more than one permit required? Is tapping trees for maple syrup prohibited under this by-law? How will dead and diseased trees be evaluated? Why is an Environmental Impact Study needed to clear woods greater than I hectares if it is only a hedgerow? . . -.:~'" ....:,'0, llichard Lanning 43980 Dexter Line R.R. 1 Union, ON. NOL 2LO ApriI16,~004 The Council Municipality of Central Elgin 450 Sunset Drive, St Thomas, ON. N5R 5Vl Dear Councillors, Thank YOl\ for the opportunity to attend the April 13th council meeting to hear the presentation regarding the draft of the proposed Woodland Consef\lation Bylaw. I am a woodlot owner in Central Elgin and have been actively involve in the management of the bush on our {ann since we purchased the fann in 1984. Prior to that I assisted my father in managing the woodlot going back to the 1960s. . It would appear from Mr. Lindsey's presentation that this bylaw was prepared with input from. the enforcement people, the Professional Foresters who stand to profit from the work it creates for them and from some questioning of loggers. Unfortunately there was no indication in his presentation to indicate any input from the primary stakeholders i.e. the landowners who own the properties and pay taxes on them. My main concern with the bylaw as written is that it appears to be predicated on a model were the landowners sells his logs to a logging company and then leaves it up to the tree commissioner to police the operation. There does not appear to be any consideration given to the fact that many landowners are very proactive in managing their woodlots, both in harvesting for sale and management between cuts. As a landowner I manage the woodlot to optimize production in the same way I would manage any crop I intend to harvest. This by-law as written does not address the landowner as the primary manager of the property as it should. This bylaw draft as written should be discarded and rewritten as a bylaw to aid landowners in managing their woodlots to maintain healthy and economically viable production and to afford protection from unscrupulous loggers. . I agree with the comments made by Mr. Walters.The current bylaw does not expire until 2006 and that certainly leaves ample time to return to the drawing board, but this time with input from the landowne\s. I have att<tçhed a list outlining the specific areas the draft bylawwhich in my opinion sh()uld be revised. Thank you for your consideration in this matter_ Yours truly, ~9 r ... I Areas of concern of the proposed Woodlands conservation bylaw: 1. Section c. of the purpose of the bylaw should be deleted and changed to the purpose of maximizing the economic value of woodlots while minimizing the illegal and unnecessary destruction or injury of trees. As written this states the purpose of the bylaw is to minimize the destruction and injury of trees and since the bylaw defines harvesting as destruction or injury as written it becomes a bylaw to minimize harvesting. 2. Section 2. General Prohibition: subsection a, pa.r(i1hould expand good forestry practises to include, the practice of good forestry practices under the direction of the owner for the purpose of improving the future productivity ofthe woodlot. The bylaw as proposed does not allow the owner to practice good forestry practices in maintaining the woodlot without hiring a projèssional forester. The owner should have the ultimate say when it comes to eliminating substandard trees to enhance productivity. Having to hire aforester to prescribe that a tree is unhealthy or too close to others and should be removed is an expense the owner should not be force to bear. Projèssional foresters can provide a great service to the owner but since their service comes at the owners expense it should also be at the owners option. 3. Section 2 d (i) A person shall not destroy or injure any tree that is to remain standing after destruction or injury of trees is completed. It is impossible to not do some damage to remaining timber when logging. The bylaw should apply to unnecessary and excessive damage both to remaining timber and the woodlot itself. Leaving skidder ruts 3 feet deep is more damaging to the area and poses a far greater danger when left behind than tops over 2 metres in height. 4. Section 5 Application for a Pennit to Harvest, Destroy or Injure should be replaced by a notice of intent to harvest. The responsibility for the notice should be with the person cutting the trees and no fee should be charged. The current draft makes the owner responsible to apply for the permit and as such would be the only person that can be charged under the bylaw. This is hardly a fair situation for someone expecting the logger to look after things. Also there is a vast difference between the notice of intent and having to apply for permission to harvest in terms of the property rights of the owner. 5. Section 3 m This section should be changed to exempt the cutting of20 trees not 20 logs. At your meeting Mr Lindsey indicated that this was 20 logs that could be loaded on a truck This is hardly a practical measure in that there are 53 foot trailers on the road today and I am certain that once a log is sold it is certainly outside the jurisdiction of this bylaw what it is cut into later. Using 20 trees would clarifý this area. .. "',-_..- .-~......' . , . . 6. Section 6 Application for Permit Process should be scraped along with the Application for the permit. There is no requirement for the Tree Commissioner to respond to an application for a permit within a set time limit. If the commissioner was too busy, off sick and not replaced or just plain did not like the applicant he or she could delay the application by inaction with no recourse by the owner. The harvest to trees with minimal damage is often weather dependant so timing is often critical. This alone is good cause to return to a notice of intent. 7. Section 7 Appeals to Ontario Municipal Board section should be revised particularly as it pertains to harvesting timber. This portion to the bylaw should be revised to allow for a simpler method for resolving disputes under the harvesting portion of the bylaw. The cost of a municipal board hearing in many cases could exceed the value of timber in question. An appeal process to a committee appointed by council should be able to resolve most disputes under the harvesting section with the municipal board as a last resort. Coriflicts on clearing larger acreages become more complex due to the possible efficts on watersheds, wind erosion in a4joining areas on surrounding properties and it may require a different process. 8. Schedule "F" should not require the species and volumes to be listed. This is a revenue related item which I believe is between the landowner and Revenue Canada. This is an outline of some of the areas of concern I have with the proposed bylaw that should be revised. As pointed out at this meeting this is a busy time for fanners and the best idea on this bylaw would be to rewrite it with input from the landowners this time around. The bylaw as written does nothing to protect the landowner from dishonest loggers who cut trees that are not marked or leave the fann without paying for the timber they have removed. Perhaps licensing of loggers to keep fly by night operations out of the area would be of more use than a new bylaw controlling landowners. Richard Lanning -. .J&l rð..V~ ~-"-=s Ontaño - """".:':"~""'~":.:~'!?'''":''"0:.~.~.Jfq ._...~....._.~_ '-·'c.....,_..,.,.._,." ,', Steve Peters, M.P.P. Elgin - Middlesex - London RE~~~~~\'J.ebj JUL 20 2UO~ ~~t}~f'G~'J- g~t I~~ SR~ f'"IT;~~~BJ~1[)fz:i~f!\"#;::] July 16, 2004 Honourable David Ramsay Minister of Natural Resources Whitney Block, 6th Floor, Room 6630 99 Wellesley Street West Toronto, ON M7 A 1 W3 Dear Minister: Please find enclosed a letter ITom Mr. D.K. Wood, a St. Thomas resident who has concerns regarding a proposed tree-cutting bylaw that is in development by the County of Elgin. Minister, I would appreciate your reviewing the letter and responding directly to Mr. Wood, As always, thank you in advance for your time and consideration. Sincerely, ~~ Steve Peters, M.P.P. Elgin-Middlesex -London Cc: Mr. D.K. Wood, 10 Erinlea Drive, St. Thomas, Ontario, N5R 5N8 County of Elgin www.stevepeters.com , MaySth 2004 Steve Peters, M.P.P. Elgin -Middlesex-London 542 Talbot St., St, Thomas Ontario. N5P lC4 1Pd~©~OW'~fI2) MAY 1 0 20(14 i ....-...~____ ------ Re: PROPOSED TREE BY-LAW ELGIN COUNTY This letter is in reply to our conversation at the Elgin County Railway Museum in regards to the captionally noted subject. There is currently a Tree By-Law Committee being established by the Elgin County Council to study a recommended wording for a Tree Cutting By-Law. This By-Law is made from an MNR template and is identical to those proposed to other County and Regional Governments. Its acceptance has had a variety of responses, with a number of Counties establishing committees to study its contents. The wording in the proposal is very similar to the wording in The Forestry ActR.S.O. 1990 Chapter F26. The proposed By-Law legislation tends to be to all inclusive. At one extreme it concerns persons needing to remove trees for construction purposes, This may require site plans and Environmental studies. At the other extreme is a land owner with a small bush who wishes to harvest some mature trees to supplement his annual income. I am not sure that the County needs to enact legislation that parallels Provincial Legislation, or may conflict with local building codes. There are numerous Woodlot Associations across Ontario who's members practice what the Ministry of Natural Resources calls Woodlot Conservation, Elgin County has a Stewardship Council and are members ofthis Association. Membership is voluntary and the MNR regards involvement in Woodlot management Programs as voluntary and no legislation exists covering these programs. There is an over site body for these woodlot associations who produce newsletters and other valuable infonnation for its members and the public to view on the computer. This infonnation includes training such as "Tree Marking" which is necessary for harvesting mature trees in woodlots, Much of the infonnation is consistent with Elgin County's two Conservation Authorities objectives and in some instances they appear to overlap. The Woodlot Associations and the Registered Professional Foresters Association appear to be the impetus behind the proposed Tree By-Law legislation. This can be seen from the following infonnation taken from the computer web site for the OPF A. Page 2 The foIlowing is a quote rrom the OPF A regarding private land. "Municipal Tree Cutting Bylaw- A draft Template for Forestry Conservation By-Laws [pdf file] Private Land Forestry Committee [pLFN] minutes." "PRIVATE LAND FORESTRY COMMITTEEINETWORK The Network was formed to address issues surrounding private land forestry in Ontario, The Network developed the brochure "Your Woodlands - A Registered Professional Forester Can Help" The Networks main functions are to: Provide a focal point within the Association to address issues involving private land forestry; Inform members of developments and trends involving private land forestry; Assess needs for the expertise of Registered Professional Foresters in the management of private forest lands; Promote the value of Registered Professional Foresters in the management of private forests lands; and promote high standards of forestry practices on private forest lands to governments, other organizations, land owners and the general public." The objectives noted above are honorable but self serving as well. Compliance with many aspects of the legislation submitted to the Elgin County Council could not be completed by most of the people the legislation is designed to control. Many of the procedures in the proposed by-law are complex. A land owner could harvest twenty trees for his own use. A land owner wishing to harvest more than twenty mature trees for sale would need a Registered Professional Forester to prepare a cutting plan and complete the paper work to stay within the standards established in the By-Law. This could amount to a considerable amount of money for the land owner. Literature found on the computer shows that Conservation Authorities in Ontario have a network of thirty six [36] cornmunity based organizations. These organizations fall under the Conservationist Authorities Act R.S,O. 1990, C.27. The Provincial Government and the Conservation Authorities have entered into a memorandum of Understanding on Procedures to Address Conservation Authority Delegated Responsibility. This authority includes participating with Municipalities in planning for natural hazards, flood plains, rivers and land management, And in fact they do work together on many projects. , ~ þ- Page 3 The Conservation Authorities are well supported by local residents, business and other organizations. The Conservation Authorities provide free hands on learning activities such as tree planting and outings for youth in the communities they serve, and are available to provide other free information locally. The Conservation Authorities have tree inspectors to oversee those harvesting of forest products and provide assistance to landowners. Any information not available from the Conservation Authorities is available from the Ministry of Natural Resources in Aylmer or on the internet. Logging operations in Elgin County are small operations in comparison with eastern and northern Ontario. Most of the logging here involves hardwood species, some of veneer grade, some saw log grade and some pallet logs. There are only two stationary sawmills and a few portable band saw mills in operation in Elgin County. There are only a limited amount of woodlots were any major logging operations could take place. There is currently a county tree cutting bylaw enforced by the CCCA staff. One of the main areas not covered in the proposed legislation is ingress and egress to the woodlots where logs are to be harvested, nor a location on the venders property where the cut trees can be taken, laid out and graded. A decision can then be made as to the best place to cut the tree to obtain the optimum value ofthe logs. It is not until this process has taken place that the true value of the logs can be determined. Marking standing trees suitable for harvesting is only the first step in the process. Ifthere is no market for a species why cut it. Farmers place their grains and other crops in storage to await the optimum time to sell them. Woodlots are a crop and should also be harvested at a time when their value is highest. A further concern for the landowner is the practice or Registered Professional Foresters marking woodlots, identifying the species and quantity of trees and sending out letters for loggers to bid on with the proviso that the bids are returned to the Forester rather tha.'1 the landowner. As you noted in our conversation the landowner does not have to sell his trees, but he should have first look at the bids submitted by the loggers. The proposed by-law wants to restrict any cutting of trees under a certain size. The University of Guelph Ontario Safety Policy Manual [policy 851.07.10] Effective September 2000 sets out certain guide lines for chainsaw use and felling trees, This policy stems from the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act, O. Reg. 851 R.R.O. 1990 Industrial Regulations. Sections 39, 61, 79-84,108. 109 are the applicable sections of this legislatiQQ. Under the term 'Relevant Standards" it refers to ANSI [American National St¡µ1dards Institute] Standard 13 3,1-1994, Pruning, Trimming, Repairing, Maintenance, and Removing Trees and Cutting Brush - Safety Requirements. · Page 4 There is much more information available for consideration before Elgin County decides on a tree cutting policy, however I feel that the sponsors of this legislation have self interest as a motive for submitting the By-Law proposal. There is existing Provincial legislation covering all the areas ofthe document submitted to the Elgin County Council. The MNR have a Registered Professional Forester working in the MNR office in Aylmer. He is an employee of the Government of Ontario. His salary is paid from tax money collected from Ontario tax payers. Woodlot owners needing the services of a Registered Professional Forester are also paying property taxes. Any technical services they need should be paid from these two tax bases. A committee established by the Council can present any updates that the Municipal Act may require. Any amendments the Committee recommends to the present by-law should make it more representative of the needs of Elgin County. ( , '. T April 21, 2004 Elgin County Tree Commissioner c/o Kettle Creek Conservation Authority 44015 Ferguson Line St, Thomas ON N5P 3T3 Dear Sir I am writing this note in opposition to the proposed draft tree by-law. I question the need for a document of this nature for two main reasons. The current by-law has met my needs as a land owner and secondly the range and scope of the proposed draft will be extremely time consuming and expensive to administer in the future. It will create a very negative working relationship between the land owners and the municipality of Central Elgin. In reading the document I was unable to find a clear and concise reason for creating such burdensome by-law. It was stated that the document was a response to ministry demands but I understand, and I stand to be corrected, that other regional municipalities have not gone ahead with this type of proposed enforcement. As a landowner it is in my best interest to manage my woodlot in a responsible fashion as it has produced a valuable crop of logs for me every fifteen to twenty years. Unfortunately I was unable to attend the April 13th meeting but I am very much against the proposed draft by-law. ?, ,1 ""' , ¡ //--'/¡!,}/1 'v', ..1 í L \",::/ b- 'I, Tom Martin 45254 Edgeware Line 631-1369 //i,.:;f7.-fi?.---.,__,._ ;¡ ,I i /,/\; /1 " i. f"-......-'--"~._ ¡"i/) "-"v-,,j ~ 'I ¡,; V IJ '/ ' ~ -;~<-/ -~ · r Page 1 of5 Kettle Creek Conservation Authority 44015 Ferguson Line, R.R. 8, 51. Thomas, Ontario N5P 3T3 Telephone: (519) 631-1270 Fax: 631-5026 email: kettleca@execulink.com "People in harmony with nature" May 6, 2004 Warden Dave Rock And Members of County Council The County of Elgin 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, Ontario N5R 5Vl Dear Sir: Subiect: Draft Woodlands Conservation Bv-Law Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the subject By-Law. Initially, the Board would commend the County of Elgin for its most successful past and current efforts at conserving woodlands. We note that a tree conservation By-Law is optional, and not a requirement of a municipality under the Municipal Act. We are assured that Council will carefully weigh the needs of all woodlot owners in the County in order that conservation of woodlots can be reasonably attained. While a local board of a municipality, such as a Conservation Authority, is exempt from the draft By-Law, the Board believes that Kettle Creek Conservation Authority should be nonetheless subject to the same standards and intent of the By- Law as any other organization or individual in the County. KCCA's comments are therefore based upon our conservation and fmancial interests as owners of some 1,000 acres of woodlot. We generally have concerns that the proposed By-Law template, which we understand was developed at the provincial level for the use of County Tree Commissioners throughout the province in their preparation of draft By-Laws. It appears that the draft Elgin County By-Law places potentially significant requirements upon landowners under the term "good forest management practices" . @ Printed on Recycled Paper Page 2 of 5 The Municipal Act, 2001, stipulates that (section 135 (5)), "in passing a by-law regulating or prohibiting the destruction of trees in woodlands, a municipality shall have regard to good forestry practices as defmed in the Forestry Act, 2001.". "Good Forestry Practices" is defined in the Forestry Act, 2001, as: "good forestry practices means the proper implementation of harvest, renewal and maintenance activities known to be appropriate for the forest and environmental conditions under which they are being applied and that minimize detriments to forest values including significant ecosystems, important fish and wildlife habitat, soil and water quality and quantity, forest productivity and health and recreational opportunities of the landscape". However, "Good Forestry Practices" is further defined in the template By-Law, to include among other items, cutting in accordance with provincial silvicultural guidelines (which do not recommend circumference cut standards) and trees that are marked and cut as part of a woodlands management plan approved by a Registered Professional Forester. Simply put, the escalation of costs to manage a woodlot through professional foresters, albeit to some later fmancial gain by the landowner, combined with the escalating assessment values of woodlots under Managed Forest Tax Incentive Program, and dropping farmland incomes, form significant detractors in the conservation of woodlots by private landowners. In this way, the draft By-Law could work against its own end purpose of woodlands conservation. We suggest that the draft Elgin By-Law be amended by defining Good Forestry Practices according to the definition within the Forestry Act, 2001, with no additional qualification and restriction. Further in adherence to the Forestry Act, we suggest the By-Law be termed as one for "harvest, destruction or injury of woodlands in the County of Elgin". It is our beliefthat the Forestry Act's definition of "Good Forestry Practices" (see above) would permit the use of this By-Law title. Given this, each time the term "destroy or injure" occurs in the draft By-Law, the term harvest should be added. Alteruatively, the By-Law title could be "harvest, renewal and maintenance". The Board also respectfully submits the following comments for your consideration: 1. Under Section 2, a) and b), we suggest the following revisions to conjunctions and wording to clarify the circumstances wherein a landowner must contract the services of a member of the Ontario Professional Forester's Association (OFA). We understand the difference is reflected in two basic harvest options: basal area cut (OFA member required to determine good forestry practice of a basal cut - a new By-Law feature); and circumference cut (OFA member not required, as no basal area determination is required - as per current By-Law). . , .. ¥.; . , Page 3 of5 The suggested wording for a revision is: " a) (quote) Except as provided in Section 3, no person through their own actions or through any other person shall harvest, destroy or injure any living tree, as specified on Schedule 'A', unless: i) The person who is harvesting, destroying or injuring trees does so in accordance with Good Forestry Practices as prescribed by: a) a Registered Professional Forester; or b) a member in good standing of the Ontario Professional Foresters Association; and c) has the accompanying documentation for the prescription; and d) the harvest, destruction or injury of trees will not reduce the basal area in that part of the woodlands, where trees have been harvested, destroyed or injured below 14m2/ha, and, e) the person who is harvesting, destroying or injuring trees has abided by the requirements of Section 5. OR ii) The person who is harvesting, destroying or injuring trees, has only harvested, destroyed or injured those trees which have attained, at the specified point of measurement, the Circumference measurement which equals or is greater than the minimum Circumference prescribed for the species in Schedule "A"; and iii) the harvest, destruction or injury of trees will not reduce the number of trees per hectare below the minimum number of trees per hectare required to be considered woodlands; and iv) the person who is harvesting, destroying or injuring trees has abided by the requirements of Section 5. (unquote) " We believe the above provides two clear paths to the requirements of a landowner, depending upon the method of harvest, destruction or injury contemplated. The exclusion of basal area determination from a circumference cut application is 'proposed to relieve the necessity of a landowner requiring such a judgement by a member of the OF A. Further comments on Section 2 are: " 2b) No person through their own actions or through any other person ( quote) shall: i) fail to comply with an Order issued under this By-Law or Page 4 of 5 ii) remove or deface any Order that has been posted pursuant to this By-Law; or iii) contravene the terms or conditions of a Permit issued under this By-Law. (unquote) " 2. Similarly, under Section 2 d), I anticipate that each point, i) through iü), should be followed by an "or". Further, under Section 2 d) i): we recommend the insertion of the word "unnecessarily" before the phrase "destroy or injure any tree" ... 3. Regarding 2 d) iii): This section appears to apply to the cutting of deadwood, which may be beyond the scope ofthe By-Law. 4. With regard to Section 3, "Exemptions", we recommend: a) the inclusion of: "a designed, planted and fully maintained windbreak or windrow". This would support continued planting and maintenance of these necessary features, for land conservation purposes. b) a change to clause (I) to: "the owner of the woodlands that is harvested, destroyed or injured trees for his or her own use." 5. With regard to Section 6 a): we anticipate that each point, i) through iv), should be followed by an "or". Item vi) is a stand alone provision after the decision is made to not review an application or issue a permit. With regard to the preamble to 6. a), the wording should be: "Applications for a Permit will not be reviewed or a permit issued if:" 6. Regarding Section 7 and appeals to the OMB, and for the purpose of conforming to the existing By-Law enforcement protocol, the term "municipality" should be removed and the word "Council" inserted. 7. Regarding the fee schedule, and in recognition of the County's intent to conserve woodlots, Council may wish to consider a reduced fee for landowners who have invested funds to have their woodlots marked by a member of Ontario Forestry Association. This would encourage enhanced revenue generation by landowners over the long term, and enhanced woodlot conservation, while making allowance for landowner input costs to the harvest. 8. Regarding Section 11, reference to the No Net Loss Policy for forest cover could be made, as a Schedule to the By-Law. , . . · Page 5 of5 ~ With revisions, the draft By-Law appears to be complementary to the existing By- Law. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. 6~' B"onD':~ General Manager / Secretary Treasurer Cc: Rob Lindsay, Elgin County Tree Commissioner