/
     
December 14, 2004 Agenda PETER DUTCHAK, C.E.T, Manager of Road Infrastructure 450 Sunset Drive S!. Thomas, Ontario N5R 5V1 Phone (519) 631-1460 ex!. #4 Fax (519) 631-4297 CLAYTON WATTERS, BASe., P.Eng. Director of Engineering Services 20050114 Mr. Steve Peters, MPP 542 Talbot Street, St. Thomas, Ontario N5P 1C4 Re: Canada-Ontario Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund (COMRIF) County of Elgin - Sunset Road Rehabilitation Project Application , Please find attached to this letter a copy of the electronic application that the County of Elgin has submitted for the COMRIF program. County Council has stated that the rehabilitation of Sunset Road from the south limits of the City of St. Thomas to Bridge Street within the Village of Port Stanley (being a total of 11 kilometres) is the County of Elgin's highest infrastructure priority. Sunset Road was downloaded from the Province to the County of Elgin in 1998 and is the County's third busiest road with a daily traffic volume of 10,000 vehicles. During the summer long weekends, this stretch of roadway is the County's busiest with daily traffic volume in excess of 14,000. The County of Elgin is facing a backlog of road infrastructure needs totaling more than $130 Million dollars. Without funding programs such as COMRIF, the County cannot address these needs if solely funded by the County's taxpayers. With only $4 Million dollars allocated annually towards all road capital projects, this proposed $7 Million dollar project would require years of construction to complete without additional funding while neglecting other needs. County Council would therefore like to thank you for your support of this program and assisting municipalities with infrastructure needs. ...2 Page 2 Re: Canada-Ontario Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund (COMRIF) County of Elgin - Sunset Road Rehabilitation Project Application Supporting information that has accompanied our application (including technical schedules, engineering reports and questionnaires) has not been included in this package, however, if you wish to receive any of this information please do not hesitate to have your staff contact our offices. Yours truly, Peter Dutchak, C.E.T. Manager of Road Infrastructure County of Elgin Engineering Services CC. James A. McIntyre, Warden, County of Elgin COMRIF.doc PETER DUTCHAK, C.E.T. Manager of Road Infrastruclure 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, Ontario N5R 5V1 Phone (519) 631-1460 ex1. #4 Fax (51H) 631-4297 CLAYTON WATTERS, BASc., P.Eng. Director of Engineering Services 20050114 Mr, Joe Preston, M.P, Constituency Office, 24 First Ave" Unit 2, St. Thomas, Ontario NSP 1C4 Re: Canada-Ontario Municipal Rural Infrastructure Furid (COMRIF) County of Elgin - Sunset Road Rehabilitation Project Application Please find attached to this letter a copy of the electronic application that the County of Elgin has submitted for the COMRIF program. County Council has stated that the rehabilitation of Sunset Road from the south limits of the City of St. Thomas to Bridge Street within the Village of Port Stanley (being a total of 11 kilometres) is the County of Elgin's highest infrastructure priority, Sunset Road was downloaded from the Province to the County of Elgin in 1998 and is the County's third busiest road with a daily traffic volume of 10,000 vehicles. During the summer long weekends, this stretch of roadway is the County's busiest with daily traffic volume in excess of 14,000. The County of Elgin is facing a backlog of road infrastructure needs totaling more than $130 Million dollars. Without funding programs such as COMRIF, the County cannot address these needs if solely funded by the County's taxpayers. With only $4 Million dollars allocated annually towards all road capital projects, this proposed $7 Million dollar project would require years of construction to complete without additional funding while neglecting other needs. County Council would therefore like to thank YQu for your support of this program and assisting municipalities with infrastructure needs. ...2 Page 2 Re: Canada-Ontario Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund (COMRIF) County of Elgin - Sunset Road Rehabilitation Project Application Supporting information that has accompanied our application (including technical schedules, engineering reports and questionnaires) has not been included in this package, however, if you wish to receive any of this information please do not hesitate to have your staff contact our offices. Yours truly, Peter Dutchak, C.E.T. Manager of Road Infrastructure County of Elgin Engineering Services cc. James A. McIntyre, Warden, County of Elgin COMRIF.doc ~ ,- Ontario Steve Peters, M.P.P. Elgin - Middlesex - London February 4, 2005 Honourable úavid Caplan Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal Mowat Block, 6th Floor 900 Bay Street Toronto, ON M7A lC2 Dear Ministers: Please fmd attached a letter rrom Mr. Peter Dutchak, Manager of Road Infrastructure for the County of Elgin. Please also fInd enclosed a hard copy of the County's electronic application to the Canada-Ontario Municipal Rural Inrrastructure Fund program for the estimated $7 million Sunset Road reconstruction and improvement project. As you are likely aware, Sunset Road was downloaded by the Province of Ontario by the previous government to the County in 1998. This road is vital to the economic well-being of my riding as it is the main link rrom the City of St. Thomas to the number one tourist destination in my riding, Port Stanley. Thousands of people rrom throughout Southwestern Ontario flock to Port Stanley's beaches, restaurants and other businesses in the summer months to enjoy what this jewel of the north shore of Lake Erie has to offer. Minister, I strongly support the Sunset Road reconstruction and improvement project and I hope it qualifIes for funding under the COMRIF initiative. I would appreciate you and your staff gìving this project due consideration and responding directly to the County of Elgin. As always. thank you in advance for your time and consideration. Sincerely, ~~ Steve Peters, M.P.P. Elgin-Middlesex-London Cc: Mr. Peter Dutchak, Manager of Road Infrastructure, County of Elgin Warden Jim McIntyre, County of Elgin RECEiVED FEB 0 92005 542 Talbot Street. St. Thomas. ON· N5P 1 C4 T - (519) 631-0666 Toll free. 1-800-265-7638 F - (519) 631-9478 TTY _ (519) 631-9904 E- speters.mpp.co@IîberaI.ola.org www.stevepeters.com Print View Pagel of 1 From: Date: <COMRIF@mah.gov.on.ca> Friday - January 21, 2005 The Canada-Ontario Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund (ÇOMRIF) Joint Secretariat has received your COMRIF application, including a business case, technical schedule, climate change questionnaire a,nd municipal council resolution. We will review your application in the coming weeks and, if necessary, notify you of any outstanding information requirements. Thank you for submitting an application under the Canada-Ontario Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund. http://maiLelgin-county.on,ca/servletlwebacc?User.context=mmcqzIUecjnfqfbDif&action...1/24/2005 ELGIN COUNTY COUNCIL ORDERS OF THE DAY TUESDAY, DECEMBER 7TH, 2004 - 7:00 P.M. SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING ON CANADA-ONTARIO MUNICIPAL RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE FUND (COMRIFl 1. Meeting Called To Order 2. Disclosure Of Pecuniary Interest And The General Nature Thereof 3. Motion To Move Into The Committee Of The Whole Council 4' REPORTS: Director of Engineering Services - Canadian Ontario Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund - COMRIF (Attached) 5. Motion To Adopt Recommendation From The Committee Of The Whole Council 6. Confirmation By-Law 7. ADJOURNMENT REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Clayton Watters, Director of Engineering Services DATE: December 3,2004 SUBJECT: Canada Ontario Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund - COMRIF Introduction On November 15, 2004 the Federal and Provincial Governments signed the much anticipated agreement to meet the infrastructure needs of smaller communities. This is a five year $900 million program to communities with populations less than 250,000. There are three intakes to this program: Intake One is January 10, 2005, Intake Two is targeted for spring of 2005 and Intake three is targeted for spring of 2006. This report will discuss the infrastructure priorities for the County of Elgin so that a compelling application can be submitted before the Intake One submission deadline. Discussion: COMRIF is a competitive, merit based process using three key criteria to evaluate projects. These criteria are: the need for the project based on health, the value for the money of the project and the quality of the project based on public policy priorities. The COMRIF application is detailed, lengthy and includes the following components: application form and business case, appropriate technical schedules including a questionnaire on climate change and asset management, other relevant information and a council resolution endorsing project as the highest infrastructure priority. 433 Ontario municipalities are eligible for funding in this competitive programme and $360 Million (or 40% of the entire COMRIF programme dollars) is available for distribution under Intake One. The funding formula is similar to previous funding programmes and is split equally between the Federal, Provincial and Municipal governments. A goal of the COMRIF programme is to have application approvals within 90 days of the Intake submission deadline. Intake Two parameters and application guidelines will not be released until Intake One applications have been awarded. Candidly, Ministry staff have suggested that Intake One may be a less competitive process due to the time available to have applications submitted. This is pure speculation by Ministry staff, however, it is logical statement when understanding the amount of information and. time required (i.e. Environmental Assessments) in order to submit a complete application. There are 10 eligible infrastructure project sectors that may be applied for, however, Intake One will prioritize applications that have chosen a project within the following five (5) categories: Water, Wastewater, Solid Waste Management and Roads and Bridges. In addition to prioritizing applications within the above listed sectors, at least 55% of the funding released under Intake One will be given to project applications for "green infrastructure" (water, wastewater and solid waste management). It is also possible that 100% of the approved applications for Intake One would be given to "green infrastructure" projects. Some additional COMRIF information must be understood before the County selects a project. Eligible projects must: · Create or improve public infrastructure. · Be consistent with eligible project types. · Be owned by the County and within our area of responsibility. · Not have started any physical construction. · Demonstrate the ability to operate and maintain infrastructure over the long term. · Comply with section 9 of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001. · Meet requirements of all applicable Federal and Provincial legislation. · Have a construction completion date no later than March 31, 2009. · Must have a Council resolution indicating the application is the County's highest priority. It should also be noted that, if an Environmental Assessment is required, it must at a stage where the preferred option is selected. This precludes some proposed County infrastructure projects (i.e. Dexter Line Relocation). The following section of this report will outline major infrastructure priorities for the County of Elgin. Throughout the discussion, staff has attempted to explain which projects would be eligible under COMRIF. Wastewater Category 1. The only project under the responsibility of the County of Elgin for this category is the replacement of the wastewater treatment plant at the Elgin Manor. Engineering will be completed by March 1, 2005 and the construction completed by September 30. It is anticipated the project will be operational by October 31, 2005. The project is estimated at $850,000 for construction and $150,000 for engineering for a total cost of $1,000,000. An Environmental Assessment is not required. This project will not be financed though our capital program but rather through our bank financing, similar to the Health Unit and the new Elgin Manor. Staff believes this project qualifies and may be a good candidate for our application given that it represents "green infrastructure". Council should be aware that a project of this nature may be given a higher priority than a road or bridge project. Road Category 1. The first option is the major rehabilitation of Sunset Road in Central Elgin from the City of St. Thomas limits to Bridge Street in Port Stanley. An Environmental Assessment is not required for this project, however, public information meeting(s) will be held with the affected property owners. The engineering is 75% complete and staff have estimated the cost at $6,750,000 for the road surface and drainage improvements. Staff would propose three phases to this project: in phase one staff would hold public meeting(s), petition for two municipal drains and complete the engineering in 2005, phase two would complete all drainage works in 2006 and phase three would involve the road surface rehabilitation in 2007. Staff believes this project qualifies under the COMRIF guidelines and represents a significant investment. Engineering costs to date (approximately $120,000) are not eligible for funding as these expenditures occurred before the November 15, 2004 launch date. 2. A second road project option is the reconstruction of Glen Erie Line in Bayham. The Environmental Assessment is complete but no engineering has started on the new County Road 42 or Glen Erie Line. Presently, Glen Erie Line is still under the jurisdiction of the Municipality of Bayham. Once the road is transferred to the County of Elgin the new County Road will require a new bridge, a deck removal (replaced with a ·Iarge culvert for access for the trails) of the railway overpass and reconstruction of 6.8 kilometers of Glen Erie Line and additional 2 kilometers of Elgin County Road 55. This project has been estimated at $6,000,000 for a road designed to county standards with a 30 meter right-of-way, 7.5 meters road surface with an additional 3 meter shoulder, 600 mm of granular construction and 100 mm of hot mix asphalt road surface. Another alternative to the road design (which has an MDT of only 600) is a 20 metre right-of-way, 7.5 meter road surface with 1 meter shoulder width, 300 mm of granular construction and a double high float surface. The two bridges will require the same construction as mentioned in the first option. Using these reduced design parameters, the project is estimated at $2,500,000. Staff would recommend that the second alternative would be acceptable for this section or roadway based on the traffic volumes and road usage. This project is presently on the five-year capital program beginning in 2006 for engineering of the bridge replacement and approach reconstruction. 3. A third option is Miller Road in the Municipality Dutton/Dunwich. This section of County Road is in an urban setting within in the Village of Dutton. Miller Road is scheduled to be reconstructed in 2009 and the engineering is 10% complete. This project is estimated at $1,200,000 and an Environmental Assessment is not required. 4. A fourth option is the major rehabilitation of Talbot Line in the Municipalities West Elgin and Dutton/Dunwich. An Environmental Assessment is not required and no professional services have been allocated for this project. This project is presently not on the five- year capital program and an Environmental Assessment is not required. 5. Finally a fifth road project consideration is the relocation of Dexter Line in the Municipality of Central Elgin and, the Township of Malahide. The Environmental Assessment is presently scheduled to begin in 2006 with an anticipated completion in 2008. Under the guidelines for Intake One, the project must be construction ready, therefore, this project will not qualify. The Environmental Assessment is presently on the five-year capital program. Bridge Category 1. Consideration one is the deck replacement of the Vienna North Bridge on Plank Road in the Municipality of Bayham. This project tender has been awarded to Facca Incorporated with a project cost of $1,200,000. The construction is scheduled to begin in February 2005 with completion by June 2005. The contractor is diligently working on starting the project for January 24, 2005 and the precast beams for the bridge have been ordered. This is the second time this project has been tendered and if the County of Elgin was to delay the start of this project the contractor could possibly seek compensation for our delays. No costs that have been incurred prior to November 15, 2004 are eligible for funding in the COMRIF program. Because physical construction cannot commence before an approved funding agreement is executed, this project is not a reasonable candidate. 2. A second option is the replacement of the New Sarum Bridge on Belmont Road in the Municipality of Central Elgin. The engineering is 75% complete and is scheduled to be tendered in January 2005 for completion by the fall of 2005. This project has not been approved for funding by the County of Elgin but is in the 2005 capital program. The project is estimated at $850,000. This is an eligible funding option, however, staff believes other considerations have a stronger funding argument. 3. The third option is the replacement of the Black Creek Hill Bridge on Plank Road in the Municipality of Bayham. Engineering is scheduled for 2007 with the bridge replacement in 2008. This is an ,eligible funding option, however, staff believes other considerations have a stronger funding argument. 4. A fourth option is one, some or all of the five weight restricted bridges or posted bridges. These are: Vienna, Gillets, Jamestown, Meeks and Fulton Bridges. These structures are all more than 80 years old and all are in need of replacement to remove the weight restriction. No engineering has been completed on the bridge replacements and these projects are not on the five-year capital plan. It may be possible to "bundle" many of these structures under one application. It has been confirmed with the COMRIF technical review personnel that bridges within a bundled application will be assessed individually using the Bridge Sufficiency Index. SUMMARY Considering all of the above information, staff have concluded that the Sunset Road Rehabilitation project, being one of the largest capital expenditures and serving thousands of vehicles per day, qualifies as our highest priority. The County of Elgin received Sunset Road, 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 summer weekend traffic on this section nears 13,000 vehicles 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. Engineering for this project is 75% complete. Phase One would involve the completion of the engineering, petitioning for two municipal drainage outlets and have Public Information Meetings in 2005 with this phase estimated at $50,000. Phase Two of the project would involve the replacement of the drainage infrastructure along with any required lane widenings, ditching, utility relocations, curb and gutter and restoration. Phase Two was estimated at cost of $3,875,000. Finally Phase Three would include rehabilitating the roadway surface by cold-in-place recycling the existing surface to mitigate reflective cracking and restore the pavement's profile and the application of a 50 mm top wearing surface. Phase Three was estimated at $2,870,000. The Ministry of Transportation will be reviewing the application using a Road Sufficiency Index to assess the project's requirement. This assessment is defined, however, it is quite subjective. The County of Elgin retained a geotechnical engineering firm to review the existing pavement condition and they reported that the surface requires extensive rehabilitation. The consultant recommended the same method of rehabilitation as staff proposes. The total estimated cost for reconstructing Sunset Road is $6.8 Million. The County of Elgin's road infrastructure needs has a backlog of $137,000,000 and as Council is aware, approximately $4.3 Million· is allocated for County Road Capital Projects annually, therefore, if approved, this project would greatly assist with our road infrastructure deficits. During staff's research it was determined 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. The project estimate does not include any possible Municipal Drainage assessment costs. The cost estimate also assumes a consulting engineer will complete the inspection of this project. Although staff has identified this roadway as a "Now Need", it is on the 5 Year Capital Plan. 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. As mentioned above, the MTO will be reviewing and prioritizing road projects using a new subjective rating system referred to as the Road Sufficiency Index (attached). The RSI is calculated by scoring 20 different factors relating to the safety of the roadway. Although Sunset Road is in physically poor condition and near the end of its life cycle, the RSI also takes into consideration many other road safety factors where this roadway scores well in. For instance, Sunset Road has few deficient design elements (i.e. design speed, vertical and horizontal alignment) and may score higher than other road project applications. The RSI system is new and without submitting a road project application, staff does not know how this roadway will be scored. CONCLUSION: The Canada Ontario Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund - COMRIF is a five year, $900 million programme that is aimed at improving the quality of infrastructure in small and rural municipalities. This program has three intakes, with the first intake submission due by January 10, 2005 at 5:00 p.m. The priorities for the first intake are: water, wastewater, waste management, municipal bridges and roads. The following is an excerpt from a report to County Council dated April 27, 2004 regarding a request from the Municipality of Central Elgin about the need to complete rehabilitation on Sunset Road. "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." Staff is proposing a submission under the roads sector category, Sunset Road, which has the third highest daily average volume and the highest summer volume due to tourist and recreational activities. The cost of this work is estimated at $6.8 Million and if successful, the 66% funding will greatly assist our underfunded capital program. As stated earlier, it is conceivable that in Intake One, "green infrastructure" projects may exhaust the available funding, leaving the County's road project unfunded and referred to Intake Two for a new application. In short, there is an element of risk in not submitting a "green infrastructure" project. RECOMMENDATION: THAT the rehabilitation of Sunset Road from the City of St. Thomas southerly to Bridge Street in Port Stanley is the County of Elgin's highest infrastructure priority; and also, THAT staff complete and submit an application to the COMRIF programme requesting funding for the County of Elgin's highest infrastructure priority; and also, THAT staff petition the Municipality of Central Elgin for legal drainage outlets on Sunset Road under the Drainage Act; and also, THAT a letter be forwarded to the Steve Peters M.P.P. and Joe Preston M.P. thanking them for supporting this program and assisting municipalities with infrastructure needs. Respectfully Submitted Approved for Submission (ÞvJ.~~(¿6 Clayton Watters Director of Engineering Services Mar McDonald Chief Admims rative Officer REMINDER NOTICE DATE: December 14,2004 FROM: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES The ELGIN COUNTY COUNCIL will meet at the Administration Building, 450 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas: WARDEN'S ELECTION TUESDAY. DECEMBER 14th. 2004 AT 7:00 P.M. M.G. McDonald, Chief Administrative Officer. Administrative Services Department Administration Building 450 Sunset Drive, Sl Thomas, Ontario, N5R 5V1 Phone: (519) 631-1460 Ex!. 156 Fax: (519) 633-7661 County of Elgin www.elgin-county.on.ca Fax To: Fax: Phone: Re: Press See Below From: Administrative Services Date: Pages: 2 CC: Comments: TO: Aylmer Express London Free Press St. Thomas Times-Joumal The Chronicle Lake Erie Beacon 773-3147 667-4528 631-5653 519-768-2221 782-4725 THE INFORMATION IN THIS FACSIMILE IS INTENDED FOR THE NAMED RECIPIENT ONLY. IT MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAw. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THE MESSAGE TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, OR THERE ARE ANY PROBLEMS IN TRANSMISSION, PLEASE NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE. Administrative Services Department Administration Building 450 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas, Ontario, N5R 5V1 Phone: (519) 631-1460 Ex!. 156 Fax: (519) 633-7661 County of Elgin www.elgin-county.on.ca Fax To: Mr. Joe Preston, M.P. Elgin-Middlesex-London 637-3358 From: Administrative Services Fax: Phone: Date: Pages: December 14,2004 (including cover sheet) 2 Re: FYI cc: Comments: THE INFORMATiON IN THIS FACSIMILE IS INTENDED FOR THE NAMED RECIPIENT ONLY. IT MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT. OR RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THE MESSAGE TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, OR THERE ARE ANY PROBLEMS IN TRANSMISSION, PLEASE NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE.. Administrative Services Department Administration Building 450 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas, Ontario, N5R 5V1 Phone: (519) 631-1460 Ex!. 156 Fax: (519) 633-7661 County of Elgin www.elgin-county.on.ca Fax To: Honourable Steve Peters, M.P.P. Elgin-Middlesex-London 631-9478 From: Administrative Services Fax: Phone: Date: Pages: December 14, 2004 (including cover sheet) 2 Re: FYI cc: Comments: THE INFORMATION IN THIS FACSIMILE IS INTENDED FOR THE NAMED RECIPIENT ONLY. IT MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THE MESSAGE TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, OR THERE ARE ANY PROBLEMS IN TRANSMISSION, PLEASE NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE. ORDERS OF THE DA Y FOR TUESDA Y. DECEMBER 16. 2004 - 9:00 A.M. PAGE # ORDER Meeting Called to Order Adoption of Minutes - meeting of November 23rd and December 7th, 2004 Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof Presenting Petitions, Presentations and Delegations Motion to Move Into "Committee Of The Whole Council" Reports of Council, Outside Boards and Staff Council Correspondence - see attached 1) Items for Consideration 2) Items for Information (Consent Agenda) OTHER BUSINESS 1) Statements/lnqui.ries by Members 2) Notice of Motion 3) Matters of Urgency 9th In-Camera Items (see separate agenda) 10th Recess 11th Motion to Rise and Report 12th Motion to Adopt ReCDmmendations from the Committee Of The Whole 101-108 13th Consideration of By-Laws 14th ADJOURNMENT 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 2-68 6th 7th 69-80 81-100 8th LUNCH WILL BE PROVIDED REPORTS OF COUNCIL AND STAFF December 16. 2004 Staff Reports - (ATTACHED) 3 Director of Human Resources - Registered Nurse Preseptorship 5 Human Resources Co-ordinator - Volunteer Policy 10 Human Resources Co-ordinator - Excess Indemnity Insurance, Occupational Accident Insurance 12 Chief Administrative Officer - Mid-Year Grant Requests and Solicitations for Sponsorship 18 Chief Administrative Officer- Elgin Group O.P.P. Contract 23 Deputy Clerk - Amendments to the Fees and Charges By-law 26 DeputyiClerk - Schedule of Council Meetings for 2005 28 Director of Financial Services - Budget Comparison - October 31, 2004 31 Director of Financial Services - Thames EMS Projected Contracts 33 Director of Information Technologies - Policy 13.30 - Cell Phone, PDA, Laptop Replacement 37 Director of Engineering Services - King George Lift Bridge - Electrical and Mechanical Rehabilitation 39 Director of Engineering Services - Lakeshore Line Class EA Completion - Municipality of Bayham 41 Director of Engineering Servicés - Road Network Study 54 Manager of Road Infrastructure - Request to Fund Sidewalk - John Street Road 57 Director of Engineering Services - Rumble Strip Policy Amendment 59 Director of Engineering Services - Springwater Dam and Spillway 62 Director of Engineering Services - Detour of Highway #3 Onto County of Elgin Roads for Construction 66 Director of Senior Services - Elgin Manor - Local Health Integration Networks (LHINs) Update 68 Director of Senior Services - Elgin Manor - Auxiliary Donation 2 REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Harley J. Underhill, Director of Human Resources DATE: 07 December 2004 SUBJECT: Registered Nurse Preseptorship INTRODUCTION In order for registered nurses to complete their degree they are required to do a preseptorship or in other words work hand in hand with another registered nurse to put their theory into practice. DISCUSSION: Over the years the management of the Homes along with Human Resources have had discussions with the Universities about having students do their preseptorship at one of our homes. Until most recently we had no interest, however we do have a student most interested in doing her preseptorship at Bobier Villa. When we have students from Fanshawe College, as an example, in our homes we have a contract that covers both parties liabilities and this is the same for the university students. The contract was provided to us and we had it reviewed by our insurance agent for it's suitability. The agent responded that there would be no additional charge to us for this exposure. We will not be having the doors knocked down with students wanting to do their preseptorship with us however with each student we have a great potential of a future recruit and it's hard to put a value on this but as Council is aware it is extremely difficult to recruit nurses. CONCLUSION: The Homes management along with Human Resources are most interested in having the registered students from the universities do their preseptorship with us. There is no further cost to the County for this exposure. We will have the opportunity of a potential new nurse who will know the County operations for recruitment. Once word of mouth spreads we may have more students interested in the County in the future and more recruits. RECOMMENDATION: THAT Council authorize the Directors of Homes and Senior Services and the Director of Human Resources to sign an agreement with the University for Students to do their consolidation in the Elgin County Homes for the Aged. Respectfully Submitted Approved for Submission SgQ~ ~ Harley J. derhill Director of Human Resources Chief Administrative Officer REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Harley Underhill, Director of Human Resources Joanna Vemon, Human Resources Co-ordinator DATE: December 7,2004 SUBJECT: Volunteer Policy INTRODUCTION: The County of Elgin's Human Resource Policy Manual does not have a policy in place for volunteers. We estimate that The County of Elgin presently has 400 volunteers, A volunteer committee was formed to discuss the various departmental needs. A representative from Human Resources, Archives, Libraries and the Homes are members of this committee. DISCUSSION: In reviewing the current departmental volunteer guidelines, there is inconsistency from one department to the next. The policy will outline the expectations for the volunteers, It will also provide the supervisors with guidelines for responsibilities, recruitment and selection, interviews, computer use and withdrawal of services. Part of the recruitment process is to acquire a criminal check. Presently this is not being done for all volunteers. We have volunteers that work with vulnerable people and it is imperative that they have a criminal check done. Please refer to Human Resources Policy 3.40,1 for exceptions. The OPP does not charge to perform criminal checks for volunteer positions. It is the intent of the volunteer committee to Grand Father all current volunteers so they are not required to have a criminal check completed. This is the same process that was followed when the criminal checks were introduced for all employees. Our volunteer committee developed a volunteer policy that would work County wide. We feel that the individual needs for all departments would be met through developing separate packages. This package would provide the volunteer with information pertaining to the specific department where they are volunteering. CONCLUSION: The County of Elgin has a vast numbers of volunteer staff assisting in various areas. A policy goveming the hiring, use and expectations are necessary. The volunteer policy committee developed the attached policy for Council's consideration. RECOMMENDATION: THAT Council approve the volunteer policy for immediate implementation. ~bJon ~ Mark G. McDonald Chief Administrative Officer ~\. =------J anna Vemon Human Resources Co-ordinator County of Elgin Section: 3 Human Resources Policy Manual Subject: Volunteer Policy Policy Number: 3.80 Code - L Date Approved: Page 1 of2 Date Last Revision: Volunteer Overview A volunteer is someone who, without expectation of financial compensation beyond reimbursement of expenses, performs a task at the request of and on behalf of The County Of Elgin. The County of Elgin recognizes that volunteers are a vital human resource in developing and enhancing The County's programs and achieving the Corporations mandate. The County of Elgin is committed to providing opportunities for volunteers to practice and develop their skills while contributing to The County. Volunteer Responsibilities The County of Elgin expects all volunteers to: · Conduct themselves in a professional and safe manner at all times. · Fulfil their commitment to serve. · Be willing to leam. · Accept supervision. · Respect confidence and protect privileged information. · Promptly contact the staff supervisor if they have any difficuities or concems. · Work co-operatively with others. · Serve as a responsible representative of The County of Elgin. · Follow and adhere to all Human Resources Policies. · Follow and adhere to laws and regulations including, but not limited to, the ESA, Health and Safety Act, and the Human Rights Code. Recruitment and Selection Becoming a volunteer for The County of Elgin involves, completing an application form, interview, screening, criminal check, reference check, signing of a Waiver for Volunteer Employees, selection, probationary period, training and evaluation. Recruitment is based solely on merit. Application Applicants under 18 years of age must have the permission of a parent or guardian. The County of Elgin requires the signature of the parent or guardian on the application form. County of Elgin Section: 3 Human Resources Policy Manual Subject: Volunteer Policy Policy Number: 3.80 Code - L Date Approved: Page 2 of 2 Date Last Revision: Interview All potential volunteers will be interviewed by the supervisor in conjunction with Human Resources to determine the volunteer's interests and suitability. Once an interview is completed, the supervisor will have two weeks in which to contact the potential volunteer with a response of acceptance or denial. Any notes take during the interview process, are to be forwarded to Human Resources. Refusals can be made if; · The volunteer applicant does not have the skills necessary for the desired position. · The volunteer refuses to sign the Waiver for Volunteer Employees. · The volunteer refuses to acquire a police security check. Please see Human Resources Policy 3.40.1 for exceptions. · The policy security check indicates a serious infraction. · References are not an endorsement of the applicant. · Parents/guardian do not sign the application form, if the applicant is under 18 years of age. Withdrawal of Services Withdrawal of services is at the discretion of the Manager or Director. Computer Use Volunteers who with the permission of their supervisor, may have access to The County of Elgin computer equipment. Human Resources policy 13.10 must be followed at all times. County of Elgin , Human Resources Policy Manual Code - L Page 1 of3 Section: 3 Subject: Criminal Checks Policy Number: 3.40.1 Date Approved: Feb. 13/01 Date Last Revision: Oct. 22/03 BACKGROUND It is the respònsibility of the Corporation to ensure that when selecting candidates for employment, or when utilizing volunteers or students, that such persons are not a potential risk to the safety of persons under the Corporation's care or to-the assets of the Corporation. Persons who have a record of offences may pose such a risk depending upon the job function for which they are being considered. APPLICATION This policy refers only to Criminal Code offences for which a pardon has not been granted and applies to all candidates applying for positions of employment at the Corporation of the County of Elgin. In the Homes, volunteers, including those individuals who are involved with a work experience placement or co-operative education placement, who provide direct service to residents will also be covered under this policy. Individuals who provide short term or one-time volunteer services (eg. Friendly Visiting, school visits) under the auspices and supervision of a volunteer organization, service club or educational ..()t. institution do notfequire a criminal record check. It is understood that the supervising organization 'í\" will ensure that their volunteers are appropriately screened. Further, students who participate in one-day or job shadowing visits do not require a criminal record check. A positive criminal record check does not necessarily preclude the candidate from employment. The nature of, and circumstances surrounding, the charges and convictions will be reviewed by the Human Resoùrces Department, as they relate to the position for which the individual is being considered. A record of offences or criminal charges that are a potential risk to residents will render the candidate's application rejected. The decision made by the Human Resources Department to preclude a candidate from employment may be appealed. The candidate will put in writing the appeal and present it to the Director of Human Resources who shall review the material with the affected Department Head and the Chief Administrative Officer. Their decision will put in writing and given to the candidate. A candidate subject to pending criminal charges may also be considered unemployable for the position for which he/she is applying. / REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Harley Underhill, Director of Human Resources Joanna Vemon, Human Resources Co-ordinator DATE: December 7,2004 SUBJECT: Excess Indemnity Insurance, Occupational Accident Insurance INTRODUCTION: The County's Excess Indemnity and Occupational Accident Insurance is due for renewal at 12:01 a.m, on January 1, 2005, For Council's benefit this insurance was recommended by Heath Benefit Consultants when we switched from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2 for our workplace accident coverage. DISCUSSION: The Excess Indemnity Policy assists with liability for claims in excess of $300,000 and to date we have forwarded three claims that have a potential to reach this amount. The Occupational Accident Policy covers for partial or permanent disability on the job and to date we have forwarded five claims for adjudication. As Council is aware, ongoing and new claims in 2004 have depleted the reserve, so it is important that we have this coverage in place. The approved cost to the County for 2004 was $45,309 and we are working with our consultant to obtain the best rates for 2005. Listed below is the quotation that we received from our consultant for the Excess Indemnity Insurance. $15.000,000 Limit $10,000.000 Limit $350,000 $400,000 $350,000 $400,000 Retention Retention Retention Retention County $ 5 279 $ 4 767 $ 5 091 $ 4594 Homes 49 831 45 039 48 058 43 368 The retention amount has increased from $300,000 in 2004 to $350,000 in 2005. In an effort to reduce our premiums, our consultant has provided us with a quotation based on a $350,000 and $400,000 retention. The retention figure is the amount that one accident would have to cost before we could submit a claim to the carrier. Also, in an effort to reduce our premiums, our consultant has provided us with a quotation based on a $15,000,000 and $10,000,000 limit. The limit figure is the maximum that the insurance carrier would payout per accident. Our recommendation is that we reduce our limit to $10,000,000. Historically, most of the accidents that occur are individuals not groups. It is unlikely that a claim would ever reach $10,000,000. We also recommend that the retention amount be renewed at $350,000. The difference between $350,000 and $400,000 limits our access to submitting a claim. No premium rate increases will be seen for the Occupational Accident insurance policy. The premium costs for this coverage in 2004 was $4,777.00. Based on our recommendation, the net increase in premiums for 2005 would be $12,617.00. This premium has been funded from the WSIB Reserve account. CONCLUSION: Excess Indemnity coverage as well as Occupational Accident coverage for the County for 2005 must be secured. It is imperative that we have no lapse in coverage, which wouid open us up to liabiiity. We recommend that we select the coverage with the $10,000,000 limit and the $350,000 retention amount. Based on the recommendation, the renewal rates for 2005 are $57,926. RECOMMENDATION: THAT County Council approves the rates for Excess Indemnity coverage and Occupational Accident coverage in the amount of $57,926. /--- Mark Id Chief Administrative Officer ~\. <,,",,----'J;a na Vernon Human Resources Co-ordinator ~ REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Mark G. McDonald, CAO. DATE: November 16, 2004 SUBJECT: Mid-year Grant Requests and Solicitations for Sponsorship Introduction: As Council is aware, grant requests are considered once a year, usually in February, as part of the annual budget approval process. A copy of the County's grant policy is attached. However, throughout the year requests for grants in the form of sponsorships or advertisements are directed to the Warden for consideration. The attached solicitation from the Law Enforcement Torch Run is one example of such appeals for financial assistance. The purpose of this report is to determine Council's interest, if any, in considering requests of this nature after budgets have been set or in launching a complete review of its grant policy. Discussion: From time to time, the County receives solicitations from local organizations seeking financial sponsorship during the year and after grants have been approved. These requests may be of a nominal value and may take the form of placing a congratulatory note or letter from the Warden on the event with a small fee for the print space. Other requests may be more substantive. Council usually earmarks some funds for "unspecified grants" ($5000 in 2004) during budget deliberations. Traditionally, allocations from that fund require full Council approval. At other times, funds are allocated from the Warden's budget to cover costs for nominal requests. For the sake of consistency, Council should decide whether or not it wants to accept requests of this nature after budget approval and if so, does Council wish to delegate the authority for such expenditures to the Warden at his/her discretion? As with all grant requests, it is difficult to know where to "draw the line". For example, would Council consider sponsoring a "Right to Life" campaign or a "Pro Choice" initiative to name a couple of legitimate and worthy causes given that these programs have no direct affiliation with the County? Given the specter of controversy that can accompany some emotionally charged endeavours it may be advisable to review the current grant policy with a view to clearly delineating the type of requests that Council would consider. For example, Council may wish to entertain requests for financial assistance from local -2- organizations of a specific nature each having a "significant" impact on County residents. The initiatives of the St. Thomas-Elgin General Hospital, the Seniors' picnic and agricultural societies come to mind as their programs provide benefits across the county. Conclusion: In an effort to clarify Council's position on grant requests, both mid-year and at budget time, it may be advisable to review the County's grant policy in its entirety. Recommendation: THAT staff be directed to survey other municipalities and review policies on grants to outside organizations and report back to Council on a recommended policy for Elgin County, prior to budget deliberations. All of which is respectfully submitted, we Mark G. Mcuona , Chief Administrative Officer. -------- ~~/£~f~~~4 d~:J~ eU~~Ð~>.:I~>.:I CAMPAI~ OFFICE ¡-'Ar.:il:. 11~ LAW ENFORCEMENT TORCH RUN Presents NHL ALUMNI "S. ST. THOMAS LAW ENFORCEME.."T ALI,ST!\JW Saturday, January 29, 2005 . 3:00pm Elgin Mcmoria] Community Centre SPONSORSHIP PACKAGES SPONSORSHIP PACKAGES SEATING SECTION SPONSOR - $550.00 Company banner displayed at game, Vz page ad in souvenir ptùgram., company logo on eveDt poster, 8 tickets. PA all noun cements CEIVTRE ICE PACKAGE-·_·_·-· $450.00 Fu]] page ad in program, 10 tickets PERIOD SPONSQR...~....-....... $325.00 Business card ad in program, company logo on event poster, 4 tickets, P A. announcements Only 3 Sponsorships A vailablè BLUE LINE PACK.1GE·.........-- $275,00 Half page ad ill program, 5 tickets SlAP SHOT PACKAGE --...-... $175.00 Quarter page ad in progra.m, 3 tiçkets EXPOSURE AD..··..···...--...------ $130.00 Twice the size of a business card ad, Z tickets PIA YER SPONSOR·m··-·····..·..$150,OO P.A. announcements, 3 tickets, Hsting Limited Number of Sponsorships Available BUSINESS CARD AD ----.·..·...--$100.00 Actual business card size ad, 2 tickets TICKET PRICES Tickets can be used by yourself or we ean donate tickets on yOU( behaJf to various charities in the community. 100 Tickets (includes V. page ad) $ 750.00 75 Tickets (includes v.. page ad)-- $ 600.00 50 Tickets ..---....-..-....-....-----.. $ 425.00 25 Tickets ..-...........--....-.....-- $ 225.00 20 Tickets ...---------.........--...-. $ 180.00 15 Tkkets-··-..·....---.-.......----- $ 140.00 10 Tickets···mm._..._._____..._.. $ 100.00 5 Tickets .--..-------................... $ 60.00 The above ticket packages include l1. Best Wishes mention in the souvenirpmgram, Please make cheques payable ta: Oldtimers lJenefiJ Game "IT 1$ A to MINUTE MA.!OR PENALTY FOR NOT SUPPORTING LOCAL CHARITIES!" .& Campaign Address: '-.~ ~, P,O. Box. 22014, R.P.O, Elmwood Square , y.. '!: St. Thomas, Ontario N5R 6Al , ~, ~ :-7 -- . TOLL FREE INFORj}fATION LINE: 1.877.431-0685 I}; '\6~· ~ ~ ~.._. ':'_-" :;;<- ---" -- ---, --.-- _..--~----- ...,~,., ~~..~ --.-,,, - ~ lAW ENFORCEMENT TORCH RUN Presents NHL ALUMNI Celebrity Hockey Game Saturday, January 29, 2005 - Elgin Memorial Comrnunìty Centre PREMIER SPONSORSHIP PACKAGE + Participation in ceremonial puck drop + Logo on alJ promotional print material + Logo on front cover of souvenir program + Full page - outside back cover of program .. Officia) Sponsor 0; the l't period .. Seating section sponsor .. Contirtuous P. A- announcement recognition .. Banners strategically .Iocated in the arena .. 30 comp1imentary tickets .. Exclusive product available at post game reception Total Investment........................................... $ 1,800.00 GOLD SPONSORSHIP PACKAGE .. Logo on all promotional print material .. FuB page- inside front cover of souvenir program .. Official Sponsor of the 3'" pcriod .. Seating scction sponsor .. Multiple P. A. announcement recognition . 12 compJimenrary tickets Total Investment....................,......,............... $ 1,.000.00 -9-- 3. FINANCES BUDGETS All budgets (Council, Departmental and Outside Boards) are to be submitted to the Director of Financial Services no later than February 1st of each year for distribution to Council prior to the actual Budget Meeting. GRANTS County Grants will be paid December 15th each year, or quarterly if requested in writing, or on a specific date as requested and indicated in the original motion. a) Scholarships ~ discontinued. b) Hospital Capital Grants - as determined by Council. c) February 1 st of each year will be the cutoff for receiving grant requests. d) If required, County Council will set aside a separate day, in February, to hear delegations. e) Each grant request must include a brief description of the organization; must clearly state the amount requested; and, must indicate the planned use of the grant, if approved by Council. , f) The Warden will decide which delegations to invite to the special February meeting. Grants may be paid earlier if requested in writing and approved by County Council. The guidelines should be reviewed periodically. 4. COUNTY VEHICLES - OWNED OR LEASED 1. County Council shall determine personal use of County owned or leased vehicles by persons not presently having this privilege. 2. Personal use of vehicles is restricted to the Province of Ontario unless approved otherwise by County Council. 5. OUTSIDE BOARDS APPOINTMENTS TO OUTSIDE BOARDS Persons presently serving on local boàrds or committees shall be eligible for re- appointment, but shall not be eligible for the same position for a period of more than 9 continuous years. After an absence of not less than 1 year such person shall be eligible for re-appointment. All appointments to the Land Division Committee shall be made through County Council. Said appointments to the Land Division Committee are for a 3-year term and no one COUNTY OF ELGIN GRANTS 2004 Budget Request 1 Shedden Agricultural Society 2 Wallacetown Agricultural Society 3 Rodney-Aldborough Agricultural Society 4 Aylmer & East Elgin Agricultural Society 5 Elgin 4-H Association 6 Tillsonburg & District Multi-Service Centre 7 Quad County Support Services 8 Seniors Picnic 9 Sf. Thomas - Elgin Art Gallery 10 St. Thomas Elgin YMCA 11 Talbot Bi-Centennial Committee 12 Non-specific 13 Town Crier 14 Galbraith Project 15 Second Stage Housing 16 St. Thomas Gun Club 17 East Elgin Medical Facility 18 YWCA of st. Thomas 19 Easter Seal Society - St. Thomas - Elgin 20 Elgin Community Nutrition Partnership 21 DuttonlDunwich Medical Building 22 Jabez Therapy Ranch 23 On Track 24 Royal Canadian Legion 25 Junior Achievement Total St. Thomas-Elgin General Hospital Foundation Request referred to 2004 For Consideration 2003 2004 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500 7,500 7,500 2,000 2,000 2,000 4,000 2,000 2,000 2,500 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 10,000 To be paid over five years approved 7,500 Requesting 7500/year over two year. .5,000 5,000 2,000 2,000 750 3,500 3,500 5,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 for 2003 and 2004 10,000 5,000 1,000 10,000 5,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 for 2003 and 2004 No amount specified No amount specified 5,000 No amount specified 143,250 140,500 REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL DATE: December 4, 2004 FROM: Mark G. McDonald, Chief Administrative Officer SUBJECT: ELGIN GROUP O.P.P. CONTRACT Introduction: As you are aware from previous reports, the O.P.P. Contract expires on July 1st, 2005. All six participating municipalities have agreed to allow the County to negotiate on their behalf. Central Elgin has also agreed, provided one municipally appointed member of the PSB is nominated by Central Elgin Council. Please refer to the attached memorandum from Mr. Don Leitch, Chief Administrative Officer for a more complete explanation. In his memo, Mr. Leitch suggests that "there should be an agreement among the Elgin Group municipalities as to the appointment process for municipally appointed PSB members." The matter of appointments to the PSB was raised by the County Chief Administrative Officer in the attached report dated April 30th, 2003. County Council, at that time, considered the report and decided that the current appointment process should be maintained. The purpose of this report is to seek Council's advice on how best to approach the appointment process. Discussion: Since County Council recommended the original appointment process and reaffirmed their preference for that model in 2003, it is appropriate that County Council consider Central Elgin's request. Whatever the decision, it is important to determine who is in and who is out, as eventually the negotiated settlement must be endorsed unanimously by the participating municipalities. Central Elgin, like all participating municipalities, has the option of opting out of the contract and operating without a PSB, if they so choose. Conclusion: In light of Central Elgin's request to reconsider the municipal appointment process for the Elgin Group PSB, County Council, as the facilitator of record, should consider the suggestion. .../2 Recommendation: For Council's determination. ALL of which is respectfully submitted, Approved for Submission Mark McDonal , Chief Administrative Officer. 2 Municipality of Central Elgin Memo To: Mark G. McDonald, CAO, County of Elgin From: Donald N. Leitch, CAO, Municipality of Central Elgin cc: Mayor Dave Rock, Deputy Mayor Sylvia Hofhuis Date: November 30, 2004 Re: Police Services Board Representation As you are aware from my letter of November 1, 2004, Central Elgin Municipal Council has indicated that it is prepared for the County of Elgin to negotiate on its behalf and the behalf of the other five "Elgin Group" municipalities a new policing agreement with the Ontario Provincial Police, Council does, however, have one concern with appointments to the Police Services Board that it wishes addressed by the other five Elgin Group municipalities prior to negotiations commencing. The Elgin Group municipalities are responsible for appointing three of the five members of the Police Services Board (PSB). Throughout the five year term of the current OPP contract, Central Elgin has had one municipally appointed council member on the PSB, It is Central Elgin Council's understanding that this representation occurred through the concurrence of the contract municipalities during the term of the agreement, not by any kind of formal arrangement. As the County is preparing to commence negotiations leading to a new agreement with the OPP, Central Elgin Council believes that there should be an agreement among the Elgin Group municipalities as to the appointment process for the municipally appointed PSB members. Therefore, Central Elgin is requesting that the Elgin Group municipalities formalize the current arrangement through an agreement that one of the three municipally appointed members of the PSB is to be nominated by Central Elgin Council since the Municipality of Central Elgin is currently paying 35.4 percent of the OPP contract. Council would suggest that this representation recognizes Central Elgin's contribution and is consistent with the approach taken with representation on other intermunicipal boards, such as the board of the Elgin Area Primary Water System. In the case of the water board, the City ofLondon and the City of St. Thomas have a representative on the primary water board based on their larger number of users and the revenue paid by these municipalities, while the smaller municipalities share representation, e.g Central Elgin and the Township of Southwold share a representative on the water board. In addition to addressing Central Elgin's request, it is also suggested that the agreement formalize how the remaining two municipally appointed PSB members are to be nominated to ensure that there are no misunderstandings. I would hope that this memorandum clarifies the Municipality of Central Elgin's position with respect to representation on the Police Services Board. However if you wish any additional information, I would be pleased to assist. 1 REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Mark G. McDonald, Chief Administrative Officer DATE: April 30, 2003 SUBJECT: Rotation of Appointments to the Elgin Group Police Services Board Introduction/Backaround: The composition of the Elgin Group Police Services Board was established in the summer of 2001. At that time, the County suggested to the six participating municipalities that the three municipal representatives to the Board be comprised as follows: 1 elected representative from Eastern Elgin (Bayham and Malahide) 1 elected representative from Central Elgin 1 community member from Western Elgin (Southwold, Dutton/Dunwich and West Elgin). Accordingly, by resolution in January 2001, then Councillor John R. Wilson was appointed to represent Eastem Elgin, Councillor Dave Rock was appointed to represent Central Elgin and Mr. Wayne Ward was appointed as the community member to represent Westem Elgin. All appointments terminate on December 31st, 2003. The purpose of this report is to suggest a rotation schedule for the municipal appointees to ensure that every municipality has an opportunity to participate on the Board. Discussion: The following rotation schedule for municipal appointments to the Elgin Group Police Services Board is presented for Council's consideration (all appointments are for a three- year term to coincide with the term of municipal councils* see footnote): January 1st 2004 to December 31st, 2006 Bayham West Elgin Southwold (1 elected official) (1 elected official) (1 community representative) January 1st 2007 to December 31st, 2009 Dutton/Dunwich Southwold Malahide (1 elected official) (1 elected official) (1 community representative) .../2 2 Conclusion: Using the rotation above, every municipality involved in the contract will have sent one elected representative to the Board during one of the three-year terms. Given the geography of the County, three-year terms and two elected appointees each term involving six municipalities, there is no easy way to balance the appointments perfectly. You will note in the options above that Central Elgin, the largest financial contributor to the O.P.P. contract is represented once in nine years. Council may wish to address that anomaly, however, reintroducing Central Elgin to the rotation above will mean that another municipality (most likely Malahide) will take its place outside the rotation. Recommendation: THAT the report from the Chief Administrative Officer entitled" "Rotation of Appointments to the Police Services Board" be approved for consideration by the participating municipalities; and, THAT, assuming that the rotation schedule is agreed to by Council resolution, the Municipalities of Bayham, Malahide and Southwold submit the name of their nominee by resolution to the County of Elgin by no later than December 15th, 2003, for distribution and approval of the remaining three municipalities involved in the O.P.P. contract. ALL of which is respectfully submitted, Mark G. McDonald, Chief Administrative Officer. *Note: The term being proposed does not coincide exactly with the term of Council. Appointments commence in January because of the timing of municipal elections and the logistics of obtaining approvals from six municipalities once nominees have been suggested. REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: DATE: Sandra Heffren Deputy Clerk November 25, 2004 SUBJECT: Amendments to the Fees and Charges By-Law Introduction: Each year staff reviews the fees and charges levied for administrative activities within each department to ensure costs are being recovered. Discussion: Departments have reviewed changes to the fees and charges levied for chargeable activities and the changes below (in bold) are requested to reflect actual costs. Public Notice was provided and no comments were received. Library Videos/DVD's Internet Printina Overdue Fine $1.00 per day Maximum $10.00 Add Recordable CD $2.50 Lost or Damaaed Materials All Material Types - Actual Cost plus $5.00 Processing: Old Schedule Adult Videos Audio Books Cassettes CD-Roms Hardcover Juvenile Videos Magazines Microfilms Music CDs Paperbacks Actual Cost plus $5,00 Processing Actual Cost plus $5.00 Processing $12.00 Actual Cost plus $5.00 Processing $30.00 $20.00 $5.00 $30.00 $20.00 $10.00 New Schedule If actual cost is unknown, the following rates are charged: Adult Videos/DVD's $30.00 Audio Books $35.00 $12.00 $30.00 $30.00 $20.00 $5.00 $30.00 $20.00 $10.00 Cassettes CD-ROMs Hardcover Juvenile Videos/DVD's Magazines Microfilms Music CDs Paperbacks Archives 2 The following Old schedule is to be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the New Schedule: Old Schedule: Service Annual Membership Lona-Distance Research Microfilm Reader/Printer Letter/legal 11x17 CD-ROM File Photocopvina/Scannina Letter/legal 11x17 Disks Photoaraph Prints 4x5 5x7 8x10 11 x14 Larger sizes 35 mm slide Supplies Archival sheet protectors Acid-free storage box Newspaper storage box Acid-free file folders Film-marking pens New Schedule: Service Photocopying/Scanning Letter/legal General Fee $25.00 $30.00/hour $0.75/page $1.00/page $5.00/file $O,50/page $0.75/page $1,00 $12.00 ($6.00 for second print) $15.00 ($8.00 for second print) $20.00 ($10.00 for second print) $30.00 ($20.00 for second print) on a case by case basis $15,00 $1.00/each $12,OO/each $25.00/each $1.00/each $4.00/each Fee $0.25/page Fee with Membership n/a $30.00/hour $0.50/page $0.75/page $4.00/file $0.25/page $0.50/page $1.00 $10.00 ($6.00 for second print) $13.00 ($8.00 for second print) $18.00 ($10.00 for second print) $26.00 ($20.00 for second print) on a case by case basis $15.00 $1.00/each $12.00/each $25.00/each $1.00/each $4.00/each 3 Service Photocopying/Scanning 11x17 Document scanning CD's/Disks Fee $0.50/page $5.00 each $1.00 Microfilm Reader-Printer Letter/legal 11 x 17 CD file $0.50/page $0.75/page $5.00 per file (includes CD) Long-Distance Research $30.00/hour Photograph Prints 4x5 5x7 8x 10 11x14 Larger Sizes Digital reprints (up to 8 x 10) 35 mm slide $12.00 ($6.00 for each additional print) $15,00 ($8.00 for each additional print) $20.00 ($10.00 for each additional print) $30.00 ($20.00 for each additional print) On a case by case basis $10.00 each $15.00 each Supplies Archival sheet protectors Acid-free storage box Newspaper storage box Acid-free file folders Film marking pens $1.00 each $12.00 each $25.00 each $1.00 each $4.00 each Conclusion: The increases to fees and charges requested by various departments should be implemented and the Fees and Charges By-Law amended to reflect current costs. Recommendation: That the editorial amendments and increases to fees and charges for administrative activities contained in this report be adopted and the necessary by-law be prepared. Respectfully Submitted Approved for Submission yf~ Sa He n, Deputy Clerk Mark . , Chief Administrative Officer. REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Sandra Heffren, Deputy Clerk DATE: 08 December 2004 SUBJECT: SCHEDULE OF COUNCIL MEETINGS FOR 2005 Attached for your consideration are suggested meeting dates for County Council for 2005. Council can change meeting dates at any time with advanced notice. RECOMMENDATION: THAT the attached schedule of meeting dates for County Council be approved. Respectfully Submitted Approved for Submission sd£s 410- ~ S.J. effre, Deputy Clerk. Mark G. Mc , Chief Administrative Officer. SCHEDULE OF COUNTY COUNCIL MEETINGS FOR 2005 DATE OF MEETING TIME January 15 - Draft Budget mailed to Council January 25 9:00 a.m. - 4th Tuesday - one meeting due to Christmas shutdown - Capital budget discussion February 15 g:OO a.m. - Operational budget discussion February 22 - no meeting - ROMA/OGRA Conference Feb 20-23 March 8 9:00 a.m. March 22 9:00 a.m. April 12 9:00 a.m. April 26 9:00 a.m May 17 9:00 a.m. - 3rd Tuesday - due to Statutory Holiday June 14 9:00 a.m. June 28 9:00 a.m. July 12 9:00 a.m. July 26 9:00 a.m. August 9 9:00 a.m. - meetings are not August 23 9:00 a.m. normally held in August September 13 9:00 a.m. September 27 9:00 a.m. October 18 9:00 a.m. - 3rd Tuesday - one meeting in October due to AMO Counties & Regions Conference November 8 9:00 a.m. November 22 9:00 a.m. December 13 7:00 p.m. - Warden's Election December 15 9:00 a.m. - Regular Council Meeting Council Meetings are normallv held every 2nd and 4th Tuesday of the month and are subject to change. REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Linda B. Veger, Director of Financial Services DATE: November 26, 2004 SUBJECT: Budget Comparison - October 31,2004 Introduction: Attached is the budget comparison to October 31,2004 for the County operating departments. Discussion: The average budget expended to October 31 is approximately 83.3%. The operating departments are within this parameter. Corporate Expenditures - insurance (22,079) - insurance paid early in the year. Legal and professional (23,769) - many personnel issues that required input. Engineering -180,991 - maintenance payments made later in the year. Overall the three Homes are in a positive position and should be until the end of the year. Pioneer Museum - operations (9,189) - utility costs higher than anticipated. All other departments are reasonable. Recommendation: THAT the report titled Budget Comparison - October 31, 2004 and dated November 26, 2004 be received and filed. Respectfully Submitted Approved for Submission it.£"",) Chief Administrative Officer ~ ¿q ~ Linda B. Veger Director of Financial Services COUNTY OF ELGIN Departmental Budget Comparisons ForThe 10 Periods Ending October 31,2004 Total YTD YTD Variance %OF Budget Budget Actual () Budget Warden & Council Wages 163,372 136,143 136,152 (8) Benefits 10,619 8,849 5,464 3,386 Operations 65,675 54,729 42,376 12,353 Total 239,666 199,722 183,991 15,13U 76.77% Administrative Services Wages 240,953 200,794 1 96,997 3,797 Benefits 62,298 51,915 41,038 10,877 Operations 13,600 11,333 10,672 661 Total 316,851 264,U43 248,70 ( 15,335 78.49% Financial Services Wages 270,627 225,523 220,481 5,042 Benefits 70,363 58,636 51,854 6,782 Operations 17,083 14,236 16,970 (2,73~ Total 3b8,073 298,394 289,3U5 9,U8 8U.8U% Human Resources Wages 303,500 252,917 252,088 828 Benefits 77,550 64,625 56,571 8,054 Operations 19,550 16,292 11,979 4,313 Total 400,60U 333,833 320,638 13,195 80.04% Administration Building Wages 107,711 89,759 88,553 1,206 Benefits 28,005 23,338 20,933 2,404 Operations 76,454 63,712 47,653 16,059 Total 212,170 176,8U9 157,139 19,669 74.U6% Corporate Expenditures Insurance 197,000 164,167 186,246 (22,079) Telephone 34,573 28,811 24,499 4,312 Legal & Professional 60,000 50,000 73,769 (23,769) Retiree Benefits 43,000 35,833 33,862 1,971 Other Expenditures 69,815 58,179 51 ,400 6,779 Total 4U4,388 336,990 369,1 (( (32,787) 91.44% Engineering Wages 231,000 1 92,500 192,760 (260) Benefils 57,000 47,500 42,184 5,316 Operations 86,500 72,084 31 ,406 40,678 Maintenance 2,223,958 1,853,298 1,672,307 180,991 Total 2,b98,458 2,165,382 1,938,658 226,124 74.61% Agriculture Operations 31,876 26,563 17,718 8,846 Total 31,876 26,563 17,718 8,846 55.58% Elgin Manor Revenues (3,957,937) (3,298,281) (3,309,141) 10,860 Wages 3,715,539 3,096,283 3,038,528 57,754 Benefits 1,035,748 863,123 784,289 78,834 Operations 747,185 622,654 654,501 (31,846) Total 1,540,535 1,283,779 1,168,177 115,602 75.83% Terrace Lodge Revenues (4,297,458) (3,581,215) (3,581,468) 253 Wages 3,867,818 3,223,182 3,164,967 58,215 Benefits 1,076,851 897,376 788,344 109,032 Operations 817,006 680,838 674,523 6,316 Total 1,464,217 1,220,181 1,046,366 173,815 71.46% Bobier Villa Revenues (2,425,111 ) (2,020,926) (2,091,865) 70,939 Wages 2,540,585 2,117,154 2,133,914 (16,759) Benefits 708,220 590,183 489,862 100,321 Operations 510,435 425,363 454,251 (28,889) Total 1,334,129 1,111,774 986,162 125,612 73.92% Pioneer Museum Wages 72,546 60,455 59,867 588 Benefits 17,952 14,960 13,832 1,128 Operations 34,975 29,146 38,335 ¡9,189j Total 125,473 104,561 112,034 7,4/4 88.29% Library Wages 995,000 829,167 815,978 13,188 Benefits 245,000 204,167 188,233 15,934 Collections 234,750 1 95,625 150,501 45,124 Operations 102,093 85,077 44,917 40,161 Total 1,576,843 1,314,036 1,199,630 114,406 76.08% Archives Wages 99,852 83,210 86,167 (2,957) Benefits 25,047 20,873 18,084 2,788 Operations 46,350 38,625 32,877 5,748 Total 171,249 142,/08 137,128 5,579 80.08% Land Division Wages 53,415 44,513 39,222 5,290 Benefits 9,945 8,288 7,166 1,121 Operations (63,360J (52,800J 174,509j 21,709 Total 28,121 28,121 0.00% Emergency Measures Wages 5,000 4,167 4,000 167 Benefits 1,300 1,083 1,040 43 Operations 9,800 8,167 2,472 5,695 Total 16,100 13,417 1,512 5,905 46.66% Information Technologies Wages 173,300 144,417 137,959 6,458 Benefits 36,393 30,328 30,001 326 Operations 341 ,556 284,630 224,021 60,609 Total 561,249 469,374 391,981 6/,393 71.11% Provincial Offences Grant 0 0 (18,342) 18,342 Fines Revenues (700,000) (583,333) (575,558) (7,776) Shared Revenues - Municipal 350,727 292,273 179,644 112,629 Wages 136,088 113,407 125,471 (12,064) Benefits 35,383 29,486 27,445 2,041 Operations 146,050 121,708 98,161 23,548 Total (31,/52) (26,460) (163,180) 136,/20 613.92% Ambulance Services Province of Ontario (1,635,907) (1,363,256) (1,367,428) 4,172 City of SI. Thomas (1,253,970) (1,044,975) (1,053,709) 8,734 Intermunicipal Transfers 0 0 0 0 Contractor Payments 4,596,185 3,830,154 3,832,539 (2,385) Wages 60,000 50,000 48,438 1,562 Benefits 15,600 13,000 10,753 2,247 Operations 44,500 37,084 11,294 25,790 Total 1,826,408 1,522,007 1,481,88/ 40,120 81.14% Collections Fines Revenues (300,000) (250,000) (287,357) 37,357 Wages 45,401 37,834 35,811 2,023 Benefits 11,804 9,837 9,229 608 Operations 7,300 6,083 2,566 3,518 Total (235,495) (196,246) (239,751) 43,505 101.81% REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Linda B. Veger, Director of Financial Services DATE: October 22, 2004 SUBJECT: Thames EMS Projected Contracts Introduction: During the first year of the contract with Thames EMS, Council has approved improvements to service levels that affect that projected contract. The purpose of this report is to indicate the new contract numbers and give an approximation of how those number may affect the ambulance budgets to 2008. Discussion: The changes are: · Decision to build and own an ambulance base and sub-station. Thames' bid was based on one station. Rental costs, utilities and repairs and maintenance have therefore increased while property taxes have decreased. · Delete the on-call hours at the west end of the County, changing the on-call to regular shifts. The estimated annual cost of the change is $290,334 based on 2004 wage rates. Thames EMS have estimated a new wage rate for 2005 and have based the increase on those rates. · An eight hour upstaffing was approved for St. Thomas to improve response times in reflection of the call volumes at that station. The estimated cost, based on 2004 rates, was $143,795. · The last two points have also increased the management fee by approximately $20,000. The original and updated contract numbers are listed below. Please keep in mind when reviewing the numbers that a significant wage increase is anticipated in 2005. 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Oriainal 4,457,505 4,991,377 5,323,191 5,505,482 5,693,561 Updated 4,742,300 5,495,656 5,861,275 6,064,848 6,275,304 Projected budgets for this time frame are as follows: Account Gov. of Ont. Ci of St. Thomas Thames EMS Wireless Service Amb. E ui . Re airs o erations Count Contribution Assumptions: 2005 1,658,846 1,614,890 5,495,656 6,500 20,000 86,199 2,334,619 2006 1,691,119 1,753,396 5,861,275 6,500 20,000 88,706 2,531.966 · Province continues to fund additional dollars for wages calculation - current base funding X 85% X 2% · No increase for operations funding - none received in 2004 · No enhancements to Thames EMS contract · Small increase to operations each year 2007 1,723,940 1,824,917 6,064,848 6,500 20,000 91,382 2,633,873 2008 1,757,319 1,899,037 6,275,304 6,500 20,000 94,033 2.739,481 Council should be aware that there are many unknowns between now and 2008. The actual budgets for years 2006 to 2008 may vary significantly from the above based on future Council decisions. Recommendation: THAT the report titled Thames EMS Projected contracts and dated October 22, 2004 be received and filed. Respectfully Submitted ~ Director of Financial Services Approved for Submission ~(,O ~ Chief Administrative Officer REPORT TO COUNCIL FROM: AI Reitsma Director of Information Technologies DATE: December 16, 2004 SUBJECT: Policy 13.30 - Cell Phone, PDA, Laptop Replacement INTRODUCTION: With the increase use of cell phones, PDAs and laptops within the organization it is necessary to develop a fair and consistent method of dealing with lost, damaged and stolen cell phones, PDAs and laptops. DISCUSSION: Several policy options were considered in dealing with an occurrence of a lost, damaged or stolen cell phones, PDAs or laptops. These included: . Replacement at the County's cost . Replacement at the employee's cost Each of these options has its advantages and disadvantages. Having the County replace the devices could lead to carelessness with the devices. Having the employee replace the device at their cost may lead to employees not wanting to use the device even if it provides increased productivity. A middle ground between these two approaches is suggested. Each case should be looked at individually and the circumstances of the theft, loss or damage be considered by the Director of Information Technologies, If circumstances show that the theft, loss or damage was due to neglect by the employee and was avoidable then the employee would pay for the replacement of the device. If investigation shows that the theft, loss or damage was unavoidable then the County would absorb the cost for replacement Policy 13.30, Cell Phone, PDA, Laptop Replacement, has been written to reflect this approach and is attached for review. -...-----..--..-...-- CONCLUSION: Policy 13.30, Cell Phone, PDA, Laptop Replacement, has been developed to provide a fair and consistent method of dealing with lost, damaged, stolen and obsolete cell phones, PDAs and laptops, RECOMMENDATION: THAT policy 13.30 - Cell Phone, PDA, Laptop Replacement be approved as presented. Respectfully Submitted ~ #/--~ AI ~itsma - Director of Information Technologies . sion Mark G, Chief Administrative Officer County of Elgin Section: 13 Human Resources Policy Manual Subject: Cell Phone, PDA, Laptop Replacement Policy Number: 13.30 Code - A Date Approved: Dec. 16, 2004 Page 1 of2 Date Last Revision: Dec. 16/04 POLICY STATEMENT The County of Elgin employees may use cellular phones, personal digital assistants (PDAs) or laptops. The entitlement to these devices is defined in policy 13.20 "Technology Entitlement Policy". This Cell Phone, PDA, Laptop Replacement Policy has been developed in an effort to provide a fair and consistent method of dealing with lost, damaged and stolen cell phones, PDAs and laptops., PURPOSE This policy defines who is responsible for the replacement of lost, stolen, damaged or expired cellular phones, PDAs and laptops SCOPE This policy applies to all County employees, including all permanent, temporary and contract employees exclusive of associated boards and agencies. This policy shall apply to all purchased and leased County of Elgin cellular phones, PDAs and laptops. DEFINITIONS PDA or Personal Digital Assistant - a hand-held device intended mainly for mobile access to email, calendar and contact information. These devices may operate in a disconnected mode (where the PDA receives updates only when attached via a cradle to a PC) or in a connected mode (where the PDA receives its updates over a wireless network connection in real time). Cellular Phone includes smart phones. ADMINISTRATION This cell phone, PDA, laptop replacement policy is administered by The Information Technology Department. The policy will be reviewed on an annual basis to ensure that it is clear, appropriately implemented. County of Elgin Section: 13 Human Resources Policy Manual Subject: Cell Phone, PDA, Laptop Replacement Policy Number: 13.30 Code - A Date Approved: Dec. 16. 2004 Page 2 of2 Date Last Revision: Dec. 16/04 Cell Phone, PDA, Laptop Replacement Each employee assigned a cellular telephone, PDA or laptop shall be primarily responsible for the security and maintenance of the unit, and must immediately report any theft, loss, or vandalism to the Director of Information Technologies, Failure to do so will make the employee personally liable for payment of all calls or network charges made against a lost cellular telephone. The Director of Information Technologies will review the circumstances resulting in the theft, loss or damage, If in the opinion of the Director of Information Technologies the theft, loss or damage could have been avoided then the employee will be responsible for any charges to replace cellular telephones, PDAs or laptops that are lost, stolen or damaged. If in the opinion of the Director of Information Technologies the theft, loss or damage could not have been avoided then the County will be responsible for any charges to replace cellular telephones, PDAs or laptops that are lost stolen or damaged, Any disagreements regarding the administration of this policy between the employee and the Director of Information Technologies will be mediated by the CAO. If the theft, loss or vandalism happens to a device being used by the Director of Information Technologies the CAO will administer the policy, REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Clayton Watters, Director Engineering Services DATE: November 30,2004 SUBJECT: King George Lift Bridge - Electrical and Mechanical Rehabilitation Introduction In the proposed 2005 Capital Budget, $400,000 has been allocated for the King George Lift Bridge for electrical and mechanical rehabilitation. Solicitations for tenders was completed as per the County's purchasing policy. Discussion / Conclusion The successful bidder for the electrical power and controls was Comstock Canada, at a cost of $324,245 (induding taxes). A summary of the tenders received are listed below: Company Tender Amount Comstock Canada $324,245 Sutherland-Schultz $459,079 Shewfelt Construction Did not submit a bid This project consists of two parts: engineering and contract administration and construction. Engineering, inspection and contract administration fees total $96,600 with an additional $324,245 for the construction (both including taxes) for a total project cost of $420,845. As part of the approved 2004 capital budget $40,000 has been allocated to complete engineering for this project. Therefore, along with the proposed 2005 capital budget the total project is within budget allocations. In order to minimize construction delays for seaway traffic, the contractor will be completing the project between January 1 and March 11, 2005. Also, in its current state, the west leaf of the bridge can only be raised by manual means and takes approximately 45 minutes. For these reasons, staff is seeking pre-approval for this project from the 2005 Capital Budget. Recommendation That the Warden and Chief Administrative Officer be authorized and directed to sign a contract with Comstock Canada in the amount of $324,245 for the King George Lift Bridge Electrical and Mechanical Rehabilitation contract No. 6290-04-05.; and also, That $400,000 for the King George Lift Bridge Electrical and Mechanical Rehabilitation be pre-approved to be included within the 2005 Capital Budget. Respectfully Submitted, ~A-brlr Approved for Sub . . Clayton Watters Director of Engineering Services Mark G. McDona , Chief Administrative Officer REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Clayton Watters, Director of Engineering Services DATE: November 24,2004 SUBJECT: Lakeshore Line Class EA Completion - Municipality of Bayham Introduction Sections of Lakeshore Line, County Road 42, in the Municipality of Bayham has had sections closed to traffic for safety concems, Due to the encroaching lake bank in proximity to the County road it was decided to close sections if the top of bank was within 25 meters of the edge of roadway. An Environmental Assessment was initiated in 2002, and has now been completed, Discussion: On September 13, 2004 the notice period for the completion of the Environmental Assessment ended. This means that the County of Elgin can now complete the Relocation Plan, so that the road can be transferred to the Municipality of Bayham. The relocation plan consisted of 6 components: 1. Glen Erie Line, from County Road 55 to County Road 19 is proposed to be designated as the relocated County Road 42 and reconstructed to County standards. Proposed improvements include road resurfacing, the construction of wider lanes and shoulders and the reconstruction of the existing bridge over the South Otter Creek (located in Lot 17, Conc. 1). 2. The section of the existing County Road 42 from County Road 50 in Port Burwell east to County Road 55 would be transferred to the Municipality of Bayham for use as a local road. Portions of Lakeshore Line have been recently improved and resurfaced. No additional improvements should be required for the use of Lakeshore Line as a municipal road. 3. The section of County Road 42 currently closed to traffic (Lots 26 and 27) would be permanently closed by by-law. The section of County Road 42 across Lots 24 and 25 would also be permanently closed by by-law on the west edge of Lot 24. The existing pavement and road granular material would be removed and regraded for future agricultural use and this property would be offered for transfer to the adjacent landowners. 4. At both ends of County Road 42 and at the end of Godby Road where "dead ends" exist, turn-arounds will be constructed with appropriate signage and fencing. 5. A laneway would be constructed over a portion of the closed road, from Lot 28 west to the existing residence farm in Lot 27 (Sandyshore Farms Ltd.) 6. As part of the Relocation Plan, signs on Lakeshore Line and Glen Erie Line will be updated. Staff has estimated the cost of the items identified above at $80,000.00. This work will be completed in 2005 as part of the approved capital budget. Only one comment was received after the Notice of Completion was advertised in the local papers. The Ministry of Culture is interested in reviewing the designs of the proposed access lane on Lot 27, the tumaround areas on Lakeshore Line and the reconstruction of the Bridge on South Otter Creek, Glen Erie Line Bridge. It is common for the Ministry of Culture to express interest when any "undisturbed" lands are to be constructed upon to determine potential historical significance. Conclusion: Now that the Environmental Assessment Process is complete, the Road Relocation Plan, RRP, will be completed in 2005. The Municipality of Bayham will be kept informed of the progress of the Road Relocation Plan to ensure a smooth transition. Once the RRP is completed a further report will be presented to County Council in order that Lakeshore Line can be transferred to the Municipality of Bayham and Glen Erie Line transferred to the County of Elgin. Recommendation: THAT this report be received and filed. Respectfully Submitted OJ ttJt< ituiS Approved for Submission M'~O Chief Administrative Officer Clayton D. Watters Director of Engineering Services REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Clayton Watters, Director of Engineering Services DATE: November 30, 2004 SUBJECT: Road Network Study INTRODUCTION At the September 14, 2004 County Council meeting the following recommendation was adopted: "THAT the "Road Network Study" dated July 13, 2002 from the Director of Engineering Services be referred back to the lower tier Councils for review, with a request for comments by November 30, 2004 and a summary report be presented to Council" DISCUSSION: The lower-tier municipalities were contacted and their comments are as follows: Munici Aylmer Bayham Central EI in Dutton/Dunwich Malahide Southwold West Elgin Comment }> Yes to transfers, provided that John Street be recognized as a "Connectin Link". }> Position has not changed from 2002. }> Response from 2002. Not in favour of reports until there is a full evaluation of long-term capital needs for each road is completed and re uired works is a reed u on. }> Not in favour of recommendations. }> Stron I ob'ects to transfer of Coun Roads to Lower-Tiers. }> That the municipality accepts the transfer Putnam Road, County Road 47, from Lyons Line to Ron McNeil Line to the County of Elgin but does not acce t the transfer of an other Coun Roads to the lower tier. }> Southwold strongly opposes transfer of roads to our municipality as outlined in the original report and feels that this action is nothing more than downloadin costs to the lower tier taxpa er. }> It is in the best interest of West Elgin to fund the roads already in our system rather than spread what monies are available too thin by taking additional ex enses or worse increasin taxes to fund these extra roads. Also attached to this summary report the letters from the municipalities from which the responses are summarized above. CONCLUSION: The Road Network Study has been presented to County Council on several occasions with no change in status except in roads transferred from the local municipalities to the County of Elgin. This has reduced the cost for the lower tiers, but not for the County. While this exercise has provided useful information to all parties, the result has been the same, increase in the road kilometers to the County of Elgin and a decrease in kilometers to the lower tier municipalities. After reviewing the study, staff still concurs with the original recommendations that some roads that the County has jurisdiction over should be lower tier roads. Under the new Municipal Act, Section 52 and 53, the upper tier municipality has the right to transfer the road to the lower tier municipality without its consent. Nevertheless, there does not appear to be any support for such an effort. RECOMMENDATION: That the Elgin County Road Network Study be received and filed. Respectfully Submitted CDvJ~~ Approved for Submission M<¡~O Chief Administrative Officer Clayton D. Watters Director of Engineering Services · ., jI "l:t!' TOWN OF ~ Office: (519) 773-3164 Fax: (519) 765-1446 Adminstration: Wendell Graves - Administrator . Phyllis Ketchabaw - Clerk November 25, 2004. Mr. Clayton Watters, Manager, Engineering Services, 450 Sunset Drive, ST. THOMAS, ON N5R 5V1 Dear Sir: SUBJECT: ELGIN COUNTY ROAD NETWORK STUDY UPDATE REPORT Transportation Committee reviewed and reconsidered the Road Network Study, dated July 13, 2002, at their October 14th, 2004 meeting. Committee reaffirms that it is in agreement with the Report and recommends approval. Maintenance of the major roads of the County should take precedence over funding roads that are strictly local in nature. Council also strongly suggests that John Street be recognized as a Connecting Link as is No.3 Highway, in Aylmer. Thank you for providing an opportunity to provide comment. Y~r:.~~ ~e;kJhYIliS KJhabaw c.c. Mayor p, E. Baldwin Deputy-Mayor R. G. Baldwin, Transportation Chairman RECEIVED NOV 292004 ~ 11/05/2004 FRI 11:02 ~ FAX 519 866 3884 Municipality of Bayham @001/001 . Municipality of .. Bayham \ ~~Œ~'" . ~,'),' ..;:-.-~'*-:...... ~.:'.., "/.:_'''_'J''::'T.-.~~ '" ~f;q~~Is~1~!t"'~ 0.... <0-<' ~°>'trtnity 1&"",0 P.O. Box 160,9344 Plank Road, Srr.úfordville, Ontario NO] lYO Tel: (519) 866-5521 . Fax: (519) 866-3884 email: bayham@bayham.on.ca November 5,2004 Fax No. (519) 631-4297 Clayton Watters Manager of Engineering Services County of Elgin 450 Sunsct Road St. Thomas, ON NSR SVI Dear Mr. Watters, Re: Road Network Studv-.Julv 2002 Council reviewed the above mentioned report at its meeting November 4th, 2004. After reviewing the information, Council adopted the following resolution: "That the Municipality of Bayham inform the County of Elgin that its position on the County Road Network Study remains unchanged trom 2002." Thank/ou for ~e opportunity to comment on the issue. / IJ ¡ Yoms y,; / I l ~/, ! / ¿/ / \ , . Ky ~ger. ~ A&niliistratortLY1..v. U i' , u ' --. -.. -- --.- --"_. --- --- --- ---.. -..........-................ -... ....,,"'.................. 1£:jUUl. -y.l\.Y!!:Yt Municipality of Bayham il ' o s" o ~ÞO.rtnDity Is ~o P.O. Box 160,9344 Plank Road, Srtaffordvil1e, Ontario NO] 1 YO Tcl:(519) 866-5521 . m:(519) 866-3884 email: bayham@bayham.on.ca. June 7, 2002 Fax No. (519) 631-4297 Clayton Watters Manager of Engineering Services County ofElgin 450 Sunset Road St. Thomas. ON N5R 5Vl Dear Mr. Watters, Re: Countv Road Network Study Coùncil considered the revised Road Network Study report, dated April 25th, 2002 at its meeting June 6th, 2002. Council expressed opinion that the revised report does not address the concerns expressed by Bayham in its :first submission. Therefore, the position of Bayham Council remains unchanged, as follows: "THAT the Municipality of Barham inform the County of Elgin that it is not supportive of the transfer of the County Roads identified in its January 31" report until such time as a full evaluation of the long term capital needs for each road is completed, and required works agreed upon." If you require anything further, please do not hesitate to contaet me. I The Municipality of Central Elgin MEMO DATE: December 8, 2004 TO: Mr. Clayton Watters, P.Eng. - County of Elgin PREPARED BY: Lloyd J. Perrin, Director of Physical Services SUBJECT: Road Network Study Please be advised that the Municipality of Central Elgin is not in favour of the recommendations outlined in the County of Elgin's Road Network Study. ~~Q - 10/19/04 08:50 FAX 1 519 762 2278 MUN, DUTTON/DUNWICH .. COUNTY C WATTERS I4i 002 MAYOR. Emmie. Vowel 259 MBIy Stte" Dutton, NoL:LTo 9,1unicipaCity of (j)utton/Dunwicli Box 329, 199 M.aJnStreet, IImON, Ontarlo NoL 1JO Telephone; (519) 76g-U04-F"" No, (519) 762'"""7S ~k Treasurer Aifministrator KenLovcland COUNC!Il.ORS !!IizabothID:>rnak..- 1 Lfons Road. Box IU4 Dutton, NoL1J'a PEPtTIYMAYOR. CameronMeWißl3m 28740 Celäc:Iina!œ#J: Dutton., NoL1.To John Yokom 3254$ PiDneer Line, rut # 1 lona Station, Nç¡L 11'0 DQ.ala H.l'ngc 7949 Coyne Road ~:# 2 Wa&œ'tuwn¡NoL2Ma October 18, 2004 County of Elgin Mark MacDonald 450 Sunset Drive St Thomas, Ontario NSRSVl Dear Mr. MacDonald, Re: Elgin County Road Netwol'k The Council of the Municipality of Dutton/Dunwich discussed the Road Network Stu.dy dated July lStl" 2002 at their October 13th, 2004 meeting. It is the position of Cou.ncil that the original study needs to be revised before it should be reconsidered, since there are some significant changes in ttaffic counts in 2902 and 2003 and that the possible tranSfer of additional bridges would significantly change the long-tem costs incurred by the lower tier municipalities. . In any event, the Council of the Municipality of Dutton/DWlwich strongly opposes the transfer of the roads to our municipality as outlined in the otiginal report and fee1s that this action is nothing more than downloading the costs to the lower tier taxpayer. Countv Road No.8 (Currie Road) South of Fine:al Line It is the position of the Council of the Municipality of DuttonJDunwich that this road should remain a County Road since it provides access to John E. Pearce Provmcial Park as well as the Backus Page House located on this property. This section of Road also acts as a collector road since it provides access to Tyrconnel1 as well as the Duttona Beach Development. This coupled with the ongoing improvement to the Backus Page facility will increase the traffic volumes on this road. In fact, using the most up-to-date information available from COWlty Staff, there has already been an approximate 60% increase in traffic counts from the 20011eve1s used for the original report. Cou.ntv Road No. 1; (Dunborou!!:h Road) Again, Council feels that the transfer of this road to Lower Tier municipalities is not acceptable. This road'has now become the most direct access to cross the Thames River to the Glencoe area for many of our residents. It is 01,11' understanding that when Tail's Bridge was closed and removed several years ago, to save the County considerable money, that the County would improve COWlty Road No. 9 and County Road NO·5 as compensatiou to losing a river crossing, The roads have now been improved, however they should remain under County jurisdiction. In fact, it maybe advisable for the 10/19/04 08:50 FAX 1 519 762 2278 MUN, DUTTON/DUNWICH .. COUNTY C WATTERS ~003 County to assume Dunborough Road (West Elgin/Dutton Dunwich Townline) between Talbot Line (County Road 3) and Pioneer Line (County Road 2) since a vast majority of the traffic takes this route to the Glencoe area. The transfer of Walker's bridge to the Lower Tier Municipalities was something that was not even considered in the original report and is oDly possible now due to changes in the MuDicipal Act. Although this bridge is only twenty-three years old, its future replacement would be very difficult to negotiate between the two lower tier municipalities in Elgin and whoever is the owner in Middlesex County due to the large cost involved. It would make more sense to have the two counties involved and the entire County Tax Base sharing the burden. Countv Road No. 15 The Council of the Municipality of Dutton/Dunwich understands the concept that there is no need to have two County Roads serving the same bunt-up area and travelling in the same direction. For that reason Council would have no objection to County RDad 15 being tra.nsfen'ed to the lower tier providing that this road is brought up to our standards. In preparing the original report. we feel that County Staff has made an invalid assumption when they state that this road in its present condition would meet our current standards. If this road were transfeITed to our jurisdiction it would become our highest travelled road. The Road needs to have drainage imprç¡vements, curb and gutter installed and the surface repaved. It would seem completely unfair since this road was scheduled for reconstruction in the County Five Year Plan and was delayed so that the funds could be transferred to a road in another area of the County and now has disappeared completely from the Five Year Capital Plan to transfer the capital costs to the lower tier. I The Council of the Municipality of Dutton/Dunwich has always supported the County of Elgin when it makes decisions that are in the best interest dfthe majority of residents, providing that they do not place undue hardships on any individuallowelr tier municipality. Council feels that if the original report is adopted, our residents would be sad.dled with the vast majority of the County's Capital Savings ($1,385,000 of $2,565,000.00) and thib would be unacceptable to our ratepayers_ dL.Ý Ken Loveland Clerk Treasurer Administrator KL:ht cc Clayton Watters, Mngr, of Engineering Services Municipality of Bayham Town of Alyrner Township of Malahide Municipality of Central Elgin Municipality of West Elgin Township of Southwold ~L/~öIL~~4 ~~:~~ ((..j::J..j..j4 MALAHIVt:.. t"Abt. 111 *,- ." .,~~. i~ '])] Township of MALAHIDE 87 John Srreet South, Avlmer, Ontario N5H 2C3 T~lephone: (51.9) 77.3-5344 Fax: (519) 773-5334 Email: 111a1ahide@town.hip.tnalahide.on.ca www.township.malahide.on.ca .-. December 8, 2004, County ofElgin, 450 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas, Ontario. N5R 5VI Attention: Mr. Clayton Watters Dear Sir: RE: Elgin County - Road Network Study Further to your letter of September 17, 2004, Council and staff have reviewed the Reports submitted and confirm that our response as reported in the Engineering Services Report dated July 15, 2002, remains as follows: The municipality accepts the transfer of Putnam Road from Lyons Line to Ron McNeil Line - County Road 47 to the County of Elgin road system but does not accept the transfer of any other County Roads to lower tier, Township of Malahide. We also concur with the excerpt ftom the County of Elgin Minutes of July 23, 2002 wherein the County of Elgin assumed Putnam Road fTom Lyons Line to Ron McNeil Line (2.77 krn) in 2003 budget. We trust the above is satisfactory for YOUr records. LEY, Road Superintendent Copy - Council SelOA VE Ii\Lettc",lcounty. ro,. srudy doc S.doc RANDALL R. MILLARD CA,O./C/crk Em<'lil; dcrk(9.1t<>WT1ship.TT1<11::lhid<:-.on.c¡.¡ SUSAN E. Wu.sON T.,",!:!('/"Iõòlm' EI¡1njJ: tr(,!;;¡:;urc:r@tClwn~hip.m~l~hidL~.(m,c.'1 11/10/2004 10:37 FAX 519 769 2837 TOWNSHIP OF SOUTHWOLD ¡¡¡¡ 002 TOWNSHIP OF SOUTHWOLD 35663 Fingal Line Fingal, ON NOL 1 KO Phone; (519) 769-2010 Fax: (519) 769-2837 Email: southwold@twp.southwold.on.ca November 10. 2004 County of Elgin Mark MacDonald 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, Ontario N5R 5V1 Dear Mr. MacDonald: Re: Elgin County Road Network The Council of the Township of Southwold discussed the Road Network Study dated July 13th, 2002 at their October 18th and November 8th, 2004 meeting. It is the position of Council that the original study needs to be revised before it should be reconsidered since there are significant changes in traffic counts and that the possible transfer of additional bridges would significantly change the long-term costs incurred by the Township of Southwold. In any event Council of the Township of Southwold strongly opposes transfer of roads to our municipality as outlined in the original report and feels that this action is nothing more than down loading costs to the Lower Tier Taxpayer. County Road 27 (Road 20 to Town Line) It is the position of the Council of the Township of Southwold that this road should remain a County road because of the age of Meeks Bridge; constructed in 1900. This bridge is over 100 years old and its future replacement would be a burden upon the Township. County Road 11 (Clinton Line) It is the position of the Council of the Township of Southwold that the transfer of this road to Lower Tier municipalities is not acceptable. This road now become the most direc(access to the Ford Motor Company of Canada's shipping and receiving department as well as CN Rail repair yard. 11/10/2004 10:37 FAX 519 769 2837 TOWNSHIP OF SOUTHWOLD I4i 003 County Road 20 (North of Road 18) and County Road 119 It is the position of the Council of the Township of Southwold that this road remains in County hands as it is a direct route to Oneida Firsf Nations. County Road 17 (Southdel Drive) It is the position of the Council of the Township of Southwold that this road not be transferred because it is a Town line between two Counties. County Road 48 It is the position of the Council of the Township of Southwold that this road not be transferred to the Municipality because of its surface condition. The Council of the Township of Southwold usually supports the County of Elgin when it makes decisions that are in the best interest of the majority of residents providing that they do not place undue hardships on any individual Lower Tier Municipality. yz¥ .¿j ( Scott Woolley Road Superintendent ~ 11/29/2004 14:24 5197850644 WEST ELGIN MUNICIPAL PAGE 01 mlp.~~alitll n£ ;m¡¡£zt ~1gitt November 29, 2004 County of Elgin 450 Sunset Drive 81. Thomas, ON N5R 5V1 Attn: Mark McDonald Dear Sir: RE: COUNTY OF ELGIN ROAD STUDY UPDATE Thanks to you and Clayton for attending our council meeting on November 10th and providing information on the road study update. Our municipal road budget would suffer with the added expense of assuming the two roads noted in the study. Local taxpayers would have the maintenance of these roads to bear while still contributing to the cost of maintaining County roads that neighbouring municipalitìes are not assuming. By assuming County Rd. # 5, this road iwould become the longest stretch of hard surface road owned by this Lower Tier Municipality. The inclusion of the Walker Bridge over the Thames River makes it the largest, most complex structure owned by West Elgin. Drainage on this road was not fully completed in conjunction With the improvements made to this road in 1999. As well the surface of this road is now in a poor condition and as yet has not had the traditional secOnd coat of tar and chip completed, By being a surface treated road the life expectancy of the riding surface requires a higher frequency of maintenance and resurfacing when compared to hard surface roads. Costs of recoating are $1.70 per sq. meter for single coat and $2.90 for double coat (2004 pricing), At 84,750 sq. m (11.3 km. X 7.5 m.) the cost of resurfacing equals $ 144,075.00 to $244,755.00. While the Walker Bridge is in excellent condition now, future bridge rehabilitation cost is unknown but hundreds of thousands of dollars could be expected. County road # 103 south of Talbot Road is currently in very good condition. Traffic counts taken by the County show this to be a class 6 road. We treat this as a class 3 road because of its location on our plow routes as well as the fact that a fairly large number of people live in Port Glasgow On a seasonal basis, This road 22413 HoskJns Une. 80x 490, ROdney; Ontario NOl 2CO Tel: (519) 785-0560 Fax: (519) 785-0644 11/29/2004 14:24 5197850644 WEST ELGIN MUNICIPAL PAGE 02 P.2 is also a link to two large trailer parks and a popular marina. The extra traffic is not reflected in the County's classification of this stretch of road. We question the assumption held by the County that municipal roads are maintained at a lower standard and lower cost. It must be pointed out that all West Elgin roads are maintained on a "Class" basis and maintenance of all roads is not discriminated by ownership. The assumption of lower costs can only be explained by the fact that the greatest percentage of West Elgin roads are Class 4 while the County roads would be Class 3. Further, the West Elgin Road Department has been better able to service these roads mOre efficiently than the County system was able to do before 1998_ In conclusion Council feels that while still in the early stages of downloading, it is in the best interest of West Elgin to fund the roads already in our system rather then spread what monies that are available too thin by taking On additional expenses or worst, increasing taxes to fund these extra roads. Yours truly, ~ JJ 6.... >A.. ~ Norma I. Bryant, Ha~Iv;~T Clerk cc. C. Watters K. Loveland REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Peter Dutchak, Manager of Road Infrastructure DATE: November 30, 2004 SUBJECT: Request to fund Sidewalks - John Street Introduction The County has received a request from the Town of Aylmer to allocate funding for the installation of sidewalks on John Street from Beech Street north to Progress Drive. Discussion The Town of Aylmer has requested that the County of Elgin allocate funds within the 2005 budget in the amount of $31,000 to pay for the installation of a sidewalk on the east side of John Street from Beech Street north to Progress Drive. The written request is attached for Council's information. The County's current and past practice is not to fund new sidewalks. Sidewalk installation is only completed when an existing sidewalk is present and roadwork in the area has disturbed that existing sidewalk with grade changes, accessibility ramps or required excavations. In these instances, sidewalks are reinstated at the County's expense as part of the road project. A Town of Aylmer reserve exists to fund roadwork improvements on County Roads within the Town. To date this reserve has been used to fund: a pavement resurfacing project, traffic signals and is proposed to be used to repair a wingwall on the John Street bridge. Once these expenses have been accounted for, approximately $65,000 remains in this reserve. Conclusion The County has been requested to fund a sidewalk installation project on John Street in Aylmer to service the new development area at Progress Drive. The County's practice has been not to fund new sidewalk installations. If Aylmer's sidewalk request was approved, this decision would set a precedent for all future sidewalk requests. A change in the County's sidewalk funding practice may also trigger requests from· municipalities who have had to pay for sidewalks during recent urban road reconstructions (i.e. Straffordville, Eden). Also, County road projects within built up areas could be subject to complete sidewalk installation that would increase project costs considerably and reduce the volume of work completed on County roads annually. Staff's contention remains that sidewalks are a local responsibility. This position has been confirmed in a recent review of lower tier maintenance responsibilities in urban areas. The Urban Road Policy (revised June 2003) states that lower tier municipalities are responsible for the repair and maintenance of sidewalks. It is therefore staff's recommendation that the Town of Aylmer's request to fund a sidewalk installation project on John Street be respectfully denied. Recommendation THAT the request from the Town of Aylmer to allocate funding for a sidewalk installation project on John Street be respectfully denied. Approved for Submission, QpWif-ÐM Peter Dutchak Manager of Road Infrastructure Clayton Watters, Director of Engineering Services '-ktfJ Mark G. McDonald, Chief Administrative Officer. Nov,30, 2004 9:24AM TOWN OF AYLMER No,Ol94 p, 1/1 TOWN OF AYLMER 46 Talbot Street, West, Aylmer, Ontario N5H 117 Office: (519) 773-:'1164 Fax: (519) 765-1446 MayQr Paul Baldwin Email: mayor@town.ayImer.on.ca November 29, 2004. Fax: 633-76361 Mr. Mark McDonald, CAO, County of Elgin, 450 SUiiset Drive, " ST. THOMAS, ON N5R 5V1 Dear Sir: !SUBJECT: SIDEWALK INSTALLATION. JOHN STREET NORTH IN THE :rOWN OF AYLMER . This is to advise that we have received an estimate of cost to install a sidewalk on the East Side of John Street North, from Beech Street to Progress Drive, in the amount of $31,000.00, This sidewa!k installation is considered an integral component of the commercia! development in this area, and is needed to enhance the safety for pedestrian:s, Aylmer Town Council is hereby requesting that County Council allocate funding for this project in its 2005 bUdget forecast. We thank you for your consideration and look forward to a favourable response. Sincerely, ~. Mayor Paul Baldwin c.c. IMr, Clayton Watters, Manager of Engineering Services Deputy-Mayor R. G. Baldwin, Chairman, Transportation Committee REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Peter Dutchak¡ Manager of Road Infrastructure DATE: November 30¡ 2004 SUBJEcr: Rumble Strip Policy Amendment Introduction At the Tuesday¡ January 14¡ 2003¡ session of County Council¡ the following revised rumble strip pOlicy was adopted. Rumble StriD Policv 1. The existing rumble strip design dated November 1999 will be utilized in all new installations. 2. Rumble strips will be installed at all County/County road intersections with at least 4 police reported accidents directly attributable to the poor observance of the stop sign in the past 5 years. 3. Rumble strips may be installed at any other intersection that County Council deems necessary to provide this type of warning device. 4. All existing rumble strip locations will remain until resurfacing projects are completed in that location. The County of Elgin has received a request to dampen the sound created by existing rumble strips located near a residenrs home. Staff is seeking CouncWs direction to deal with such requests. Discussion The County has received a request to dampen the sound created by existing rumble strips located on Iona Road (County Road #14) north of Talbot Line (County Road #3) in Iona. This location does not meet the criteria in the current policy to have rumble strips automatically installed. The only locations that do meet the policy¡s criteria are as follows: ~ County Road #19 (Plank Road) at County Road #45 (Calton Line) ~ County Road #45 (john Wise Line) at County Road #36 (Quaker Road) ~ County Road #22 (Fairview Road) at County Road #45 (john Wise Line) ~ County Road #73 (Imperial Road) at County Road #52 (Ron McNeil Line) ~ County Road #74 (Belmont Road) at County Road #52 (Ron McNeil Line) Although only five locations presently qualify for the installation of rumble strips, 38 of 114 County / County or County / Highway intersections presently have various styles of rumble strips installed. The Rumble Strip Policy states that "rumble strip locations will remain until resurfacing projects are completed in that location". The intent of this clause in the policy was to eliminate the need to remove all existing rumble strip locations until resurfacing was being completed on that section of roadway. While it is relatively expensive to physically remove rumble strips, it is quite inexpensive to dampen the noise created from them by simply placing cold mix asphalt within the groove depressions. Staff would therefore recommend an amendment to the existing policy to grant staff the authority to allow any municipality, upon written request and at the municipality's expense, to dampen the noise created by rumble strips that do not meet the policy criteria. The written request would allow staff to review the most recent accident history at a location to ensure that it does not satisfy the policy criteria to have rumble strips present. Conclusion The County has been requested to grant a municipality the permission to dampen the noise created by rumble strips at a location that does not meet the current policy's criteria. The existing policy states that rumble strips shall remain until resurfacing is completed in that area. An amendment to the pOlicy would provide means for lower tier municipalities to dampen the noise created by unwarranted rumble strips at their cost upon written request to the County. Recommendation THAT the existing Rumble Strip Policy be amended to include the following clause: "Upon written request, staff may grant a municipality approval to dampen the sound created by rumble strips that do not meet the policy criteria, at the requesting municipality's cost". ~~ Submitted, . ~ Peter Dutchak, Manager of Road Infrastructure Approved for Submission, äW~i\-M Clayton Watters, Director of En . Mark G. McDona , Chief Administrative Officer. REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Clayton Watters, Director of Engineering Services DATE: November 30, 2004 SUBJECf: Springwater Dam and Spillway INTRODUCTION The County of Elgin has received a request from the Catfish Creek Conversation Authority (CCCA) for financial support to undertake three remedial projects for the dam and spillway. DISCUSSION: The CCCA has requested financial support for three remedial projects for the dam and spillway on Springwater Road. These projects are: rotection Estimated Cost $35,000 $6,000 $3,500 When the dam was constructed in 1967 the County of Elgin contributed 21.2%, $34,000, of the total project cost $160,000. Our records indicate that the CCCA contributed approximately same proportion as the County of Elgin. The remaining costs were split between the Ontario Department of Highways and the Ontario Department of Energy and Resources Management. In 1972 the CCCA funded 100% of the pedestrian underpass that is near the entrance to the park. In reviewing the hydraulic capacity of the area without the dam would require a culvert with an end area of 165 square feet (13-foot by 13-foot square culvert). The present size of the concrete structure is 1825 square feet. Therefore, the present sized concrete structure is not required for hydraulic capacity. The County of Elgin contributed financially (21%) to the construction of the present dam and spillway, therefore the County should contribute to the remedial projects outlined above. The County of Elgin would complete any of three projects outlined above for a structure and road as deemed for safety purposes. CONCLUSION: The County of Elgin is in agreement with cost sharing wherever possibly. In this situation staff agree that we should fund 25% of the project. Staff should thank the CCCA for successfully securing 50% from the Ministry of Natural Resources funding for the above projects so that the local taxpayer do not have to absorb these costs. RECOMMENDATION: That a letter be forwarded to the Catfish Creek Conversation Authority to thank them for securing 50% funding for projects that assist the County of Elgin with road infrastructure; and also, That the County of Elgin contribute 25% (to a maximum amount of $12/000) of the costs for the stability improvements, deck testing and additional riprap embankment protection; on the Springwater Dam and Spillway; and also, That these funds be allocated from the Bridge Replacement Reserve. Respectfully Submitted Approved for Submission (jrJtJ~ k Clayton D. Watters Director of Engineering Services Mark . Chief Administrative Officer CA! F!SH CRFEK CONSt:RVATIONAUTHORJTY November 24, 2004 County Of Elgin 450 Sunset Drive SI. Thomas, Ontario N5R 5V1 . . Attention': Mr. Clayton Watters, P. Eng" Director-Engineering Services Dear Sir: . - ". Thank you for attending the. meeting with myself and Peter Crook, p. Eng., of Riggs Engineering LId: on November 220d; 2004,· to discuss '8' number of majQr maintenance projects identified in the Springwater Dam Inspection arid Operatiqnal Review Report. . . During our meeting, the following remedial Works were cOnsidered: .Stabili~ Improvements . DeckTesting· . · Additional Riprap Embankment Protection Estimated Cost: Estimated Cost: Estimated Cost: $35,000.00 $ 6,000,00 $3,500,00 The Catfish Creek Conservation Authority has been advised that it will receive a grani of 50% towards the above noted projects provided that the münicipaf portion of the funds has been secured and that each project will be completed by March 31, 2005. . Since the Springwater Dam forms an integtàl par! of the Springwater Road, the CCCA is hereby submitting a request to the County of Elgin for financial support to help undertake these high priority maintenance projects. . . . . If you could provide the undersigned with a copy of the County's decision regarding our request prior to December 16th; it would be greatly appreciated, . . Yourstru.IY.,· LÆ-. . .... ..,/.' '. . ,<C-"-'>v-,-- .. .. Mr. Kim Smale . . General Manager/Secretary Treasurer KS/sm RECEIV E D NOV 2 9 2004 8079Springwater Road, R.R. 5,Äyimer, Orit. ¡\¡5H 2R4 (519) 773-9037 . Fax: (519) 765c14S9 E-mail: ccca·@_eie~u¡-¡nk.cóm Website: www.execulfrik.coml'-ccca REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Clayton Watters, Director of Engineering Services DATE: November 30, 2004 SUBJECT: Detour of Highway #3 onto County of Elgin Roads for Construction INTRODUCTION The County of Elgin has received the attached request for the Ministry of Transportation to use County Roads 36, 45 and 35 for a temporary detour route for the reconstruction of Highway #3 from St. Thomas to Aylmer. DISCUSSION: On March 25, 2003 staff from the Ministry of Transportation attended County Council to present the Preliminary Design Class Environmental Study for Highway #3 form St. Thomas to Aylmer. The Ministry requested comments and concerns from the County regarding the planned improvements and detour routes. County Council at that meeting had the following two issues: impact of the detour on County Roads (the Ministry will reconstruct any road sections that were damaged due to the detour) and the construction of temporary signs for businesses during construction (the Ministry has considered a general sign that indicates all local businesses are open during construction). Utilizing the County Roads for detours makes good engineering sense as it would greatly improve the quality and safety of the project. The Ministry has reduced the impact of the construction on county roads by staging the project and providing an on site detour for the replacements of the smaller culverts. CONCLUSION: A detour for the Highway #3 reconstruction project using Elgin County roads makes sense from a safety and construction perspective. If our County roads are adequately signed for the detour traffic will be less inclined to use and damage lower tier roads. RECOMMENDATION: That the Ministry of Transportation be notified that County Roads 36, 45 and 36 can be utilized for a temporary detour route for the reconstruction of Highway #3 from St. Thomas to Aylmer. Respectfully Submitted (ff¡vJCA~ ~Q ~ Clayton Watters Director of Engineering Services Chief Administrative Officer Ministry of Transportatiçn Ministère des Transports ® Ontario Engineering Office Planning and Design Section Southwestern Region Bureau du génie Section de planification et de conception Région du Sud-Ouest 659 Exeter Road London, Ontario N6E 1 L3 Telephone: (519) 873-4561 Facsimile: (519) 873-4600 659, chemin Exeter London (Ontario) N6E 1L3 Tèlèphone: (519) 873-4550 Tèlècopieur: (519) 873-4600 November 15, 2004 Mr. Clayton Watters Manager, Engineering Services County of Elgin 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, Ontario N5R 5V1 Dear Mr. Watters: RE: Highway 3, St. Thomas to Aylmer Further to our discussion last week, I am respectfully requesting that the County of Elgin Council pass resolution for the usage of County Roads 36, 45 and 35 as a temporary detour route for the reconstruction of Highway 3 from St. Thomas to Aylmer. The detour plan is attached. During the project's Preliminary Design stage, ministry staff had met with the County of Elgin on several occasions to discuss the project and detour route. Brian Kope, the ministry's previous Project Engineer for the job, had also presented the project to County Council on March 25, 2003. However, as you are aware, it is unclear as to whether Council Resolution was requested and subsequently granted from this presentation. It should be noted that the decision to go outside the ministry right-of-way and utilize a detour was not taken lightly by the ministry. The detour is required to more safely carry out the major grading cuts to the crests east and west of County Road 74. These cuts will improve the vertical curve and sight distance along the highway, improving safety for road users. The ministry has attempted to reduce the effects of the detour. The duration of the detour was reduced through alternative staging of contract works, from 4 months to 6 weeks. Also, the contractor will be offered an incentive for opening Highway 3 in less than 6 weeks, and a dis-incentive will be applied should the detour extend greater than 6 weeks. Signage will be erected approximately 4 weeks prior to the detour to inform of the upcoming detour, to allow traffic to adopt other routes including Highway 401 during the detour period. ...2 RECEIVED NOV 2 22004 -2- Highway 3 will remain open to local traffic, businesses, and emergency services. The structure rehabilitation at Catfish Creek East will utilize a temporary traffic signal, allowing a single-lane of traffic to pass at a time, to retain traffic on the highway. To ensure that any damage occurring during the detour period is addressed and repaired, the detour route will undergo a geotechnical appraisal prior to the initiation of the detour to establish a baseline of its condition. A post-appraisal will be conducted. County officials are encouraged to attend these appraisals, and any damage will be repaired at the ministry's cost. The structure on County Road 35 at the Conservation Area will also be visually assessed. The process of the design for the road reconstruction has been shared with affected municipalities. As mentioned, several meetings have taken place including the council presentation in March 2003 and the Public Information Centre for the Preliminary Design Phase took place in March 2003. In July 2004, the ministry issued a Transportation Environmental Study Report and Prelimiriary Design Report, in which the preliminary design for the road reconstruction and detour was described. I do not believe that the County of Elgin issued any comments regarding this report submission. Most recently, of course, was the Public Information Centre for the Detail Design on November 3rd where the county's position was stated. To date, it is my understanding that while the County of Elgin does not agree with the ministry policy that municipalities are not compensated for the usage of their roads during detours, the County does not strictly oppose the usage of the detour route under the Highway 3 project. The County recognizes the benefit that the detour will help to speed up the grade cuts while increasing the safety of the operation, and allowing traffic to be reverted back to Highway 3 normal more quickly. Further to this, could you please check the minutes of the March 23, 2003 Council Meeting to determine if resolution was passed at this time. If not, could you please include this request for resolution on the agenda for the next meeting. I would be happy to meet with you at your convenience to discuss any issues that you arid your council may have. Thank you very much for your assistance. Yours truly, PI~~ Bill Moore Project Engineer Highway 3, St. Thomas to Aylmer Cc. Jennifer Graham Harkness REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Melissa Lewis, Elgin Manor Director of Senior Services DATE: December 1 , 2004 SUBJECT: Local Health Integration Networks (LHINs) Update INTRODUCTION: Local Health Integration Networks (LHINs) have been announced as a fundamental component of the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care transformation agenda. LHINs are intended to organize healthcare at a local level and consolidate planning, system integration, service co-ordination and funding allocation, LHINs will manage health care at the local level, while the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care will be responsible for steering, stewardship and direction-setting. Fourteen LHINs will be created throughout the province, with boundaries that have been devised geographically according to where people seek hospital healthcare services. These boundaries are permeable, in that patient movement and choice will not be restricted. Elgin County will be included in the Southwest Health Integration Network, encompassing London, Middlesex, Grey, Bruce, Huron, Perth, Oxford, sections of Lambton, sections of Norfolk, and all of Elgin. LHINs will be govemed by voluntary boards, comprised of seven to nine members who are appointed from within the geographic boundaries of the LHIN, DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: The Ministry of Health has issued a series of web-based bulletins regarding LHIN inception and implementation. A new bulletin will be issued the 15th of every month, with any other reports or updates posted on the 1 st of the month. As of December 1, 2004 there are four (4) LHIN bulletins. These reports are available for your review or may be accessed by clicking on Local Health Integration Networks at www.health.aov.on.caltransformation . The Ministry has also been delivering regional one-day workshops to healthcare providers in each of the fourteen LHINs. A LHIN session was hosted in London for the Southwest on November 23, 2004 with two staff members from the Elgin County Homes in attendance. Gail Paech, Assistant Deputy Minister and Lead for System Integration (LHINs) of the Health Results Team was the principal speaker at the session. The session was designed to be interactive and consultative, with participants devising "integration opportunities" and voting on priorities within their LHIN. For the Southwest, ten integration priorities for the new LHIN were identified. PATIENT CARE/SERVICES ADMIN SUPPORT SERVICES Integration Opportunities Integration ODDortunities Link between General Practitioners & eHealth - One patient, One record Community Care Mental Health & Addition Services Needs-Based Funding Rural Remote Health Care Services eHealth - Common Database Between Eaual to Urban LTC & Community Rural Transportation Rural Health Networks Community Support Services Human Resources Session participants have been given the task to self-organize and provide the Ministry with a report on each of these integration priorities. A standardized report tool must be used and a public report submitted to the Ministry within seventy-five days of the workshop. These reports will be rolled-up into the provincial LHIN plan and will form the first priorities for the new LHINs. Timeframes for LHIN implementation are aggressive, with April 1, 2005 set as the deadline for LHINs to be operationalized. By April 1, 2006 LHINs are to become the funding agent, and therefore responsible for service agreements with health providers (rather then Ministry of Health regional offices). The LHIN budget has been described as a "results based planning process" with no authority to generate funding, but responsibility to allocate resources within the LHIN. Devolution of authority will have to be set out by legislative changes, which are yet to be determined. RECOMMENDATION: THAT the report titled Local Health Integration Networks (LHINs) Update be received and filed. Respectfully Submitted Approved for Submission ¿~ ~-' -- Melissa Le IS, Igin Manor Director of Senior Services Marl< Chief Administrative Officer REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL From: Rhonda Roberts, Director of Senior Services-Terrace Lodge Date: December 6, 2004 Subject Auxiliary Donation INTRODUCTION/DISCUSSION: The Lady's Auxiliary of Terrace Lodge has purchased many items over the years, which have been of great benefit to the homes' Residents. These items have included beds, bedside tables and lounge fumiture, When the Auxiliary heard that the large screen TV in the Resident's lounge was in need of replacement they immediately stepped forward to purchase a replacement. CONCLUSION: The Auxiliary continues to generously support the Resident's of Terrace Lodge. RECOMMENDATION: THAT Council recognises the donation of the new TV through a letter of thank you on behalf of Council. Respectfully Submitted ~"o&m;~J M~ Chief Administrative Officer (~\J0~)~ Ronda L. Roberts Director of Senior Services Terrace Lodge CORRESPONDENCE - DECEMBER 16. 2004 Items for Consideration 1. Township of South Algonquin, with a resolution asking the Ontario Government to recognize the impact of the current municipal property assessment system of Current Value Assessment on property owners. (ATTACHED) 2. i) P.J. Leack, City Clerk, City of St. Thomas, with the nomination of Lorraine Vallee- Moczulski to the Elgin County Pioneer Museum. (ATTACHED) ii) Madeline Jenkins, Secretary, Elgin County Women's Institute, with the reappointment of Joan Mansell and Luella Monteith as representatives on the Elgin County Pioneer Museum Board. (Appointment from January 1, 2005 - December 31, 2007). (ATTACHED) 3. David Ryan, Mayor, City of Pickering, requesting a financial contribution from municipalities throughout Ontario to raise funds to purchase a Victoria Cross medal from an estate for donation to the Canada War Museum. 4. Joseph G. Pavelka, Chief Administrative Officer, Municipality of Chatham-Kent, with a resolution conceming the collection of revenues outside Chatham-Kent. (ATTACHED) 5. J.D. Leach, City Clerk, City of Vaughan, with a resolution requesting the govemment to clarify its position on the Ontario Health Premium as an increase to individual provincial income tax. (ATTACHED) 6. Lynda White, Warden, County of Wellington, requesting that the County of Elgin lobby its M.P.P. on the subject of permanent, transportation infrastructure funding. (ATTACHED) 7. Municipality of West Nipissing; Township of Essa; with a resolution requesting the Provincial Government adjust the formula used for sharing the provincial gasoline tax to include all municipalities in Ontario. (ATTACHED) 8. Cliff Nordal, President and Chief Administrative Officer, St. Joseph's Health Care London, advising that the "Concurrent Disorders Program (CDP)" will be moving from St. Thomas site to the Regional Mental Health Care London facility effective January 21, 2005. 9. C. Anne Greentree, Deputy Clerk, City of Pickering, with a resolution concerning the lowering of the voting age from eighteen to sixteen at the Federal level. 10. Township of Wellington North, with resolutions: 1) requesting the Province maintain the CRF funding at the 2004 levels as a minimum and that annual adjustments reflect inflation and increased municipal responsibilities; 2) requesting the Province provide portion of gas tax collected to all Ontario municipalities. Township of South Algonquin PO Box 240 MADA WASKA, Ontario KOJ 2CO Telephone #1-613-637-2650 Fax #1-613-637-5368 November t 7, 2004 Association of Municipalities of Ontario 393 University Avenue, Suite 1701 TORONTO, Ontario M5G IE6 SUBJECT: ReDIace Our Flawed Current Value Assessment System Dear Sir or Madam: At a regular Council Meeting held on October 7th, 2004, the Council of the Township of South Algonquin passed the following resolution: Resolution No. 04-329 Dated: October 7th, 2004 Moved by: Councillor Gerry Belisle Seconded by: Councillor Tim Costi!!3ß WHEREAS the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MP AC) was created by the Ontario Government at considerable ongoing expense requiring annual financial contributions from all municipalities; and WHEREAS the current municipal property assessment system of Current Value Assessment (CY A) used by MP AC is seriously flawed and unfair as it is driven each year by the probable real estate values of properties as a benchmark for detennining the assessment of a property; and WHEREAS real estate values are volatile and unpredictable, often inflated and artificial which causes spikes in assessments that translate into unfair tax increases despite the fact that such properties may have remained unimproved and unchanged from one year to the next; and WHEREAS municipalities struggle to keep increases to the Tax Rates to a prudent level reflective of budgetary needs, only to have ratepayers taxes increased as a result of the methodology used by MP AC to detennine ratepayers' annual assessments; and WHEREAS the annual capping of connnercial, industrial and multi-residential tax increases continues to impact adversely on residential property owners' taxes; and .....1/2 WHEREAS capping was only intended as a short term measure, to provide temporary reliefto these property classes, to ease their transition into the CV A system. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOL YED that the Ontario Government recognizes that all property assessments not be allowed to increase rrom year to year unless a property has been improved or renovated during that year thus returning stability to the municipal tax system and ensuring fairness and predictability for pensioners, ratepayers on fixed incomes and other ratepayers who simply cannot afford unreasonable and unwarranted severe increases in their municipal tax bi1ls over which municipal councils presently have no control whatsoever; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT ALSO RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to all municipalities in Ontario; to AMO and to ROMA requesting their support by endorsing this resolution and forwarding same to their local M.P.P.; Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister, John Gerretsen; Finance Minister, Gregory Sorbara and Premier Dalton McGuinty. Carried by: Mavor Jim Etmanski Peter J. Leack, M.P.A. City Clerk THE CORPORATION OP TilE ern- OF Office of the Clerk P.O. Box 520, City Hall St. Thomas, ON N5P 3V7 Telephone: (519) 631-1680 Ex!. 120 Fax: (519) 633-9019 Richard J. Beachey, B.A. Deputy City Clerk ST. THOMAS 545 Talbot Street. P.O Box 520. City Hall. St. Thomas. Ontario N5P 3V7 October 21,2004 Elgin County Pioneer Museum 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, ()~ ~5R 5V1 OCT 25 2:J04 Attention: Sandra Heffren Re: 2005 Nomination - Elgin County Pioneer Museum Board Dear Ms. Heffren: The Council of the Corporation of the City of St. Thomas has nominated the following: Mrs. Lorraine Vallee-Moczulski to the Elgin County Pioneer Museum Board from January 1 st, 2005 until December 31 st, 2005. Sincerely, ~ P.J. Leack City Clerk PJL/ccb pIc: Mrs. Lorraine Vallee-Moczulski A??!f ÞV~ ar!- fA . IJ~/ '{jJ@<Þ,,-iJ :f ~ J¡~ ' 'IS-v ~sJ 0",· ~T. ¡/,"""05, ([J.j. 5ŒY;J~ T· !If%n' c~~~ ~ J~'I ()~ ~ 7;,.Lll ? r' d cw¿. u7f~,);'1.-:f DiVn ~al1J ~ cI~a ~'lf/kzrJ.Jj as ~ 'kS-vnjj~ t9-YL J1 ¿! /q ~ 1/ J. 1;) . / 61-?<-n '7 . ~ "'7TU~ ~¿9a¡d 45 J (j). ( . J . 7 oL--'dI-e~ M /.:;[/.;JiJò i ,--- (f j¡) / J- N cj;e=..- J?~7' c¿')J;'1/ c¿JJ. 5ec. t-JJltlJJ~~~' M~ÇQ\f¡~ ~,~ 04"- \ /0& jz5 1)0:..- ':> l I) -:::r /' ,/¡ Jft ":'ëÜ¡ ðf ~ ~~~. PICKERING Pickering Civic Complex One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario Canada LlV 6K7 Direct Access 905.420.4660 cìtyofpickering.oom OFFICE OF mE MAYOR Department 905.420.4600 Facsimile 905.420.6064 mayor@city.pkkering.on.ca November 25, 2004 TO: HEADS OF COUNCIL OF ALL ONTARIO MUNICIPALITIES Subject: Fundraiser for Purchase of Victoria Cross Awarded to Corporal Fred Topham Dear Head of Council: At its meeting of November 15, 2004, Pickering Council authorized a grant in the amount of $1,000 to be made to the 1 $I Canadian Parachute Battalion Museum Trust to help secure a Victoria Cross medal which is at risk of being shipped overseas to a private collection. The Victoria Cross, Canada's highest military decoration, was awarded to Corporal Fred Topham for valour during the Second World War. As a medic, he ran headlong into enemy fire to save the lives of dozens of wounded soldiers in Germany on March 24, 1945. Corporal Topham was shot in the face during his heroics, but refused medical attention until all other soldiers had been taken care of. Corporal Topham passed away in 1974 and his widow passed away in 2001. The estate put Corporal Topham's Victoria Cross on the market and received an offer of $319,000 from a collector in England. Before finalizing this offer, the estate has agreed to sell the medal to the 1 $I Canadian Parachute Battalion if it can raise $275,000 by December 31, 2004. If successful, the Battalion will donate this medal to the Canadian War Museum. In approving the $1,000 grant to the Battalion, my Council asked that every municipality in Ontario be challenged to make a similar contribution. As the Head of Council, you would have been involved in your municipality's recent Remembrance Day activities. What better way can we honour this outstanding hero and our Armed Forces, both past and present, than to ensure that Canada's top military decoration stays in Canada. I urge you to bring this challenge to your Council's attention and stand with Pickering in helping to keep this Victoria Cross in Canada where it belongs. For further information on Corporal Topham and this fundraising project, please visit the Queen's Own Rifles of Canada website at www.aor.com. Yours truly - MUNICIPALITY OF CHATHAM..KENT 315 KING STREET WEST· P.O. Box 640 . CHATHfu\1, ONTARIO. N7M 5K8 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER TELEPHONE: (51 g) 436-3241 FAX: (51 g) 436-3237 November 30,2004 DEC. ~ 0.'''''' . . ~ ¡:;,(Jt¡"¡. Mr. Mark G. McDonald Chief Administrative Officer The County of Elgin 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas ON N5R 5V1 Dear Mr. McDonald: Further to our discussion on Thursday, November 18, 2004 about the revenue from the Provincial Offences Court, the Council for the Municipality of Chatham-Kent discussed this matter at its meeting on Monday, Novemþer 22, 2004 and approved the following resolution and action: "The Municipality of Chatham-Kent and the County of Elgin, jointly approach the Attorney General to resolve the dispute over the collection of revenues outside Chatham-Kent." Accordingly, arrangements will be made at the earliest possible time to schedule this meeting. y, ¿o seph G. Pavelka, P.Eng. ief Administrative Officer c: Mayor and Members of Council Steve Matheson, Director, Legal Services www.city.chatham-kent.on.ca CHATHAM-KENT CALL CENTRE: (519) 360-1998 Vái@tan Clerk's Department 2141 Major Mackenzie Drive Vaughan, Ontario Canada L6A 1T1 TIie CíIy Above T oronio - Tel (905) 832-8504 Fax (905) 832-8535 FOR INQUIRIES: PLEASE QUOTE ITEM & REPORT NO. November 26, 2004 Mr. Mark G. McDonald, CAO The County of Elgin 450 Sunset Drive 5t. Thomas, ON N5R 5V1 CI 1\~¡'1) ~ ¿¡jtÌ'~' Dear Mr. McDonald: RE: ONTARIO HEALTH PREMIUM I am writing to advise you that Vaughan Council, at its meeting held on November 22, 2004, adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS the provincial government introduced the Ontario Health Premium ("OHP") effective July 1 , 2004 WHEREAS the Premier and the Minister of Finance have openly expressed their view that the provincial government did not intend that employers would be required to pay the OHP on behalf of employees WHEREAS the City of Vaughan may be financially impacted by an interpretation in the legislation resulting in employers being responsible for the cost. NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Vaughan hereby request that the provincial government take the necessary steps to enact an amendment to the legislation which clarifies the position of the government that the introduction of the Ontario Health Premium is intended as an increase to individual provincial income tax And that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to Premier Dalton McGuinty, Minister of Finance Greg Sorbara, local Provincial Members of Parliament and municipalities over 50,000. Attached for your information is Minute No. 305, regarding the above noted matter. Attachment: Extract JDUas CITY OF VAUGHAN EXTRACT FROM COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 22 2004 305. ONTARIO HEALTH PREMIUM (Addendum No.1) MOVED by Councillor Carella seconded by Councillor Yeung Racco That the recommendation contained in the following report of the Commissioner of Legal and Administrative Services, dated November 22, 2004, be approved: CARRIED Recommendation The Commissioner of Legal and Administrative Services recommends passing of the following resolution: WHEREAS the provincial government introduced the Ontario Health Premium ("OHP") effective July 1,2004 WHEREAS the Premier and the Minister of Finance have openly expressed their view that the provincial government did not intend that employers would be required to pay the OHP on behalf of employees WHEREAS the City of Vaughan may be financially impacted by an interpretation in the legislation resulting in employers being responsible for the cost. NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Vaughan hereby request that the provincial government take the necessary steps to enact an amendment to the legislation which clarifies the position of the government that the introduction of the Ontario Health Premium is intended as an increase to individual provincial income tax And that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to Premier Dalton McGuinty, Minister of Finance Greg Sorbara, local Provincial Members of Parliament and municipalities over 50,000. PurDose To induce the provincial government to provide further clarity on the new Ontario Health Premium which was implemented on July 1, 2004, through an increase to the personal income tax of Ontarians and was not intended to be a financial burden on employers in the Province of Ontario. Backaround - Analvsis and ODtions On May 18, 2004, the Ontario Government delivered its first Budget and announced the introduction of the Ontario Health Premium (OHP). Commencing on July 1, 2004, employers were required to deduct the OHP from their employees' taxable income. Although the Budget stated that it will be an employee's or retiree's obligation to pay the OHP, employers have faced pressure to pay the OHP on behalf of their employees. The City of Vaughan faces these same pressures. .../2 The question of "who should pay" still remains outstanding. Rulings from arbitrators are starting to emerge and are mixed atthis time. Decisions have been issued in favour of the Employer however, there is also a decision that has been found in favour of the Union. *t~ ~'= West Nipissing Ouest 12004/440 The Corporation of the Municipality of West Nipissing La Corporation de la Municipalité de Nipissing Ouest Suite 101, 225 Holditch Street, Sturgeon Falls, ON P2B 1T1 Moved by: Proposé par: John Dobbs Seconded by: Appuyé par: Denis Bonin November 2, 2004 WHEREAS the Provincial Government has made an announcement on Friday, October 22nd, 2004 of its intention to share the gasoline tax with certain municipalities to fund public transit; AND WHEREAS the funding is to be phased in to commence in 2004 at the rate of one cent per litre share retroactive to October 1, and increasing to 1.5 cents per litre in 2005 and to two cents per litre in 2006; AND WHEREAS smaller municipalities also pay gas tax and are badly in need of road repairs, water and sewer improvements and other infrastructure projects; AND WHEREAS since amalgamation on January 1999, the Municipality of West Nipissing has taken over 17 Y, of previously unorganized townships creating severe pressures on our infrastructure; AND WHEREAS the Council for the Municipality of West Nipissing feels that the above announcement discriminates against small municipalities; BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council for the Municipality of West Nipissing strongly urges the Provincial Govemment to revisit and adjust the formula used for sharing the provincial gasoline tax to include all Municipalities in Ontario; AND BE IT RESOLVED THAT this resolution be forwarded to Premier Dalton McGuinty, to the Minister of Finance, to AMO and to all municipalities throughout Ontario enlisting their support in this matter. YEAS NAYS MAYOR BONIN, Denis DOBBS. John ETHIER, Guy FINLEY, Paul FORTIN, Don MALETTE, Léo MARLEAU, Yvon OLIVIER, Daniel Carried: Joanne Savage - Mayor Defeated: Deferred or Tabled: 5786 County Road 21 Utopia, Ontario LOM no Telephone: (705)424-9917 ext 117 Fax (705)424-2367 Email:cfrainor@essatownshic.on.ca Web Site: www.essatownship.on.ca Where Thlvn IU3d Coumry Mr:çt December I, 2004 Moved by S. Macdonald Seconded by T. Dowdall Gas Tax Revenue Sharing WHEREAS The Council of The Township of Essa received and endorsed a Resolution from the Town of Iroquois Falls in July 2004 requesting the Provincial Government to make a portion of the gas tax available to ALL Ontario municipalities; and WHEREAS following the election of the McGuinty government in the fall of 2003, it was promised that the provincial gas tax would be shared with municipalities but to date no initiative has been taken to provide any portion of the gasoline tax to municipalities that do not operate transit systems7 despite the desperate need by small and rural municipalities for infrastructure and roads maintenance funding that has resulted from Provincial downloading over the last seven years; and WHEREAS the Province of Ontario has promised to commit more than $680 million in gas tax over the next three years to public transit systems in only 105 municipalities, leaving over 350 municipalities to receive none of this funding; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT The Council of The Township of Essa requests the Provincial government to provide a portion of the gasoline tax to all municipalities, regardless of size or the operation of transit services; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Township of Essa hereby requests all Ontario municipalities to endorse this request and provide confirmation of said support to Premier Dalton McGuinty; Minister of Finance Greg Sorbara; Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing John Gerretsen; Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal David Caplan; and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. Carried Carol O. Trainor, A.M.C.T. Clerk / Deputy Treasurer CORRESPONDENCE - DECEMBER 16.2004 Items for Information - (Consent Aqenda) 1. C.F. Stephens, Railway Works Engineer, Ontario Region, Transport Canada, conceming the application for Federal Assistance for improvement to the automated waming devices at Ferguson Line. (ATTACHED) 2. MPAC News Fall 2004 Issue (ATTACHED) 3. OGRA Web Review November 2004 (ATTACHED) 4. Association of Municipalities of Ontario, Member Communication ALERT, Province Announces Expansion of Services and Some Details of the Best Start Plan, 5. Colin Andersen, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Finance, announcing the Ontario-level population projections available on the Ministry website. (ATTACHED) 6. AMO Member Communication FOR YOUR INFORMATION: AMO Resolution on CRF Reconciliation. (ATTACHED) 7. Rhonda Barkley, Liaison, Ontario Family Fishing Weekend Steering Committee, with information conceming the 2005 Ontario Family Fishing Weekend. (ATTACHED) 8. Hon. Dalton McGuinty, Premier of Ontario, acknowledging. Council's resolution concerning the timeframe to provide barrier-free buildings. 9. Hon. Steve Peters, M.P.P., Elgin-Middlesex-London, with copy of correspondence to: 1) the Minister of Transport concerning the road improvements on Highway 3 between Aylmer and St. Thomas; 2) the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal conceming the original funding levels for capital funding for renovations to the fourth floor of the County Administration Building as the future location of the Elgin County Pioneer Museum. 10. Dianne McFadden, RPN, Bobier Villa, thank you for 30 year service gift. Margaret Lyle, RN, Bobier Villa, thank you for 25 year service gift. 11, Bob and Sinikka Chantler, requesting the opportunity to address Council at the December 16, 2004 meeting regarding the divestiture of the Port Stanley Harbour. (ATTACHED) 12. Denise McLeod, Deputy Clerk, with a resolution requesting the County share 50% of the MTE cost not to exceed $500.00. (ATTACHED) 13. Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Members' Advisory, FCM Board Adopts Unanimous Position on Fuel-Tax. 14. Port Stanley Harbour Divestiture correspondence: a) Terry E. Campbell b) E. Jackson c) Jill and Gerry Coull d) Jane F. White e) Mary Eccles f) Don Fleming and Karen White. 15. St. Thomas & District Chamber of Commerce, Lunch and Dialogue with the Minister of Finance, the Honourable Greg Sorbara, Monday December 20, 2004. 16. Premier Dalton McGuinty, concerning Council's resolution regarding dairy herd improvement funding. .+. Transport Transports Canada Canada Surface Surface 4900 Yonge Street Srd Floor North York, Ontario M2N 6A5 Your fife Votfe [é'éfence Our file Notre ré{éfence November 22nd, 2004 Mr. Peter Dutchak Technical Services Officer County of Elgin 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, Ontario N5R 5V1 Mr. Peter Gorski Public Works CN Rail Great Lakes Division 1 Administration Road P.O. Box 1000 Concord, Ontario L4K 1 B9 Dear Sirs: RE: APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE PURSUANT TO SECTION 12 OFTHE RAILWAY SAFETY ACT FOR IMPROVEMENT TO THE AUTOMATED WARNING DEVICES AT FERGUSON LINE, COUNTY OF ELGIN, ONTARIO According to the application that we received, the above mentioned improvement project consists of flashing lights and bell at the crossing of Ferguson Line. The railway company estimated the cost of the works to be $115,720,00. The maximum federal contribution is limited by legislation to eighty per cent of the actual cost of the eligible works. As you are likely aware, funding for this project was not included in the recent announcement for federal funding pursuant to Section 12 of the Railway Safety Act. The County of Elgin's project meets the conditions of Subsection 12(3) (a) of the Railway Safety Act.. The proponent may begin the work upon filing an application for federal funding. The commencement of work prior to receiving grant approval from Transport Canada will not preclude project funding, Canad~ RËCE¡VEO NûV 2 52004 - 2- The County's project remains in Transport Canada's project funding list and will be considered for funding based on national priorities for funding. Timing for the funding of this project will be determined based on the availability of funds and the project's ranking on the priority list. C.F. Stephens Railway Works Engineer Ontario Region ë>«...._ _ _ _ -.--.- ~~_ _~_. __,~~,==,__~"'~"'"~ __._'''' _<C_,._ _~._~ _'~'-,'" -' ~-' ,_..~_ _,__~'"_~~_,,~~""._ '"_,_~ '" __~ _.___ ~ ~ __ '''_~_ __,_,~,~=~~_~," ",,~_~,,___ ~,~ l§-ªllqra Ijeffr~n_c .OG.B6.\I\f~l>..~~\li~~.jjlit{C7 hfjFº.~Çcê.?ê.9c~ÉhT:.9(3~D3:gE~h(3f)CF1FE}tt:!L.~.~.. _··~§g~-lJ From: To: Date: Subject: communications@ogra.org <mgmcd@elgin-county.on.ca> 11/19/0410:47AM OGRA Web Review (##{C7A5FDAC-82B9-4EA7-96D4-72F9A69CF1 FE}##) Dear OGRA Member: Please find attached the OGRA Webs Review. This e-bul/etin will keep you informed of what's new on the OGRA website. Please take a look and visit us often at www.ogra.org. For questions, or if you are unable to view the attached document, please emaiJ Lauren Ryan-Forrest, Communications and Marketing Coordinator at lauren@ogra.org. For those who have had trouble open this in the past, I am sending you a separate Word document saved in an earlier version. thank you, Highlights of What's New on the OGRA Website www.oara.org 2005 OGRA/ROMA Combined Conference Fairmonl Royal Yor. HOlel- Feb. 20-23. 2005 The OGRA/ROMA Combined Conference is fast approaching! To access information about this event, please click on the relevant links below: InfraGuide - Whars Newil The InfraGuide network is continually working on the publication of new Best Practices for core municipal infrastructure. To view the BPs, please visit their website by clicking on the link below: InfraGuide - Best Practices Ontario Municipalities That Have Recently Endorsed InfraGuide: · City of Brantford · Town of Goderich · Town of Whitby To view a sample resolution for endorsing InfraGuide, please click on the link below: InfraGuide - Sample Resolution ReeenllY Posled on Ihe OGn Websile Visit us often at www.OQra.ora · Canada/Ontario - MuniciDallnfrastructure Proqram Announced · Public Consultations for Drinkinq Water Qualitv and Testinq Standards · News Release: Deliverinq on the Gas Tax · 2004 Snow and Ice Colloquium Presentations ~¡..~ SERVICE. ACCURACY. INNOVATION. EXPERIENCE 18 ""'....... ·.;;;"~1~ Wv'··' '"-"'~' :) 2004 ASSESSMENT UPDATE""";~7,.,"';'~';"n\,,;'~;mQtC~5 Changes to Ontario's property assessment system, announced earlier this year in the'RhiVifj'tìÈÍrBudge("-' " mean that the 2004 assessment update for all properties in Ontario has been cancelled. For most property owners, this means they will not receive a Property Assessment Notice from MPAC this fall. However, the Corporation will send Notices to approximately one million property owners to reflect in-year changes resulting from property sales, MPAC's Tenant Information Program, reinspection and reclassification programs, Requests for Reconsideration and appeal adjustments, and general update requirements. For those properties where there have been no changes since the last assessment update, the assessed value that MPAC established in 2003 will remain in effect for taxation in 2005. o REINSPECTIDN PROGRAM RESULTS MPAC's expanded reinspection program took place from May to the end of August this year, with a goal to reinspect and verify property information for approximately 315,000 properties across the province This initiative was particularly focused on residential properties, parcels that had not been inspected or verified since pre-1995, and properties that required staff to inspect or verify data on exterior and minimum interior information. MPAC is pleased to report that it exceeded this goal and inspected in excess of 374,000 properties. During each inspection, MPAC steff verified the information currently on file for the property and collected data on any changes that occurred since the property was last inspected. All changes to properties are now reflected in MPAC's database. These inspections were conducted in addition to MPAC's regular inspection activity associated with new growth, Requests for Reconsideration, appeals, sales investigations and general enquiries, As a result of MPAC's review, for properties that have increased in value by 5% or greater than $10,000, property owners will receive a supplementary assessment notice this year.. Properties that have decreased in value by 5% or greater than $10,000 will be adjusted at year-end and reflected on the 2005 assessment roll. Properties with value changes that do not meet this threshold will not experience a change in total property value from this program, this year. However, the updated information will be used when calculating a new value for the next assessment update in 2005 for 2006 taxation. Information for commercial and industrial properties that were visited has also been updated in MPAC's database. MPAC's valuation specialists are currently analyzing the impact of the data changes on assessed values. All municipalities will soon be receiving a report from MPAC outlining the reinspection program results for their community. For more information, please contact your local Municipal Relations Representative ~ MUNICIPAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT CORPORATION 1305 PICKERING PARKWAY PICKERING, ONTARIO L 1V 3P2 T: 905.831.4433 F: 905.837.6280 TOLL FREE: 1.877.635.6722 www.mpac.ca SERVICE· ACCURACY. INNOVATION. EXPER!ENCE mpacnews contìnued.., n L ¿ " ".. BOARD APPOINTMENTS In August, the Minister of Finance announced the appointment of several new members to MPAC's Board of Directors. The Board now comprises the following municipal, taxpayer and provincial representatives: Municipal Representatives c Debbie Zimmerman (Chair), Councillor for the Regional Municipality of Niagara * 8 Margaret Black, Mayor of the Township of King, Councillor for the Regional Municipality of York* ., Doug Craig, Deputy Mayor of the City of Greater Sudbury and Chair of Greater Sudbury Utilities Inc. * .. Howard Greig, Mayor of the Township of Chatsworth, and Councillor for Grey County . Jacques Hétu, FCGA, Mayor of Hawkesbury* o Case Dotes, Councillor for the City of Toronto o Jim Pine, Chief Administrative Officer for the County of Hastings o Larry Ryan, Chief Financial Officer for the Region of Waterloo * Taxpayer Representatives " Judith Andrew, Ontario Vice-President for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business o Vince Brescia, President and CEO of the Federation of Rental-housing Providers of Ontario G Ian Howcroft, Vice-President, Ontario Division of Canadian Manufacturers and Export~rs " Terry Mundell, President and CEO of the Ontario Restaurant Hotel and Motel Association o Neil Rodgers, President of the Urban Developrnent Institute/Ontario Provincial Representatives o John Wilkinson, M.P.P. (Vice-Chair], Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance and M.P.P. for Perth-Middlesex* , Peter Suma, Principal, Start Seed Capital Incorporated * * new members For more information about MPAC's Board of Directors visit www.mpac.ca. --8 MPAC RECEIVES DISTINGUISHED ASSESSMENT JURISDICTION AWARD MPAC has received the prestigious 2004 "Distinguished Assessment Jurisdiction Award" from the Intarnational Association of Assessing Officers (IMO). This award is given to a government assessment agency that has institutad within the last two years a technical, procedural, or administrative program that is an improvement from prior programs and is generally recognized as a component of a model assessment system, The IMO is an independent, non-profit association with nearly 8,000 members in 21 countries around the world, Its mission is to promote innovation and excellence in property appraisal, as well as property tax policy and administration. ~-J UPCOMING CONFERENCES MPAC looks forward to meeting with municipal representatives at the Southwestern Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Conference on November 18, at the Best Western Lamplighter Inn in London. '':8- ..; -~-,~ ".- .+. Govemment Gouvernement of Canada du Canada Fisheries Pêches and Oceans et Océans ~~1~,(1::lf~~VêL1; 22 2004 November 10, 2004 =~, '''''' . "'" ¡]Ji\" ~:¡¡¡Li¡\H 'í tL\1,J,,¡5 "'''' """'5" ~. ~'i>-~Mf!'.~~-~"'r' _ ''- j,¡:.- _ . ._!fi~' ,,~, "'f''''f,,·n''''1!¡1lESb~'&ù-. , võíìê~ñfMrMœ Your file Our fife Notre réMrence This letter is being sent to individuals and groups who may have an interest in whether the Round Pigtoe (a rreshwater mussel) should receive protection under the federal Species at RiskAct (SARA). In Canada, the Round Pigtoe is found only in Ontario, mainly in the Grand, Thames and Sydenham rivers and near the shores of Lake St. Clair. Due to its limited distribution and marked decline in abundance, it has been designated as "Endangered" by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). This group of experts on species at risk is mandated to make recommendations to the Minister of the Environment, and has recommended that the Round Pigtoe be added to the list of species receiving protection under SARA. Before a decision is made on whether to add a species to the SARA list, federal government policy requires that individuals and organizations have an opportunity to provide their views. Inclusion of the Round Pigtoe on the SARA list of protected species will help ensure its continued survival, but may affect industry, fanners, land owners, municipal governments, First Nations and others. If the Round Pigtoe is added to the SARA list of protected species, it will be illegal to harm the species or its habitat. As well, a strategy would have to be developed to help recover Round Pigtoe populations. A recovery strategy might include protective measures such as encouraging the establishment of vegetated buffer strips along waterways to reduce the amount of sediment entering the river, and identifying areas of critical habitat which would be protected under the SAR Act. The recovery strategy would be developed with input rrom key stakeholders. Individuals and groups are invited to comment on whether the Round Pigtoe should be added to the SARA list of protected species, and how they may be affected by such a listing. A Species at Risk consultation document, including a convenient form to submit comments, has been posted at www.sararegistry.gc.caIfyou prefer a hard copy ofthe docwnent and comment form, or require further information, please call 1-866-715-7272 and leave a message. Comments received by November 30 will be reviewed and evaluated before the federal government decides whether the Round Pigtoe should be added to the SARA list of protected species. (over) Freshwater Institute 501 University Crescent Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 2N6 (204) 983-5000 Institut des eaux douces 501 University Crescent Winnipeg (Manitoba) R3T 2N6 (204) 983-5000 You may also wish to view the following websites: www.sararegistry.gc.ca - for information on the Species at RiskAct www.aquaticspeciesatriskgc.ca - for infonnation on aquatic species at risk www.speciesatriskgc.ca - for information on other species at risk The COSEWIC assessment of the Round Pigtoe is available at www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/showDocument_e.cfin?id=486 Thomas Heiman Species at Risk Coordinator Central and Arctic Region - L ~r'" Association of ........ ("; \~ < ... Municip~litíes - <- tëL <. < of Ontano Ie r t 393 University Avenue. Suite 1701 Toronto. ON M5G 1E6 Tel; (416) 971-9856' fax: (416) 971-6191 email: amo@amo.on.ca To the immediate attention of the Clerk and Council November 25, 2004 - Alert 04/048 PROVINCE ANNOUNCES EXPANSION OF SERVICES AND SOME DETAILS OF THE BEST START PLAN Issue: Minister of Children and Youth Services, Dr. Marie Bountrogianni, announces improvements to child care and early leaming in Ontario. Background: Today's announcement builds on the McGuinty Government's commitment to creating an Ontario where children, parents and families are healthy, have good schools and strong communities. Service improvements announced today include: · Sliding scale fee subsidies; · Eliminating restrictions on child care subsidies for parents with RRSPs and RESPs, making more families eligible for subsidies; · Investing an additional $8,3 million in the Healthy Babies Healthy Children program to identify babies at risk early and help parents get the advice and services they need to give their newborns the best chance for healthy development; · Investing an additional $4.7 million in the Preschoöl Speech and Language program and $1,2 million in the Infant Hearing Program to help children with language and hearing disorders develop the communication skills they need to succeed in school; and · A new College of Early Childhood Educators to set high professional standards and ensure quality care, The Minister also provided an update on the Best Star Plan. The Best Start Plan promises to transform child care and early learning education in Ontario. Based on a 'hub concept' where children and families will have access to child care and early learning education in or around local schools. Municipalities will have the flexibility to determine the location of services under the program, recognizing in some areas there are lack of available school spaces. The program aims to see 75% of all households in Ontario over the next ten years having access to child care and early learning services, While the announcement was short on details related to funding and implementation details of the Best Start Plan, it is known that the program is getting off the ground through the release of the 2004-2005 $58.2 million federal child care transfer funds. It is expected that the program will rely on the funding committed by Ottawa to the provinces in October 2004 for a national system of early learning and child care. Under the national program it is anticipated that $400 million will be transferred to Ontario in the coming months, The Best Start Plan gets underway in September 2005 when the Government will provide half day care for all four and five years old. The number of spaces to be created and cost details were not provided. In an earlier announcement, the Government deferred municipal cost-share on the 3% increase of social assistance rates, AMO would hope that the implementation of the Best Start Plan would follow this precedence and defer municipal cost-share contributions for the first year of the program. Action: AMO wi!! monitor the development of the Best Start Plan to ensure that the implementation and operation of the program recognizes the say for pay, pay for say principle. For the AMO News Release, ph:Jase click on http://www.amo.on.ca/Media/AMOMedia.htm For more information, contact: Petra Wolfbeiss, AMO Senior Policy Advisor at 416-971-9856 extension 329. Ministry of Finance Ministère des Finances ® Ontario Office of the Deputy Minister Frost Building South 7 Queen's Park Cr Toronto ON M7A 1Y7 Tel (416) 325-1590 Fax (416) 325-1595 Bureau du sous-ministre Édifrce Frost sud 7 Queen's Park Cr Toronto ON M7A 1Y7 Tél (416) 325-1590 Téléc (416) 325-1595 November 19, 2004 NQì/ tH'¡~ffIi'-~'V~¡¡?¡' ""''''Em'tfJ'.''''''''' ,. '';"",·.i::''''$¡¡';'f~.~ ~.~ w. 3' 'fJ C ð _. i,;¡Ii~ ~1f1';;"i "'<'>~_<"'·.i' Mr. Mark G. McDonald Chief Administrative Officer The County of Elgin 450 Sunset Dr. St. Thomas, ON N5R 5V1 Dear Mr. McDonald, The Ontario Ministry of Finance (MOF) produces population projections following every Census. I am pleased to let you know that Ontario-level population projections, 2004-2031, prepared by the ministry have been posted to MOF's website at http;//www.qov.on.ca/FIN/enqlish/demoqraphics/demoq04e.htm (or pdt). The report on the website contains an overview of the key assumptions behind the projections and highlights of the results for Ontario. An appendix of commonly-used tables is also included. These projections replace projections for Ontario produced by the Ministry of Finance following the 1996 Census. The projections provided at this time are at the Ontario level. Since the 2003-based consultation draft projections were circulated to you in July, Statistics Canada has released 2004 Ontario-level population estimates and revisions to the previously- released 2002 and 2003 estimates. We have therefore been able to update the projections to a 2004 base. We have done this to keep the projections up-to-date and to increase their shelf-life. Statistics Canada will release the 2004 estimates for Census Divisions in November 2004. Following the availability of these data, we plan to update our Census Division projections to the 2004 population base and to release them early in the new year. ,( ~ .../2 -2- The Ministry of Finance projections provide extensive detail by age and sex for every year from 2004 to 2031. They represent the only publicly available set of projections for the whole of Ontario where Census Divisions aggregate to the provincial total. The Ministry of Finance uses a standard demographic methodology with transparent assumptions that reflect past trends in migration and the continuing evolution of long- term fertility and mortality patterns. The population projections do not represent Ontario government policy targets or desired population outcomes; nor do they incorporate explicit economic assumptions. I hope you will find the population projections for Ontario useful and informative. Please do not hesitate to contact the ministry at 1-800-337-7222 if you require further information. Yours sincerely, ~~ Colin Andersen, Deputy Minister c. Phil Howell Assistant Deputy Minister For Your Onformation .Â.t1J Association of Municipalities of Ontario Member Communication 393 University Avenue, Suite 1701 Toronto, ON M5G 1E6 Te!:(416) 971-985S ° fax: (416) 971-8191 email: amo@amo.on.ca To the attention of the Clerk and Council. December 2,2004 - FYI 04/018 AMO Resolution on CRF Reconciliation Issue: The AMO Board of Directors has approved a resolution regarding the Community Reinvestment Fund (CRF) Reconciliation at its meeting on November 26, 2004 in response to a number of resolutions sent to AMO by municipalities. Action: AMO has written to the Minister of Finance and Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing on November 30, 2004 to reflect AMO's request. A copy of this letter is post on www.municom.com. The AMO Resolution reads as follows: WHEREAS on December 19, 2003, Finance Minister Greg Sorbara and Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister John Gerretsen wrote to Heads of Council regarding the Community Reinvestment Fund (CRF) providing information about 2004 allocations and signaling potential constraint for 2005; and WHEREAS subsequently, on December 22, 2003, their Deputy Ministers signed a joint letter to municipal Treasurers providing additional details and stating, that the government "cannot commit in advance to a Fall reconciliation" (for the 2003 CRF); and WHEREAS current provinciallmunicipal cost sharing arrangements and service responsibilities have undermined the financial sustainability of Ontario's municipalities; and WHEREAS requirements for municipalities to subsidize provincial income redistribution and provincial health care programs have contributed to Ontario's property tax payers paying the highest property taxes in Canada; and WHEREAS the Community Reinvestment Fund (CRF) was established in 1998 to partially mitigate the negative effects of the government's Local Services Realignment (LSR) initiative; and WHEREAS 403 municipalities receiving the CRF have not yet been informed whether or not there will be a reconciliation of CRF funding for the year 2003 in 2004; and WHEREAS municipalities are finalizing their budgets for the year 2005; and WHEREAS the government of Ontario is committed to building strong communities; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Minister of Finance be requested to work with AMO to undertake a thorough review of provincial-municipal cost sharing and service responsibility arrangements in 2005 with a view to acjdressing the fundamental problems of the current provincial-municipal LSR-based system; and FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED THAT CRF funding should be provided at 2004 levels for 2005 with reconciliation at then end of 2005; and FURTHER THAT AMO write to the Minister of Finance requesting confirmation that the there will be a reconciliation of the 2003 CRF before the end of 2004 and that 2004 CRF funding be reconciled in Fall 2005. For more information, please contact: Brian Rosborough, AMO Senior Policy Advisor, at 416-971-9856 ex!. 318. · CNSF (:_"H."onalSpattli.~ItIgFolmdollon \w ® Ontario I."å ~...t.d"- RESORTS ONTARIO The Steering Committee Ontario Family Fishing Weekend November 26, 2004 TO: All Ontario Municipalities SUBJECT: 2005 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 8 through Sunday, July 10, 2005) a licence-tree 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 2005 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, ~--h').B~ Rhonda Barkley, Liaison (j Ontario Family Fishing Weekend Steering Committee c/o Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters P.O. Box 2800 Peterborough, Ontario K9J 8L5 Fax: (705)-748-6324 DEC .! Irb The Premier of Ontario Le Premier ministre de l'Ontario Édifice de l'Assemblée légisJative Queen's Park Toronto (Ontario) M7A1A1 ltÆ 'IIIIIE!I!II" Ontario Legislative Building Queen's Park Toronto, Ontario M7A1A1 November 26, 2004 DEe ! Mrs. Sandra J. Heffren Deputy Clerk County of Elgin 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, Ontario N5R 5Vl Dear Mrs. Heffren: Thank you for ybur letter providing me with a copy of council's resolution regarding Bill 118, Accessibility for Ontarians for Disabilities Act, 2004. I appreciate your keeping me informed of council's activities. I note that you have sent a copy of the resolution to the Honourable Dr. Marie Bountrogianni, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I trust that the minister will also take council's views into consideration. Thank you again for the information. Council's input is always welcome. Yours truly, ((2Jt.., Dalton McGuinty Premier c: The Honourable Dr. Marie Bountrogianni @ ~ - Ontario Steve Peters, M.P.P. Elgin - Middlesex - London ! 2004 November 26, 2004 Honourable Harinder Takhar Minister of Transportation Ferguson Block, 3Td Floor 77 Wellesley Street West Toronto, ON M7A lZ8 Dear Minister: Please fmd attached an infonnation package prepared by Mr. Bill Moore, Project Manager for your ministry's Planning and Design Section based out of the London regional office. As you will read in the package and as you may be aware, your ministry is proposing road improvements to Highway 3 between the Town of Aylmer and the City of St. Thomas. While these improvements are necessary and well-intentioned, the County of Elgin has infonned me about their concerns with the project including infonnation they have received that the project is still 'dependent on funding' from our government. Please confinn that funding will be forthcoming for this proj ect. County officials are also concerned about the detour route identified in the package. The detour would involve three county roads: Springwater Road (Cty. Rd. 35), John Wise Line (Cty. Rd. 45) and Quaker Road (Cty. Rd. 36). For a six week period next summer during the proposed duration of the Hwy. 3 road improvement work, these roads will experience a great increase of automobile and truck traffic and county officials are concerned that the condition ofthese roads could vastly deteriorate over this period. Minister, I would appreciate your taking the County of Elgin's concerns into consideration as this project's plans are being fmalized. I would also appreciate your responding directly to the County of Elgin, As always, thank you in advance for your time and consideration. Sincerely. ~~k Steve Peters, M.P.P. Elgin-Middlesexc London Cc: Mi. Mark McDonald, CEO, County ofElgin 542 Talbot Street" St, Thomas, ON N5P 1 C4 T - (519) 631-0666 Toll free - 1-800~265·7638 F - (519) 631-9478 TTY· (519) 631-9904 E - speters"mpp..co@lîberaLola.org www.stevepeters.com -------------- UJ ~v~ -- Ontario Steve Peters, M.P.P. Elgin - Middlesex - London JI '200<1 November 26, 2004 Honourable David Caplan Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal Mowat Block, 6th Floor 900 Bay Street Toronto, ON M7A lC2 Honourable Jim Bradley Minister of Tourism & Recreation Hearst Block, 9th Floor 900 Bay Street Toronto, ON M7A2El Dear Ministers: Please find attached a briefing note prepared by Mr. Brian Masschaele, Manager of the Elgin County Archives. As you will read in the briefing note, Mr. Masschaele, on behalf of Elgin County Council, is lobbying for our government to apply the original funding levels under the former Sport, Culture and Tourism Partnership Secretariat program to county council's new application for capital funding for renovations to the fourth floor of the Elgin County Administration Building as the future location of the Elgin County Pioneer Museum. Ministers, I would appreciate your reviewing this matter and giving full consideration to Mr. Masschaele's request as this project will serve to correct several health and safety issues the Pioneer Museum experienced at its original and temporary locations. I would also appreciate your responding directly to Mr. Masschaele. As always, thank you in advance for your time and consideration. Sincerely, ~ \k.. Steve Peters, M.P.P. Elgin-Middlesex-London Cc: Mr. Brian Masschaele, Manager, Elgin County Archives Warden David Rock, County of Elgin Mr. Joe Preston, M.P. Elgin-Middlesex-Elgin 542 Talbot Street, St" Thomas, ON N5P IC4 T - (51~) 63I-0666-Toll f~ëe - 1~800-265-7638 F - (519) 631~9478 TTY-- (519) 631~9904 E~ speters"mpp.co@liberaLo]a.org wwW.stevepeters.com 11/09/2004 15:44 FAX 519 769 2837 TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH1VOLD 141001 TOWNSHIP OF SOUTHWOLD 35663 Fingal Line Fingal, ON NOL 1KO cm-04-11-08 -a Phone: (519) 769-2010 Fax: (519) 769-2837 Email: southwold@twp.southwold.on.ca November 9,2004 DELIVERED BY FAX (519) 633-7661 Linda Veger, Treasurer County of Elgin 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, Ontario N5R 5V1 Dear Ms. Veger: Re: MTE estimate for Post Cap Adjustment Please be advised that Council at its regular meeting on November 8, 2004 passed the following resolution: "THAT the County of Elgin be requested to share 50% of the MTE cost not to exceed $500.00 which will benefit the County by increasing commercial assessment as follows: 2002 - $663,000.00 2003 . $698,000.00 2004· $713,000.00" Disposition: Carried We look forward to hearing from you in the near future. Yours very truly, k,,~~ Deputy Clerk Fax Server 12/10/2004 12:34 PAGE 001/001 Fax Server Fedm.tion of Caoadian Mwñcipa!ìôes Fédéraåon caruidienne des mmùcipalités December 9, 2004 MEMBERS' ADVISORY Please distribute to all members of Council FCM Board Adopts Unanimous Position On Fuel-Tax At its December 4 meeting in Ottawa, FCM's National Board of Directors unanimously adopted a proposal for sharing the federal fuel tax, starting next year. The unanimous decision removes the last perceived roadblock to the start of negotiations between Ottawa and provincial and territorial governments. It means that fuel tax money should begin flowing to our communities in 2005. The proposal was developed by a working group made up of members of FCM's Executive Committee and the FCM Big City Mayors Caucus and included representatives from every region and from communities of all sizes. Discussions leading to the agreement were both thorough and arduous. The diversity of Canada's munìcìpal sector precluded a "one size fits all" solution, requiring instead an approach that recognizes the needs of all communities, large and the small, After numerous meetings over two months and much political give-and-take, the working group adopted an approach that embraced the principles of faimess and equity. The adoption of this proposal, which balances the needs of large and small communities, is a watershed in the history of Canada's municipal sector. Communities large and small, urban and rural have together laid the cornerstone of a new deal for all municipal governments The unanimous adoption of this proposal demonstrates the spirit of generosity and compromise that is the hallmark of a mature order of government and a full partner in the New Deaf. It is now up to the Government of Canada to move quickly to negotiate agreements with the provinces and territories to deliver a share of federal fuel taxes to municipal governments. FCM applauds the Government of Canada and Prime Minister Martin for recognizing the needs of Canada's cities and communities. We are urging the Government to begin negotiations now, so that agreements can be signed in time for funds to begin flowing to our communities in 2005. For information on the proposed allocation formula, please see the FCM website or contact: Massimo Bergamini, 613-241-5221, ext. 247. COUNTY OF ELGIN By-Law No. 04-30 "A BY-LAW TO PROVIDE A SCHEDULE OF SERVICES AND ACTIVITIES SUBJECT TO FEES AND CHARGES BY THE COUNTY OF ELGIN AND TO REPEAL BY-LAW NO. 03-39" WHEREAS Section 391 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, states that a municipaiity and a local board may pass by-laws imposing fees or charges on any class of persons for services; and, WHEREAS Section 392 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, requires that municipalities maintain and make available to the public a list indicating which services and activities it provides that are subject to fees and charges and the amount of each fee or charge; and, WHEREAS the Corporation of the County of Elgin has deemed it advisable to amend the fees and charges appiicable to some of its services. NOW THEREFORE the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the County of Elgin enacts as follows: 1. THAT Schedule "A" attached hereto and forming part of this by-law setting out services and activities which are subject to fees and charges and the amount of such fees or charges be and is hereby adopted. 2. THAT By-Law No, 03-39 be and is hereby repealed effective January 1, 2005. 3. THAT this by-law shall come into force and take effect on January 1, 2005. READ a first and second time this 16"' day of December 2004. READ a third time and finaliy passed this 16"' day of December 2004, Mark G. McDonald, Chief Administrative Officer. Warden. -2- SCHEDULE "A" By-Law No. 04- The Corporation of the County of Elgin has deemed it advisable to provide activities and services that are subject to fees and charges. The following list details such activities and services and the fees and charges that apply: GENERAL (authoritv under the Municipal Act) Service Fee PhotocoDies for the Public Copy charge per printed page $1.00 per sheet ARCHIVES (authoritv under the Municipal Act) Service Fee Photocopvinq/Scanninq Letter/Legal 11 x 17 Document scanning CD'slDisks $0.25/page $0.50/page $5.00 each $1.00 Microfilm Reader-Printer Letter/Legal 11 x 17 CD file $O,50/page $0.75/page $5.00 per file (includes CD) Lonq-Distance Research $30.00/hour Photoqraph Prints 4x5 5x7 8 x 10 11 x 14 Larger Sizes Digital reprints (up to 8 x 10) 35 mm slide $12,00 ($6.00 for each additionai print) $15.00 ($8.00 for each additional print) $20.00 ($10.00 for each additional print) $30.00 ($20.00 for each additional print) On a case by case basis $10.00 each $15.00 each Supplies Archival sheet protectors Acid-free storage box Newspaper storage box Acid-free file folders Film marking pens $1.00 each $12.00 each $25.00 each $1.00 each $4.00 each COUNTY LIBRARY (authoritv under the Public Libraries Act) Service Dailv Overdue Fine $.10 per day $1.00 per day $.50 per day $.10 per day $1.00 per day $.50 per day $.10 per day Maximum Overdue Fine $7.00 $10.00 $7.00 $5.00 $10.00 $7.00 $3.00 Adult & Juvenile Hardcover Books CD Roms Music CD's PaDerbacks Videos/DVD's Audiobooks Maaazines COUNTY LIBRARY (continued) Service Fax Machine SendinQ Local Each Additional Page Long Distance Each Additional Page Receivina Per Page Interlibrarv Loan Canadian Library or University U.S. Library or University Internet Printinq Black & White Colour Diskette Purchase Recordable CD Lost or Damaqed Materials All Material Types -3- Fee $1.50 $0,50 $2,50 $1.00 $1.00 (if they charge) $10.00 pius shipping (if they charge) $15,00 plus shipping $0,25 $0.60 $1.25 $2.50 Actual Cost plus $5.00 Processing If actual cost is unknown, the following rates are charged: Adult Videos/DVD's $30.00 Audio Books $35.00 Cassettes $12,00 CD-ROMs $30.00 Hardcover $30.00 Juvenile Videos/DVD's $20.00 Magazines $5.00 Microfilms $30,00 Music CDs $20.00 Paperbacks $10.00 Scannina Per Page $1.00 Service ELGIN COUNTY PIONEER MUSEUM (authoritv under the Municipal Act) Fee Admission Membership Meetinq Room Rental Rates General Public Elgin County Women's Institute Branches Proqrams Delivered Adult off-site programs School tours and children's group tours School pro9rams offered in-school including rented teacher's kit Adults $2.00 including taxes Students and children aged 4-18 $0.50 including taxes Infants and children under 4 No charge $5.00 Annual $100.00 Lifetime $20,00 including taxes $15.00 including taxes $30.00 plus GST, plus mileage paid at the rate established by the County for use of personal vehicles $1.75 including taxes per child Chaperones are no charge Note: Fees for various programs delivered by the Museum vary according to the program $3.00 including taxes per child. ENGINEERING Service Countv Road MaDs (authority under the Municipal Act) Meetino Room Rental Rates (authoritv under the Municipal Act) For use of meeting rooms in the County Administration Building by outside groups: Lunchroom Committee Rooms/Lounge Oversize/Overweioht Movino Permit (authoritv under the Hiahway Traffic Act) Permit for the moving of heavy vehicles, ioads objects or structures in excess of the dimensional and weight limits set out in the Highway Traffic Act: Single Move Fee Annual Fee -4- Fee $3,00 each $53.50 ($50.00 + $3.50 GST) $42.80 ($40.00 + $2.80 GST) $100.00 $500.00 Road OccuDancv Permit (authority under Public Hiahway & Transportation Act) To regulate the construction or alteration of $100.00 Any entranceway, private road or other facility that permit access to County Roads Tender Documents (authoritv under the Municipal Act) $25..00 Service HOMES FOR SENIORS (authority under the Homes for the Aaed Act) Fee Adult Dav Proarams at all Homes Barber/Hairdresser Elgin Manor and Terrace Lodge Hair Cut Wash and Set Wash, Cut and Set Permanent Wave Barber/Hairdresser Bobier Villa Men's Hair Cut Ladies' Hair Cut Shampoo only Wash and Set Wash, Cut and Set Permanent Wave Cable TV Elgin Manor Terrace Lodge $13,00 per day (Activity and Meal) $16.00 per day (Activity, Meal and Transportation) $18.00 per day (Activity, Meal, Transportation and Bath) $20.00 per day (Activity, Meal, Transportation, Bath and Hand Waxing for Arthritic pain) $7.00 $g.OO $15,00 $30.00 $6.00 $8.00 $2.00 $8.00 $14.00 $32,00 Not available $11.50 per month -5- Bobier Villa Market Rate Medication not Covered bv Health Card 65 and Non·Prescription Druas Cost of drug plus $2.00 ODB co-payment NewsvalJer Market Rate Resident fees at all Homes Note: Residents may appiy for a rate reduction based on annual income Resident Fees are charged in accordance with the rates set by the Province of Ontario, which may change from time to time, TransDortation/Accompaniment of Staff Market transportation rate, plus, if accompanied by staff, the employee's hourly rate of pay times the length of absence from the workplace, plus benefits if applicable Valet (mending of clothing) $6.00 per month FINANCIAL (authority under the Municipal Act Late payment of County Levy 15% per year (i.e. installment due on the 15th and not received until the 16'h, one day of interest would be charged) HUMAN RESOURCES (authority under the Municipal Act Service Fee Identification Badae Photo Family and Children's Services Loss of Employee Identification Badge $10.00 per photo $5.00 per photo LAND DIVISION (authority under the Plannina Act) Service Fee Application for Consent Application for Validation Certificate Stamping Deed $500.00 $500,00 $200.00 If an Application for ConsentlValidation is: (i) withdrawn at least fourteen (14) days prior to the hearing date $50.00 will be retained. If amended at least fourteen (14) days prior to the hearing date, an additional $50.00 will be charged. (ii) withdrawn after the time limit set in (i), the entire fee will be retained, If amended after the time limit set in (i), an additional $50.00 will be charged, (iii) requested to be reconsidered once consent has been granted, in order to alter the original decision in a minor way, it will be treated as if it were a new application, and a fee of $50.00 must accompany the letter explaining the reason for the change. (lY) requested to be deferred from having action taken on it, by the applicant, in writing, whether after or before a hearing date has been set, a fee of$100.00 must accompany the request for deferral. -6- PROVINCIAL OFFENCES (authoritv under the Provincial Offences Act) Service Fee Transcripts NSF Cheques $3.20 per page for first copy $.55 per page for additional copies $35.00 per incident Note: Not applicable to Judiciary, Crown, or Prosecution COUNTY OF ELGIN By-Law No. 04-31 "BEING A BY-LAW TO AUTHORIZE THE WARDEN AND THE TREASURER TO BORROW UP TO THE SUM OF FIFTEEN MILLION DOLLARS" WHEREAS pursuant to Section 407 of the Municipal Act, 2001, being Chapter 25, S.O. 2001, the Council of the Corporation of the County of Elgin deems it necessary to borrow up to the sum of Fifteen Million Dollars ($15,000,000.00) to meet, until the taxes are collected, the current expenditures of the Corporation for the year; and WHEREAS the total of amounts previously bOrrowed under Section 407, that have not been repaid are Four Million, Eight Hundred and Eighty Seven Thousand, Five Hundred Dollars; and WHEREAS the amount of the estimated revenues of the Corporation as set out in the estimates adopted for the current year and not yet collected (or, if the same have not yet been adopted, the amount of the estimated revenues of the Corporation as set forth in the estimates adopted for the next preceding year) is Forty Million, One Hundred and Forty Seven Thousand, Two Hundred and Sixty Six Dollars. BE IT THEREFORE ENACTED by the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the County of Elgin; 1. That the Warden and the Treasurer or the Deputy Treasurer of the Corporation are hereby authorized on behalf of the Corporation to borrow from time to time, by way of promissory note, from the Bank of Montreal, a sum or sums not exceeding in the aggregate Fifteen Million Dollars ($15,000,000.00) to meet, until the taxes are collected, the current expenditures of the Corporation for the year, including the amounts required for the purposes mentioned in subsection (1) of the said Section 407, and to give, on behalf of the Corporation, to the Bank a promissory note or notes, sealed with the corporate seal and signed by them for the moneys so borrowed with interest at a rate not exceeding Prime per centum per annum, which may be paid in advance or otherwise. 2. That ali sums borrowed from the said Bank, for any or all of the purposes mentioned in the said Section 407, shall, with interest thereon, be a charge upon the whole of the revenues of the Corporation for the current year and for ali subsequent years, as and when such revenues are received. 3. That the Treasurer or the Deputy Treasurer is hereby authorized and directed to apply in payment of all sums borrowed pursuant to the authority of this By-Law, as well as all the other sums borrowed in this year and any previous years, from the said Bank for any or all of the purposes mentioned in the said Section 407, together with interest thereon, all of the moneys hereafter collected or received on account or realized in respect of the taxes levied for the current year and preceding years and all of the moneys collected or received from any other source, which may lawfully be applied for such purpose, 4. THAT this by-iaw take effect and come into force on January 1, 2005. READ a first and second time this 16th day of December 2004. READ a third time and finally passed this 16th day of December 2004. Mark G. McDonald, Chief Administrative Officer. Warden.