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.