The URL can be used to link to this page

July 26, 2005 Agenda ORDERS OF THE DA Y FOR TUESDA Y. JULY 26, 2005 - 9:00 A.M. BOBIER VILLA - DUTTON PAGE # ORDER 1 st Meeting Called to Order 2nd Adoption of Minutes - meeting June 28, 2005 3rd Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof 4th Presenting Petitions, Presentations and Delegations PRESENTATIONS 9:00 A.M. Audrey Major, Bobier Villa Resident, in recognition of a poem written about Bobier Villa published in an internationally known poetry publication (see attached) 9:00 A.M. Dorothy Bechard, Bobier Villa Resident, in recognition of raising $6700 for an FM System for Residents with hearing loss at Bobier Villa Motion to Move Into "Committee Of The Whole Council" Notice of Motion - Moved by Councillor Baldwin Seconded by Councillor Vowel THAT we reconsider the current wage of the Land Division Committee at the July 26, 2005 Council meeting. (see attached) 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/Inquiries by Members 2) Notice of Motion 3) Matters of Urgency In-&amera Items 2 5th 3-12 13-46 6th 7th 47 -61 62-90 8th 9th fOth 11th 12th 13th 14th Recess Motio~. ,~ Rise and Report MQtion th. A\dopt Recommendations from the Committee Of The Whole )0 Considera" n of By-Laws 91-99 CASUAL DRESS BBQ LUNOtd.,:..,..AT BOBIER VILLA .. ~,~.... 11:30 A.M. - DEDICATION OF THE BOBIER VILLA FENCE ~~..:- i1ti) . 11 c, 0" << ::a!:: S ~ t;rj ~ 0 ~ el ::l.a @ '8. ~. d. g' S ~ S'.r-t g. \lQ ~ p..;;r~~e- ~ g n. ~ R' 0 o ~ q} S' P r-< ,~ :l;i ..... \1l -0 t1l g.<< N ~ 0 ~,n; ~ l;l ~ &J ,:J........ ~ ~ 11> ~ ~:? tI:l t:1 ~~~o.sg ~ ~ Q:j ;-q.~ w~"& 8 0 Oi:l"P<fo:::J ::> g:ll.'I~I1>::l'lMl'" = ("p Q ~ "'. <::r ~ p:: 0 g. ~ $E"'@g,<s g (1l r.I:l =Q.@S~fii ~~ ~ ~..~g:~.~~ 9'~ a 9qq 8.' /"!. () 0 t::i g;Hr;l -P ~ !-1 =: ;::, =a 0 ~ S' ~ ('0 ~g~2:Ei P- o ?;"" d' tn'::t ~ ~ fl....; g- 0' ~~d'P.D g g.~ g s bj'O ~ \1l ~ '-'.;...0 "'d H' 0" Ili' 8' '" >=l C q 8.....00_ ~ &:~ i""~ g g' ~ ; g a jJ.. 6:> (1) ,o....."'p.. ~ ~~~~ ~\ r~ i?, ;, ) > tI:l ~ tl:l f ~ ~~~f 0:$1 en ~OOq 0 f f ~ : ~ Kg ~ l ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ r;J ~ ( ~ ~ !;;oo<l~ g SJ~'I~ rn 3"~.g ~ s ~~ 0> ~ tI> ~ S ~.~ =+11:D o ~ ~()'q r:t..ll.'I 0. . a: ~ p (1) ~ 6 ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ @ '<. 0 ~ g. l1> ~ g ~. g S s g'~ til 0> 8 ~ ro.~' . 0-3 a 0 r;;' ~ g g~ r ~ q' ~.g g. IJ sQ' f' S. ~ l.~ B ~ 5 ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S-: I:l ~ ~ ~'.r' ~ ~~.~~S SF g~~Oqp..&~~",~~O\1l~~~~ ~ ~ ~~[~~[l~'~!~~~l~ ;~~Eo.~~ [~~~ !..- a 8..g [g a s' p ~. ~ ~ go ~ f;l ~ ~'S: ~ fl ~ ~ ~ [ 0> ff g; !lJ $ ~ ~ ~ >c cg. A g F- i ~ ~ g. ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~~ go ~ g ~ ~. i ~. ~ ~ g: If [ S ~.g ~ ..~] Q;q ~ 8 ~ ~ (1) ~ 8'.8 9- ~ s-'.~ Po af~ ~ g.J3 0 l g: g.~.~ ]g g~'!:l ~ ~ ~ ~ 8: ~ ~. ~ ~]&~. ~ S' 0 fZ {'II ~ ~ == 0" (1) "< ~ ~ ~ 5' O<l 8. ..... -< <: er '" rf"......... OQ ~ ~ g, ~~ go g s S' s:~' g:~ '6 [E' ~;&, ~ ~ S' S' ~ a;;' r t ~~ ~~.~.~, ~ 0 na ~ g ~. n g. r g: s. ~ S'< 0> {'II ~~~ l~~ rfft~ ~~I .....~i~~ p &. ~ .....)S\~~ ~~~ , , ~ ~~ ~! ~~ ~ ~ Co' o Q'" ~. ~ ~ -. == ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ o ~ ... ~ ell .... ::l ~ ~ ~ ~ j ~ ~ ! ~ '@17 COUNTY OF ELGIN LAND DIVISION COMMITTEE 450 SUNSET DRIVE ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO N5R 5V1 PHONE (519) 631-1460 FAX (519) 633-7661 May 31,2005 Warden James Mcintyre County of Elgin 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, Ontario N5R 5V1 Dear Warden Mcintyre and Members of Elgin County Council Subject: Reconsideration of Land Division Committee Stipend On February 15, 2005 County Council approved a stipend increase for the Land Division Committee from $95 to $110 per meeting. Subsequently, the attached letter dated February 16, 2005 was re-considered by County Council at its meeting of March 1, 2005 with no further change in remuneration (see attached letter from Warden Mcintyre). The matter of fair and reasonable remuneration for the level of responsibility required of the Members of the Land Division Committee remains at issue with our members. As such, we are asking County Council to re-consider the matter for a second time. While you are contemplating our request for re-consideration, we would like to explain the workload and responsibilities of the Land Division Committee. We continue to adjudicate a large number of applications at every meeting. In fact, we have been averaging approximately 18 applications per sitting. As you know, these severances also involve an investigation, follow-up, and at times several interactions with proponents or their representatives or both. We consider evidence under oath, deal directly with professional planners, lawyers and other learned individuals, sign legal documents and make decisions that can be tested through appeal to a higher authority. Moreover, the value of the land under our care and consideration is significant. Also it is fair to note that some severances involve complex decision-making and judgement. We make our decisions without the benefit of a planning department and operate a comparatively frugal service. In view of the above, the Committee believes that the level of responsibility, accountability and workload should receive fair compensation such as that recommended earlier (namely $3,000 per year plus investigation fees). We note that our budget is self-funding and any increase in remuneration would come from the approved application fees (surplus) without negatively impacting the budget. .....2 - 2 - Finally, tying our honorarium to Council's seminar or convention stipend seems somewhat out of balance since attending seminars (while important from an educational standpoint) does not require active consideration of competing interests and complex decision-making. We hope that we have explained our rationale for this request to reconsider the Committee's stipend. The Committee and I are available to address Council directly on this matter, should you require our participation. Thank you for your time and consideration. Yours truly, ~l-r Duncan J. McPhail, Chairman. Attachment cc: Land Division Committee Susan Galloway March 2, 2005 450 SUNSET DRIVE ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO N5R 5V1 PHONE (519) 631-1460 FAX (519) 633-7661 .WWW.elgin-county.on.ca OFFICE OF THE WARDEN 'Since 1852' Mr. Duncan J. McPhail, Chair Elgin County Land Division Committee 450 Sunset Drive ST. THOMAS, Ontario N5R 5V1 Dear Mr. McPhail: Subject: Request For Reconsideration of Stipend This will acknowledge and thank you for your letter dated February 16th, 2005, requesting that County Council reconsider the stipend for the Land Division Committee. County Council considered your correspondence along with its 2005 Budget, at a special Council meeting held on March 1 st, 2005. Upon receipt of your letter, members of Council directed staff to provide background information on current remuneration, including investigation fees, the average number of meetings per year, and a comparison of stipends paid to Land Division Committee members in other municipalities. We have attached that information for your review. Additionally, and subsequent to your letter, Council received "Notice of Provincial Changes" under Section 3 of the Planning Act, regarding the new Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). The new Statement, which came into effect on March 1st, 2005, envisions greater restrictions on land severances and openly discourages the creation of lots on agricultural lands. This will affect retirement lots and infilling to some degree. The impact of this legislation (if any) on the level of severance activity is speculative at this time. Council is interested in reviewing the application of these changes in the next twelve months. In conclusion, after reviewing the available information, including a comparison with stipends paid in neighbouring jurisdictions, County Council does not wish to reconsider the stipend at this time. It is noted that an increase was granted last month in recognition of ../2 Chair Land Division Committee 2 March 2, 2005 your original request and the importance of the work the Committee does on behalf of the County. Council believes that your new stipend combined with the investigation fee represents fair, reasonable and comparatively competitive remuneration. Again, thank you for your interest and for your contributions. Yours truly, 2 /' ..- f /V" fit ".~yl 1 ( .' / ~ / Warden James Mcln yre. J Mid b attachment cc Secretary-Treasurer - Land Division Committee COUNTY OF ELGIN 450 SUNSET DRIVE ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO N5R 5V1 PHONE (519) 631-1460 FAX (519) 633-7661 LAND DIVISION COMMITTEE February 16, 2005 Warden Jim Mcintyre County of Elgin 450 Sunset Drive ST. THOMAS, Ontario N5R 5V1 Dear Mr. Warden and Members of Elgin County Council: Subject: Land Division Committee Stipend At a previous meeting, County Council considered a request from the Land Division Committee to review the Committee's remuneration. It was noted that the stipend had not been reviewed for fifteen years and that the duties and responsibilities had grown. Unfortunately, the Committee neglected to provide background information and rationale for an anticipated increase in remuneration. As such, Council followed its own stipend rate for conventions and approved an increase to $110 per meeting (from $95). While we are grateful for the recognition, we would appreciate Council considering the following proposal. We recommend the elimination of the stipend and the introduction of an honorarium much like that used at the Police Services Board. The honorarium would be paid twice yearly and would eliminate much of the record keeping and administration. We further propose that the honorarium be set at $3,000 per year (excluding application investigations), since the Land Division Committee meets about twice as many times as the Police Service Board, whose honorarium is currently set at $1,500. Council should be made aware that as part of our duties, we have regular and frequent contact with applicants, the public and other officials regarding severances. This is in addition to full days spent at Committee meetings. Accordingly, we would appreciate County Council reviewing this matter in view of this new material. Yours trulY~ I ~ Duncan J. McPhail, Chair. 1 9 REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Sandra Heffren, Deputy Clerk DATE: February 4, 2005 SUBJECT: Land Division Committee Per Diem Introduction: The Elgin County Land Division Committee recently passed a resolution requesting County Council to review the remuneration received for meeting attendance. Discussion: The Land Division Committee members are currently paid a per diem of $95 for a meeting over 3 hours or $62 for a meeting under 3 hours, plus travel to attend committee meetings at the established County rate. The members are also paid investigation fees of $50.00 for each application that the member investigates and $25.00 for all subsequent applications relating to the same parcel of land, to cover mileage and/or attendance at local council meetings to discuss the applications. The per diem has not changed since 1990. The number of meetings for 2004 was 8 full-day and 4 half-day meetings. Staff is suggesting that the full'-day/half-day per diem be eliminated, as members have to leave their place of work regardless of whether it is a full-day or half-day, and the Land Division members be paid $110 per meeting, the same rate that is paid to Councillors who attend conventions/ seminars. This would result in an additional expenditure for 2005 of approximately $1,500 that can be accommodated within the proposed budget. If Council wishes to maintain the full-day/half-day per diem, then a per diem of $110 and $75 could be considered. Conclusion: The per diem for Land Division Committee members has not changed since 1990 and an increase is in order. The full-day/half-day per diem differential should be eliminated as the members leave their place of employment to attend meetings and the day is disrupted. The rate of $110 per day is the same rate paid to County Councillors when attending conventions and seminars and should be provided to the Land Division members as well. Recommendation: THAT the full-day/half-day per diem differential paid to Land Division Committee members for attending meetings of the Committee be eliminated; and THAT the per diem paid to Land Division Committee members for attending meetings of the Committee be increased to $110 per meeting, effective February 1,2005, and the necessary by- law be prepared. <,Jfj;-/j!:~ San He , Deputy Clerk. Respectfully Submitted ..... .E >- co 0. co C 0 :e "0 "0 CO Q) ...... 0 c c > Q) ~ E "0 ...... ...... :Q (/) Q) ::l C 1/1 CO :0- .Q ... 0. C <( "0 E ..... Q) Q) .E \f- ..... 0 E 0 "S u ::t= E ...... Q) 0- Q) CO 0. ...... Q) Q) Q) (/) 0 Q) ...... ..... ...... () U :!::: ~ :!::: >- x E E .Q (ij Q) E (/) E ...... c E c ::l 0 0 0 0 (/) 0 ::l U +:: U Q) E 'C CO "0 ~ "C CO Q) 0) ..c Q) ..... ..c +:: .:':: 'C c "C 0 ...... ..... (/) CO CO 0 ~ C 0. Q) C Q) 0 0 u +:: ..c ::l > 'U5 Q) I Q) co c 0) Q) '5 "0 "0 "0 C ~ ...... c c (/) c +:: co ::l (5 co c co (/) "0 E 0 ..c co 0 ..c ~ Q) "0 Q) +:: "0 (/) >- c (/) Q) co (/) c ..... Q) Q) ::l ..... ..... co ...... 0) ..... u 0 co -.J :E :!::: +:: ;e .E c u co E (/) co "0 ::t= c 0. E Q) 0. ..... .~ c co "0 Q) '0 Q) 0 > Q) :2 co ::l ...... Q) (/) (/) u c (/) Q) 0) 0 (/) > c c c c c >- c U 0 ::l 0 0) 0 ::l ..... ..c >- 0 0. 2 0. C 0. 2 Q) >. ...... > (/) (/) (/) 0. C .S Q) co Q) c Q) co 0 ..... ::l ..... ..... c ..... Q) ...... u co u 0 > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C') w U Z Z -.J Z 0... Z -.J f;;FT 0) 0) 0) >- ..... >- >- c ca co co co c c +:: 0- Q) >- >- "0 "0 +:: +:: Q) >- co co Q) Q) Q) Q) "0 "0 ~ Q) Q) E ..... ::l co E E Q) Q) ~ \f- ..c ..... ~ 0. ::l co ....... ..... ..... Q) \f- co E 0 0 ..c l.() Q) Q) 0. '<'""" 0. 0. E 0 l.() 0 ....... ....... 0 0 '<'""" co co 0 l.() 0 0 0 f;;FT f;;FT C'\J '<'""" C'\J '<'""" '<'""" l.() () f;;FT f;;FT ..- '<'""" f;;FT f;;FT f;;FT l.() f;;FT >- (/) "0 X co ..... c E c co c Q) :::s c 0 (/) 0 0 Q) 'C x E c ...... Q) "0 ..c ...... Q) .Q ..... ..c () c u ::t= Q) >- "0 e E "0 ~ t:: I- co ::l (/) Q) :Q ..... ..... ::l (/) ..... co ::l co Q) -: en en 0 w <.9 I I -.J 2 0 0... (j) ~ a. z o Ci)~ >0 eN c z <( ...J co +-' o I- Q) > ca .... I- s:: o :;::; ~Q) .- Q) tiLL Q) > s:: ~ .E ca en _ >.1.0 ::JcaO') LLC~ >< .... ~~ o o N s:: "'C Q) .s:: Q) .... Q) 3: ~ s:: :;::; Q) Q) :2: N :!:. c ~ .2 a.~ o (J 1.0 :.: ~ a. -a. ca >.N ca<.O c~ >< '<:t 0 C\I C0 CD 1.0 t-- ..- ..- C\I 0') ~ 0') 0') C\I CD '<:t C't ..- ..- C0 C\I ..- ~ ytytytytyt~ ~ CD '<:t '<:t 0 co C\I LO 0 t-- co C\I '<:t C\ILOC0C\1yt'<:t yt yt yt yt ..- yt o 0 LO LO 0 0 o LO C\I C\I LO LO 0') CD 0') LO CD CD ytyt....:..-ytLO yt yt yt co CD C0 co co C0 ..- LO ..- ..- ..- C\I co t-- 0') co co ..- yt yt yt yt yt '<:t- yt CD CD t-- CD CD ~ '<:t C0 '<:t '<:t '<:t ~ .... '<:t O(ij .5i> ~ g ..s:: ~ co N N 0.. ~ -5 l:t: c.g 0(f) ~o Q).:::::(f) C Q)LL IC3Q);...J .... ~ 1? ~ S ~ "*sroro 0 0.. 0 2 :::s::: 0) I- ca +-' o I- Q) > ca .... I- s:: o :;::; ~Q) .- Q) tiLL Q) > s:: c ~ .2 a.~ o (J 1.0 :.: ~ a. -a. ca E ::J .i: ca .... o s:: o J: W W en I- ~c!:: :Jw:2: oen:2: :2:00 <(g;u LOl:t:W 0a.J: o l- N >- co CD '<:t 0') LO co N LO LO 0') 0 t-- 0') ..- ..- C\I co CD 0 ~~LO~C0N ytytytytytN ~ CD '<:t '<:t 0 co C\I LO 0 t-- co C\I '<:t C\ILOC0C\1yt'<:t yt yt yt yt ..- yt o 0 LO LO 0 0 o LO C\I C\I LO LO 0') CD 0') LO CD CD ytyt....:....:ytLO yt yt yt 000000 o 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 C0 C0 C0 C0 C0 LO yt yt yt yt yt ..- yt .... 1.0 o(ij .;D ~ g ..s:: ~ co N N 0.. ~ -5 l:t: c.g 0(f) ~o Q).:::::(f) C Q)LL Ie 3 Q);...J .... ~ 1? ~ S ~ "* s ro ro - 0 0.. 0 2:::S::: rol- II) Q) en ca .... Q) > ca en s:: 3: o .E Q) .s:: +-' s:: "'C Q) "'C ::J '0 s:: +-' o s:: .!a Q) > ca .... I- Q) +-' o Z .--.. .... co Q) >- .... Q) Cl.. II) 0> E C\I ..- .--.. .--.. .... .... co co Q) Q) >- >- .... .... Q) Q) Cl.. Cl.. en en 0> 0> EE C\IC\1 ..- ..- c c o 0 "0 "0 Q) Q) en en co co .0 .0 Q) Q) Q) Q) LLLL c c o 0 +:i :;::; co co 0> 0> +:i +:i en en Q) Q) > > c c '<:t'<:t 0') 0') yt yt en en :J :J 0.. Cl.. >- >- .... .... co co co co en en 00 ..- LO ..-C\1 yt yt '-"'-" c o "0 Q) en co .0 Q) Q) LL c o :;:::::; co 0> :;:::::; en Q) > c '<:t 0') yt en :J Cl.. >- .... co co en 0') CD yt '-" 0> 0> C C +:i :;::; Q) Q) Q) Q) E E .... .... Q) Q) Cl.. Cl.. '<:t'<:t o'<:t C\IC0 yt yt - - o 0 Q) Q) 0> 0> ~ ~ Q) Q) > > co co .... .... o 0 co co :J :J C C C C co co coo '<:tC0 '<:t..- N '<:t- yt yt 0> C :;:::::; Q) Q) E .... Q) Cl.. C0 CD ..- yt .... o co :J C C co LO LO 0') ..- yt ~ a. W C) <( l:t: W ~ "<:t o o N >-~ ~a. CC WW >en 00 l:t:a. a.O a..l:t: <(a. 1.01.0 00 00 C"IlN - >. Q) t: ::J II) "'C Q) .s:: (J ca +-' +-' ca Q) Q) II) '-" C) z i= W W :2: l:t: W a.. o It) '("" ~ en W i= :J <( a.. U Z :J :2: >- CO ~ a.. C) z i= W W :2: W C) <( l:t: W ~ >- w > 0:: :::l en ~ a. C) z j:: w w :: w w .... !::: :: :: o () Q) .0 ro ro > ro c 0 :;:::; ro E ..... .c .E ....... c c 0 g 0 E g c ro :;:::; :;:::; Q) ~ I C Q) Q) Q) "E Q) E :5 g ro "0 E ..... 0 Q) ..... ~ 0:;:::; co "0 ~ "0 Q) g c >- Q) Q) 0 c Q) .c ....... 0 0 ro E :;:::; ra ....... a. ....... ro I!) 0 lJ) ..... Q) E g>~ Q) 0> Q) ('t) CD E 0 ..... I!) Y7 C ..... ro Y7 :;:::;0 ..... +:i '+- ~ :Q Q)I!) ~ Q) 2: "0 g Q)...... Q) ....... c .~ :::2:Y7 u :: Q) :;:::; 0!!2 - 0 ~ ..... Q) .!!2 ro_ .c "0 Q) Q) "(5 a E Q) U ~:J ('t) :Q u c ..... g ('t) c ro (/)"0 Q) C ro "0 Q) > ro "0 c .ci g 0 .!!2 .c c Q) I!) Q) ....... c 0 Q) ....... ....... CD ....... ro :J....... u ~ ....... ...... c ro Q) o Q) Y7 0 o Co ro E Q) Q) "0 "0 Q) ....... ..... c - ~ o lJ) c Q) ~ ~ E '+- "0 ro g E ..... ....... E o>ro en ....... ro E 0 c 0 ..... "0 :;:::; 0 0 :;:::; CO .c ..... Q) 0 Q) ('t) ro Q) ~ Q) Q) 0 E c E :Q ..... Q) CO ..... 0 :0 ..... lJ) "0 - Q) ~ :;:::; 'w Q) :J C "0 ro 0.0 :J Q) lJ) Ow 0 ..... Q) 0 0 ....... I!) u u I!) ...... :J ...... Q) u ...... ...... 0 Y7 0::: <( Y7 Y7 "0 C Q) ~ 09 0 "0 ....... (/) ra c 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ::J '0 Q) 00 N I!) N 0 0 c c c. 00 t"- N t"- N C ::J +:i t"- t"- oo (j) ."f 00 ~ 0 en Y7 Y7 Y7 Y7 Y7 C () :J 0 0 0 Z .c u c "3 g c "0 C :J W 0 Q) 0 "Q; ..... ro -- :Q 3: w Q) c .c ..... 0 .c - E ....... ro ....... c ....... :J lJ) ....... ro Q) ~ Q) :J 0 <( 0 0 :::2: (/) S Q) "0 ro E 0> C Q) .0 ....... C Q) E >- ro a. ro c 0 E "0 "0 ro 0 c .c ....... 03 .. Q) E :;:::; c 3: 0 ..... Q) .c -- 0!!2 .c c 0 Q) c 0 "0 .!!2 ~ lJ) ..... Q) ....... ....... ro E 0> oS C C ro a. ..... .E Q) ....... Ow ro lJ) 3: Q) os; Q) ..... ..... 0 "0 C :J 0 0 ro ~ February 3, 2005 450 SUNSET DRIVE ST. THOMAS, ONTARIO N5R 5V1 PHONE (519) 631-1460 FAX (519) 633-7661 COUNTY OF ELGIN LAND DIVISION COMMITTEE www.elgin-county.on.ca Mr. Mark G. McDonald Chief Administrative Officer County of Elgin 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, Ontario N5R 5V1 Dear Mr. McDonald: Re: Remuneration for Attendinq Meetings Presently each member of the Land Division Committee receives remuneration for attending meetings of the Committee, when the meeting is over three hours in duration $95.00 and less than three hours $62.00, plus mileage travelled. These rates have not changed since 1990 and due to the number of years these wages have not been addressed the Committee at its January 19, 2005 meeting, adopted the following resolution: "THA T the Land Division Committee recommend to County Council that remuneration for attending meetings of the Committee be re-evaluated and consideration for adjustment of wages be implemented." - Carried Unanimously Sincerely, Susan Galloway Secretary-Treasurer REPORTS OF COUNCIL AND STAFF JULY 26. 2005 Staff Reports - (ATTACHED) 14 Tree Commissioner - Application for Minor Exception, Otter Valley Utility Corridor Lot 13 to 25, Concession 2 to 9, Municipality of Bayham 19 Tree Commissioner - Application for Minor Exception, Lot 23, Concession A, Municipality of West Elgin 23 Director of Engineering Services - Private Signs on Municipal Right of Ways 27 Director of Engineering Services - Speed Limit - Update 31 Manager of Administrative Services - Title Change with OMERS 32 Director of Financial Services - 2004 Surplus 34 Director of Financial Services - Health Unit - Refund of Surplus 35 Director of Financial Services - Budget Comparison - May 31,2005 39 Director of Library Services and Manager of Archives - Approval of Museum Contribution Agreement 41 Ambulance and Emergency Management Coordinator - Thames EMS Second Annual Performance Review Manager of Administrative Services - Agreement with the Town of Aylmer for Regulation of Traffic. 13 REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Rob Lindsay, Tree Commissioner DATE: July 12, 2005 SUBJECT: Application for Minor Exception, Otter Valley Utility Corridor Lot 13 to 25, Concession 2 to 9, in the Municipality of Bayham Introduction: The Tree Commissioner has received an application for Minor Exception from Aim Power Generation Corporation to clear 6.07 hectares of land along the Otter Valley Utility Corridor from Glenn Erie Line to the Bayham Norfolk Boundary Road, which includes part Lots 13 to 25, Concessions 2 to 9, in the Municipality of Bayham. Discussion: The proponent wishes to clear 6.07 hectares of land along the Otter Valley Utility Corridor to install a 115 KV hydro transmission line. Some sections along the Utility Corridor have naturalized since the removal of the railway tracks. The overall length of corridor in Elgin County is 18 km of which 7.8 km are woodlands, which require clearing to a width of 20m. Tree species located within the proposed clearing include Shagbark Hickory, Green and White Ash, Poplar, Red and White Pine, Sugar and Red Maple, and Red Oak. A field inventory on June 30, 2005 did not reveal the presence of any rare or significant tree species. Long Point Region Conservation Authority has responded with some concerns at the location where Plank Road and Little Otter Creek intersect. There are steep slopes in this area as well as environmentally significant plants. The MNR did not have any concerns. Conclusion: This application meets the goals as set out in Elgin County's Tree By-Law "No Net Loss" management objectives. 2 Recommendation: THAT, the Application for Minor Exception to the Trees Act from Aim Power Generation, to clear 6.07 hectares of woodlands along Otter Valley Utility Corridor, Lots 13 to 25, Concession 2 to 9, Municipality of Bayham, in order to create a 115 KV hydro transmission line be approved subject to 10,500 trees being replanted or a $15,750 donation being made to the Corporation of the County of Elgin for future replanting of trees within the County of Elgin; and further, THAT, should a donation be received, the funds be placed in reserves until suitable sites are determined and recommended by the Tree Commissioner and approved by County Council. Respectfully Submitted :&i88iO) Chief Administrative Officer. ------ (- '. t'~, . IoLI-llJt a. "'OONM-O COU-C'i&~ 1M...) SANDRA 0/. lICFFIIeH 1lOVTT;ouom CLDI" ../*"~~- ,~1l' ;t 0'-'- /ffl~\f f~II~-~~' " \......~. (~~ f.~.....- ,. p",~"~f:;;: ~~,.IS' ~1;J\.~~' _ SUNSET DAlI/! S1; THOMAS.. ON"iARIO . "~SVl pl1Ol<E r.lWl C31-t.flO F~ (.51S)lN307t;l;l THE TREES ACT APPLICATION FOR MINOR EXCEPTION II We wish to apply for a minor exception from the provisions of the County of Elgin By-Law No. which restricts and regulates tl1at destruction of trees. In order to be allowed to remove trees as outlined in this 'application. IfTTN J 14/'l5M2 ~fL. '1. NAME(S)OFOWNER(S): AtJ1l\ {/C'Vl:-'V2. G<.,.-w CO,c(,PdR.hf/t>;>t/- {J;~ 5' c..A-t \l (I:"" 20 a <a P(/ ?-G{.1'Yl ..:'"#1: S ~ . (;oLf (OQf;N'io f2oA-.o ~d_ MAILING ADDRESS: Postal Code /11 < ;f'1~ Ej Phone No, /..... 4ft!' - .::020 - d 993 ~2'1 NO. /fIb - SO~ - {if /s 2. LOCATION OF LAND~ I Municipality (Town, Village, Township) J1/MLLl f'A,--, It 0 F %/+'-I'-{AiA/\.. Lot No. Concession No. tJ#~U(tL(.~'~ U7i<ITY C"'~-I D9R... ?,~-r :go..c~cu. c;;;.<:-'n/ t:::.ec-r ~"h.~ ~.::> - J ~""6"" $'"<'< it. <tf- . Lot No. Registered Plan No. 3. Reason for wishing to Remove tn;les- "- r&u..:rN / fr<!'~ r~~cI='? f CJ(1..v tJ~<.< (..-" tlr;..{ t,{ Y c v ~.< Da'"Y<. dd'rl,<j <.../ ;::o~ tYfdl'UJ ""/1/6- 'Ct:J.v+;(i2dd7/o-d ;:ale /l1Ht. /'d.td'6'eG<:="-1/ L..~/~ Y"tfiF/&";:> G</1,u1'J ~}CII.. (?~()..r~'<:::T 4. Describe species of trees and size of trees to be remoyea'J 'L 1t;t:,,"- ~'_ ~ 1~e& ;nJ~ "'fG' ~ ) A\ I'- (; ':,\";1 lITe,. :J ~ " <.../~"f" \.U&/r~f""J) ~ (ytc.t<'uJE.v, UOY"j.....r" · A-srl yo (u($#'" j t I/l.J \. d /1'1/'<..'- (t&d i aJ). v-/..., ') pCh'"j ''l--1') . t f)1A--?~~ '(i;......1'l-t"\) p ~",/~. (UdY'::l'~J); 5. Area to be cleared (in metric) II J '7. $' k.... J<I1V~' t;'dd~, Length l8 /c{ll.V$ MeteF8 Width .2 6 Meters Area (j;j'r a..<<eS' ) (in square meters or hecta~es) ZvS-d L00/Z00d 0Sv-l 9Z0S-l:S9 ~88J~ 8T~~8~-WOHd Lv:Sl: S0,-Sl:-L0 6. Has the owner previously applied for and been granted permission to remove trees? Yes (. ) No <j) If yes, please indicate the purpose to which they were removed approximate size of area cleared and date. /If! /j , y 7. Names, mailing addresses and phone numbers of all owners of property which abutts the land of the owner of the trees, in respect to which this application is made as per section 9.2 of the act. (If insufficient space below please attach another sheet of paper) NAME MAILING ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER . If J. '1 .Undc1 /l1aTlc<,,<: dF c~;rtj>.<r-~~(7l1fj S"c-'<:;{/a..v 9<.. .I~~"- '(d rd'N~(n.<.L~'1 Au /f6l,{('(~ <:../f,J,JJ OQ/,/t.U,,'71.,?' /'I-'t()<F (i",<.>-..o /I/4'll""<--.L) oN ,/W~ -:;<;:y~""775' dce,<j.~"'QJS, 8. Other information deemed pertinent to this application. III> '(~u..V1 (.l" No-f' F ,cA-T/~4S . AAl9 W2",-&',(,N-S::,f fj',"i-!/'fA ~\ &"-./.)4""v .<)?W./J-t:FPA.OU("', \ ( ~~ ('712< Cfz \.~e 7b C"NS7'IIIM.(!'~' (oe~ '" "" (7#01- /Vorl<:~,EN'$ " /f1.<2'6'1/4<:'5' "fAJO /TfJI?CJv~S' Lc/11/bl ,oTTt:'-n VA-<'L~r' c,,1.-ueUJ,14. <:;"~i44,iTt':..I",,"~ .( ",""I$1k. . " ) (M)~ ~IA/\ '", Ac;..ze::--&"""'l<r4 ( 4%71-1 "';;;wAJ qF 17t.L..'$f/.-v8ti. R~) ~aN(c;,(/JfiG (ref d F '/3A'Iff-4ih\ <'i..Yt~ ..AllM. /i.4/~'Y.a-t:--.q kf2. 41f!.~( (Jell!- cL.,A-Gc:>, l<."",- liSktl (;V1/7/t;Z ()f loP"lft'll/'1UpteJtl1'> ,A.IIV~. Each application must be accompanied by a sketch, no smaller than 20 centimetres by 3~ centimetl"es. showing; 9. (a) The parcel of land that is the subject of this appliGation. clearly indicating the ,./ area proposed to be cleared and the area or trees which will remain. (b) buildings on the owner:s property and also on the abutting property. -- (c) use of abutting lands (e.g. residential agricultural, cottage, commercial, etc.) ...... 10. As an on site inspection will be made. Use perirneter of trees which will remain if this application is granted, must be marked by spraying or some other means, to clearly indicate during this visit what is proposed to be removed. ' // ~ L. 1.(. ~dO ~" Date Note: If this app1i~ation is signed by other than the owner, written authorization of the owner(s} must accompany the application. If the applicant is a corporation. the application must be signad by an officer (and that position must be indicated) and the corporate seal sliall be affixed. 2~S-d L00!S00d 0S~-1 920S-tS9 ~aaJ~ aT++a~-WOHd L~:St S0/-St-L0 07-15-'05 13:47 FROM-Kettle creek 631-5026 T-450 P004!007 F-342 "Lt'O~l~ 6S68es REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Rob Lindsay, Tree Commissioner DATE: July 15, 2005 SUBJECT: Application for Minor Exception, Lot 23, Concession A, Municipality of West Elgin Introduction: The Tree Commissioner has received an application for Minor Exception from Tyler and Christina Henricks to clear 0.34 ha of land at Lot 23, Concession A, Municipality of West Elgin. Discussion: The applicant wishes to clear 0.34 hectares of land to create an access laneway. During recent harvesting operations a logging trail was created and the applicant would like to widen the existing trail to accommodate agricultural equipment. Tree species located within the woodland consists of Shagbark Hickory, Basswood, Green Ash and Red Maple. A field inventory on July 5, 2005 did not reveal the presence of any rare or significant tree species. Abutting landowners have been contacted regarding this clearing and have no objections to the proposal. Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority and MNR have responded with no environmentally significant concerns. The applicant is aware of the required replanting of trees. Conclusion: This application meets the goals of Elgin County's forest management. Recommendation: THAT, the Application for Minor Exception to the Trees Act from Tyler and Christina Henricks, to clear 0.34 hectares of woodlands to create an agricultural access lane, on Lot 23, Concession A, Municipality of West Elgin, be approved subject to 600 trees being replanted or an equivalent donation being made to a local conservation/heritage association. Respectfully Submitted Approved for S Rob Lindsay Tree Commissioner Mark G. McDona , Chief Administrative Officer. {. - ~ ':/;' ~ ...-:;:; "" IoIARK Co 1Il!ll<:lNAI.P ..-< \Y:. \ \......,.._.... ~ ~\\'}\ ~ \bt\ 1:iA:=-*:AEH ,~V~-- \\J Wi'}. L 1.~ ~ ~~\. "\ .ro~ '/0.'7 .--~. i.iM~~f \:::lll~"'i ~ Oh - I I \~' . ...' ,=iJ ."':'..~ ,~ ~~:.~;..~:.~.!. .~A ~ SUNSET DRM! sr- THOMAS. O~ ~ t:1VE ~5l$V1 ~}~ ~t.~ ":;' ., . .~" . J P..O,..~(5lll) IlaH-iw'" '"'''-''' .;-..;,/} ,,~= 0 FAX ($'~ =-7861 JUL 0 8 2Q05 THE TREES ACT APPLICATION FOR MINOR EXCEPTION : ':-(; j~.i"v t'!i: """ ~l!l-! ..""...,';f \ ....:r.l:""~.;m'll J; \ ):",:;,:,;'~~"''!"r,;.k '~l~.'t: l:<i"i/,;M~f'o\P'fj ~~v"n~.\J.".i...~ ~ ~~~~'~b wf:rf;rY~&G II We wish to apply for a minor exception from the provisions of the County of Elgin By-Law No. which restricts and regulates that destruction of trees. In order to be allowed to remove trees as outlined in this application. 1. NAME(S) OF QWNER(S): ~ I p r 4:eA1 r,' ck, <: ~ r : ~ f; /) ~ fie ~r I~c-t..> MAILING ADDRESS: ,"3 '19 U/<._:I"-('/'f'j ~a.. IJv.e. .-- A A -or /::;<::; e.-x u/\../ Postal Code N'gf'/) ,IV &> Phone No. (~(1) ;> 7" -I:> 9;l v 2. LOCATION OF LAND:, Municipality (Town, Village, Township) (' ~--+- ot- J&j~,'Y\ j uJes r- ~ ,..'" J.I."'" ).. , -fill (I /li1V\ ./J . 1/~ 1 Lot No. feu t.ffr' ~ _ Concession No. .. .It "rp..J.A:;/Ei>K..O%~ J ..JfJ~ RPII g (P~0 faff5. ~~~ Lot No. Registered Plan No. f!.ot/ ~ 37'3 0/ ~ C''60 O;l~S-C 0000 3. Reason for wishing to Remove trees. -ro <: t;n'\-:) k ~~f- ~ .1 r-\../~.n( J p e-k~ ~ o..JXCS5 to..A ~ p}~ ctU'e.-S. +0 ~ 4. Describe species of trees and size of trees to be "removea. MO~f-' I ~ Sm aJ J ~c:J... 'g'O C4'Y) g e (> dl'-- a.- of HIJrrr 'j . lY\Q4Jf e.. (~d) ). 5. Area to be cleared' (in metric) Length 3 t; () Meters ~ '3 t.t ivC4..- Width 1 () Meters Area (in square meters or hectares) ZvS-d L00/S00d 0Sv-l 9Z0S-tS9 ~88J~ 8T~~8~-W08d Lv:St S0,-St-L0 6. Has the Qwner previously applied for and been granted permission to remove trees? Yes ( ) No (x) If yes, please indicate the purpose to which they were removed approximate size of area cleared and date. 7. Names, mailing addresses and phone numbers of all owners of property which abutts the land of the owner af the trees in respect to which this application is made as per section 9.2 of the act. (If insufficient space below please attach another sheet of paper) 8. Other information deemed pertinent to this application. --rh.e s-;k ~D..\<; d.oSe..n -\-d (~e- ~ ~sf- i\~ ~ ~ee-S pu CALAe-. -beJ~e,Je... 'A- .pfe$UVe$ -+k ~4(:~ C>~ ~- \'~k.... H- ~\\o--.)~ ~ ~'.s-.I-'NJ- ..5~dJJ t-J~L ~ ~ e~.6~ siJ~ ~S (iof- cJv;~~ -/-0 P' fD~ +t:.e. tc.-rfje. Il~bc-f ~ h,c..b:rr,- +-r~~.,~~ ,~e.....- 9. Each application must be accompanied by a sketch, no smaller than 20 centimetres by 35 centimetres. showing: (a) The parcel of land that is the subject of this app!ication, clearly indicating the area proposed to be cleared and the area or trees which will remain. (b) buildings on the owner's property and also on the abutting property. (c) use of abutting lands (e.g. residential agricultural, cottage. commercial. etc.) 10. As an on site inspection will be made. Use perimeter of trees which will remain if this application is granted, must be marked by spraying or some other means, to clearly indicate during this visit what is proposed to be removed. OJ~ ?, f' c9aJ~ (7 Date ~ - - Ign-~-- -- Applicant or . Authorized Agent . ~ Note: If this ~pplication is signed by other than the owner, written authorization of the owner(s) must accompany the application. If the applicant is a corporation, the application must be signar:! bv an officer (and that Dosition must be indicated) and the corporate seal shall be affixed. ZvS-d L00/900d 0Sv-l 9Z0S-IS9 ~aal~ aT++a~-WOad Lv:SI S0,-SI-L0 a~ ~r~ \ ~~&..1\~ ,e~+e.. ~eee..s~' ~ ~ "" . '::J 'b'1 A . ........ ......... -- - - -, - -" ~ ~ - - - , I i to.._ : 9C1.f'"+-~ ' 'd " 0\4~~ ~""~ 'I :.'3. I~q ~ ( "Y'\. ~ ~'-"'""~- , ,'G/~ .i-S-~ " c "" ~~ .....-roh:J ' P~f'~ aOW-'~ '~ ..... t' :0' ~ --r~ u..~ie~bk... APr~X. 300-CAe.6 40~ fJ~bh Pr-'P?'~ ~~>t..f'eS r ... . Po..~ ~ I I ~"- \ 0. \ ~ ~\ p~L... fA .~ . ~ '...t ~lb ., ~e.., feMO~~ ~ l~~ ~ 3.~(}m ' ~ ~ ~ ~Lj o-.u-e S i5'" ~ · 3"'t ~e:s , -r~~, ~' ~ 'ee. rep,~.~ ~ .. '& <<1 ,~~('(.~ ) ,~l.-I M.-CWt.S " , - ~.. 0- - ~ : ~ 4'" ~ ~ ,::"it ~ i )i ~ "" ,~ t:.'f'"l ."<!; ~ J l-, i~ D\. r / ~'Q, di ~ 'C' P '.~ ~ ,', ~ .J. ~.r ," ~~+ ~@rt)~ ~~~ *--f; J(~' t i .' ~\v~ A~i-eS Q~~(~ ~p.v. ..t V\, c u.> ~, o \ ' ~ <P , -....j cJ:\ - ~ 3 l-f. s~'" ~~4'/ ~ -;;to, "Q (/\P I -r:+ (,<t> eA.SUv"1e.rJ- M~c.\..r"O OI"Le..- i~ I~ i ,~ m ,~ '" I", , , ' I ?Cu+ if /'/ r ~ l d-. q ~. ;).05' V\ c..~t"'O\ ro~d\ ZvS-d L00/L00d 0Sv-l 9Z0S-1:S9 I j ~881~ 8T++8~-wOad Lv:S1: S0/-S1:-L0 REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Clayton Watters, Director Engineering Services DATE: July 4, 2005 SUBJECT: Private Signs on Municipal Right-of-Ways INTRODUCTION At the present, County policy and practice is to deny requests for private signage on all County road allowances. Tourism directional signage has been permitted, on occasion, through Council resolution as an exception to this policy. Over the years however, private signage has been installed on County road allowances without permission. This signage has not been removed unless is poses a safety risk to the travelling public. . At the April 22, 2002 County Council meeting, the following commentary expressed the sentiments of the sign policy, " That the Manager of Engineering Services advised that signs installed on County road allowances are too numerous and may create a safety hazard putting the County at potential liability risk. The public is told to place signs on private property, however, the instructions are often ignored and signs are placed on County road allowance anyway. More than 400 signs throughout the County may be in non-compliance. Council had concerns with how the guidelines would impact economic development and that a compromise should be considered. Staff was directed to contact TODS to find out if their policies may conflict with County requirements. Council tabled this report until more information is acquired through local contacts." That the report entitled "Sign Policy" presented by the Manager of Engineering Services, be tabled until more information is obtained from local businesses and other municipal sign policies have been reviewed." At the November 26, 2002 County Council meeting, the following commentary was noted, " The Manager of Engineering Services reported that surrounding municipalities, the MTO, and the Chamber of Commerce sign polices have been reviewed and a Standard Sign Policy throughout the County should be adopted to negate potential liability issues. Council discussed the cost and impact on small businesses for standard signage and the difficulty . in enforcing such a policy." The following was adopted, That the report" Sign Policy Update" from the Manager of Engineering Services, dated November 4, 2002 be received and filed." At the June 26, 2005 County Council meeting, Councillor Hofhuis approached Council regarding the number of signs displayed on the County road allowance leading into Port Stanley, and the possibility of having some of them removed in time for the Communities in Bloom event this year. Event organizers for the community feel the large number of signs detract from the esthetics of the Village. Council and staff discussed the issue of safety and the policy currently followed by Engineering Services. Staff, were requested to review the current policy and bring it back, along with any possible changes, for review and consideration by Council. DISCUSSION: Traffic Control Signage The purpose of traffic control and management is conveying messages to road users. The objective of these messages is to advise motorists of traffic regulations in order to enable observance of the law, warn them of roadway characteristics and road hazards and provide information necessary for route selection. Meeting these objectives improves safety and convenience for the road user and promotes the efficient movement of people and goods and the orderly flow of traffic. Traffic control devices are intended to provide vital information to drivers. They will be more effective if they are designed with the drivers needs and limitations. When private and public signs are mixed within the same roadway they provide confusion, as they are designed and installed differently. If signs are not designed and properly installed they can interfere and distract from each other, become visually ineffective and lose their influence through excessive use. Therefore, simplicity in design and care in placement and a high standard of maintenance are essential. Road Corridors The County of Elgin has 670 kilometers of rural roads and 30 kilometers of urban roads. The rural roads are normally 100 feet in width, with 24 feet of pavement - 20 feet of shoulders. What is important is the road area required for transportation of the travelling public. This area is located within the sign lines. The sign line is an area 16 feet on either side of the pavement through to the other sign line, covering a width of 56 feet. This area allows for the driving surface, shoulders and an area for the installation of traffic signs. Therefore, 22 feet, on each side of the road is left for the ditches, utilities or any other private services, including for example: telephone, natural gas, water, sewer, cable television, private oil and gas pipelines and other private services such as waterlines or drainage systems. Each of these services requires 3 feet of clearance on each side, for safety and construction. In the rural area, signs could be placed on the back slope of the ditch near the property line, however, this corridor is becoming a premium location for new utilities servicing the area. In urban areas (30 kilometers of the County system), the road allowance is 66 feet wide. The width of pavement, curb and gutter, area for signs and sidewalk is 25 feet. The remaining 8 feet on each side remains for the utilities or any other private services, which includes: telephone, natural gas, water, sewer, cable television and other private services such as waterlines or drainage systems. In some locations, the County road property limits are at the face of buildings. Current Policy As stated earlier, the current policy used by staff is to not permit private signage within road property. This policy has worked well for many years. Persons requesting permission to erect private signs are all told that their sign may be placed on private property, directly adjacent to the road rrght of way limits so long as it does not obscure any sight lines for traffic movements. The advantages of the existing policy are as follows: · Private signs can be erected near the roadway and serve the same function as if they were located on the road property. · Private signs would not interfere with maintenance or construction activities. · Traffic control signage is not compromised. · Little or no staff time required to administer. · No concerns regarding private signs being maintained or being damaged and becoming a liability on County property. · Less expensive for persons who wish to install private signs (fees, administration, insurance requirements, etc.). · Fewer restrictions for those wishing to erect private signs (type, colour, size, updating, replacing, maintaining, etc.). Permissive Policy If the County were to adopt a policy permitting signage on County road property many variables regarding policy parameters would need to be decided, and may include: 1. Can any business, any individual or any group apply for a sign to be erected on County property? 2. Is there a limit to the size or to the number of signs that an applicant may have? 3. Where can these signs be placed (in front of the business or in advance of or both)? 4. Will there be a limit for the number of signs to be installed in an area (first come basis )? 5. Who will manufacture the sign? (considering that general signing principles must be employed) 6. Who will install/remove the signs? (considering the contractor must obtain locates, provide temporary traffic control signage, liability insurance, etc.). 7. What are the initial and annual fees for each sign? 8. How much staff time will be required to administer, inventory, inspect and enforce? An option that County Council could consider is that the local municipalities, by council resolution, make a request to County Council for the removal of private signs within their municipality. County Council could either approve or deny the municipal request. If the request was approved, then the municipal employees would remove the signs. For clarification all private signs attached to regulatory, warning or information signs and/or all private signs that interfere with the safety of the travelling public would be removed at any time, without council's approval. CONCLUSION: The present road sign policy does not permit private sign(s) on municipal right of ways. Businesses are encouraged to make arrangements with adjacent landowners for erection of private signage on private property. Only a limited amount of space is available within the road corridor for the placement of private signs. This space has become premium real estate for the many new utilities servicing our residents (including: gas, water, electricity, high-speed cable, etc.). If Council is interested in allowing private signs, a system will be required to control their appearance, location and installation. This creates additional administrative time for corridor control but it does allow for the reimbursement of those costs through permit fees. Traffic control and management relies on a system of traffic control devices for conveying messages to the road user. Therefore, signs should be designed professionally and located to assist the road user. Improper or excessive use tends to cultivate confusion for signs in general and distracts from the driving task. It is staff's recommendation that in rural areas private signs not be permitted on right-of- ways due to the limited space and the ability to erect signs on private property. In urban areas, with increased traffic and congestion, private signs should also not be permitted. RECOMMENDATION: That the County of Elgin continue the present policy of not permitting the use of private signs on municipal right-of-way; and also, That, constituent municipalities may submit by resolution a request to remove signage along County roadways for consideration by County Council, with the understanding that said signage would be removed by the requesting municipality. Respectfully Submitted ~~ Approved for Clayton D. Watters Director of Engineering Services Mark. nald Chief Administrative Officer REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Clayton Watters, Director of Engineering Services DATE: July 4, 2005 SUBJECT: Speed Limit - Update INTRODUCTION At previous sessions of County Council, there was a recommendation that Engineering Services review the reduced speed zones of 50km/h and 60km/h. The speed zones were reviewed for consistency and compliance with the Highway Traffic Act in 2001, as a result some speed zones were altered. Recently there have been a few citizen concerns regarding the zones in their area and we informed them that we would review all zones and report to council with staff's recommendations. DISCUSSION: Numerous research reports have indicated that drivers tend to select speeds at which they consider safe and comfortable to drive rather than the posted limits. In congested areas with parking lanes, pedestrian activity and numerous entrances, drivers tend to reduce their speed as they see fit. Most drivers also assume that travelling 10-20km/h above the speed limit is also safe. This theory is used when choosing a speed limit if it does not exceed other criteria, such as: the design speed, collision rates or the provincially legislated speed limit. Concerns were raised regarding eleven of the eighty-eight reduced speed zones on Elgin County roads. The concerns raised by citizens of Elgin County were to either reduce the speed limit and/or increase the speed zone. Staff is recommending a reduction in the speed limit to three areas. The three areas are: Road 27 west of the Central Elgin/Southwold townline, Road 48 at west of Wellington Road and Road 52 east of Road 35. The first area is Road 27, Sparta Line, west of the townline. A section, 300 meters long is the only portion of Sparta Line (3.5 kilometers) that could possibly have a speed limit of 80 km/hr. That 300-meter road section is a given road and is only 15 meters wide. On both ends on this section, east and west, due to the deficient curves and hills, the speed is posted at 20 kilometers and 40 kilometers. Staff is recommending that the speed be reduced to 60 km/hr. The second area is Road 48, Ferguson Line, west of Wellington Road. This road section warrants a reduced speed zone due to adjacent housing density. And as such it will be recommended that the speed be reduced to 60 km/hr. And lastly on Road 52, Ron McNeil Line, east of Springwater Road a section of road also requires a reduction in speed limit due to the housing density. Staff is recommending that the speed be posted at 60 km/hr. The Highway Traffic Act states that a reduction in the speed limit for density is when either side of the road is built up with either buildings or dwellings, for more than 50%, for more than 200 meters. Or both sides that are built up for a distanc~ of 100 meters for more than 50%. Since the by-law was incorporated, the County assumed old connecting links in West Lome, Port Stanley, Belmont, Aylmer, and Port Burwell. Those sections of the assumed roadways have reduced speeds and therefore must be incorporated into our by-law. Appendix A, titled maximum rate of speed 50 km/h, lists the roads and locations where staff is recommending changes. Appendix B, titled maximum rate of speed 60 km/h, lists the roads and locations where staff is recommending changes. CONCLUSION: Staff reviewed existing by-law and found that the only changes were due to assuming old connecting links, some minor editorial changes and three reductions in speed due to density and roadway environment. RECOMMENDATION: THAT By-law #01-37, 02-28 and 02-38 be repealled; and also THAT the following schedules be included. QtMijpy, Clayton D. Watters Director of Engineering Services a Chief Administrative Officer Respectfully Submitted Appendix A Schedule A - Maximum Rate of Speed 50 kilometres per hour By-law Location Comments item # 3 County Road 4 (Colborne Transfer of old connecting link to County Road Street) system 4 County Road 4 (Bridge Transfer of old connecting link to County Road Street) system with lift bridge. 13 County Road 19 (Plank Currently posted as 50 km/hr but included in the Road) 60 km/hr listinq in the bylaw 16 County Road 20 (Union A Council approved change of speed from 60 Road) km/hr to 50 km/hr 19 County Road 20 (Carlow Not included in by-law Road) 33 Coun'ty Road 37 (Avon Council approved decrease in speed limit Drive) 34 County Road 38 (Heritage A Council approved increase in the length of Line) speed zone 35 County Road 38 (Heritage Currently posted as 50 km/hr but included in the Line) 60 km/hr Iistinq in the bylaw 42 County Road 43 (Richmond Currently posted as 50 km/hr but included in the Road) 60 km/hr Iistinq in the bylaw 54 County Road 73 (John Transfer of old connecting link to County Road Street) system 55 County Road 73 (John Transfer of old connecting link to County Road Street) system 57 County Road 74 (Belmont Transfer of old connecting link to County Road Road) system 58 County Road 76 (Graham Transfer of old connecting link to County Road Road) system 59 County Road 76 (Graham Transfer of old connecting link to County Road Road) system Appendix B Schedule B - Maximum Rate of Speed 60 kilometres per hour By-law Location Comments item # 6 County Road 4 (Sunset Currently posted as 60 km/hr but included in the Drive) 50 km/hr Iistinq in the bylaw 7 County Road 7 (Clachan Not included in previous by-laws Road) 8 County Road 7 (C1achan Not included in previous by-laws Road) 11 County Road 27 (Sparta Currently posted as 60 km/hr from Sunset Road Line) westerly 1,860 meters. Extend zone to the east limit of Union Road. New County Road 48 (Ferguson Built up area Line) New County Road 52 (Ron Built up area McNeil Line) REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Sandra Heffren, Deputy Clerk DATE: July 18, 2005 SUBJECT: Title Change with OMERS Introduction: Staff contacted the Ontario Municipal Employees' Retirement System (OMERS) to change the title from "Personnel Administrator" to "Director of Human Resources" for the purposes of signing documents with OMERS on behalf of the County. Discussion: The Personnel Administrator is authorized by By-Law to act as Agent on behalf of the County to sign documents with OMERS. Staff requested that the title be changed from "Personnel Administrator" to the current position title "Director of Human Resources". In order to effect the change in title OMERS requires an amending by-law. Conclusion: An amending By-Law is required to change the title "Personnel Administrator" to "Director of Human Resources" for OMERS purposes. Recommendation: THAT By-Law No. 1838 as amended by By-Law No. 89-51 be further amended to reflect the current title "Director of Human Resources" to act as Agent on behalf of the Corporation of the County of Elgin to execute all documents and to do all such things as are necessary to participate in OMERS. Respectfully Submitted Approved for Su ~~~ San r Heff Depu y Clerk. Mark G. Mc , Chief Administrative Officer. REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Linda B. Veger, Director of Financial Services DATE: June 20, 2005 SUBJECT: 2004 Surplus INTRODUCTION: The audit is now complete and the 2004 surplus has been calculated. Council, in order to reduce the 2005 budget increase, approved an increase to the accumulated revenue account of $100,000 from the surplus. Council also approved the use of $200,000 in surplus funds to reduce the 2005 budget request for the WSIB reserve. DISCUSSION: As determined by Council several years ago, surpluses are reserved and their use determined in the next year. The balance of the surplus in reserve is now: 2004 Sur Ius Increase accumulated revenue WSIB Reserve Surplus Collections Revenue Balance of sur Ius Senior staff recommend the following for Council's consideration: Capital Projects - to offset some of the shortfall Training reserve WSIB reserve Total $189,339 25,000 75,000 $289,339 Council approved a capital budget with a shortfall of $601,658. It will take many "efficiencies" to cover this. Senior staff have discussed ways to improve the effeciency and effectiveness of operations. This can be achieved by ensuring staff receive training relevent to todays changing workplace. The training can include honing supervisory skills. The high cost of training staff within the homes, a 24/7 operation, can prove to be prohibitive when budgeting scarce dollars. Staff therefore suggest that dollars be set aside from the surplus to be utilized for training with the majority of the additional funds being directed towards the homes. In 2004, the WSIB reserve was overspent by approximately $115,000. Council approved a budget of $500,000 for 2005. As of May 2005 it appears the WSIB expenditures will stay within the budget. However staff suggest that a part of the surplus be set aside to ensure the WSIB reserve ends the year with a positive variance. CONCLUSION: The capital needs of the corporation are exceeding the dollars available through the budget. Council and staff recognize that there will be efficiencies realized throughout the year as actual expenditures are compared to budgets. However, meeting the $601,658 shortfall in the 2005 capital budget may be very difficult. Therefore, staff recommend that part of the 2004 surplus be directed to reduce the 2005 capital budget shortfall. There is a high cost to training within the homes especially registered staff. The employee taking the training is paid as well as the replacement for that employee. The Directors agree that there is much to be gained by additional training. Staff recommend that dollars be added to the training reserve to assist the homes. WSIB costs have been increasing. In order to ensure 2005 expenditures remain within budget, staff recommend allocating some of the surplus dollars to that reserve. RECOMMENDATION: THAT the surplus as indicated in the report titled 2004 Surplus and dated June 20, 2005 be used to : a) reduce the shortfall in the 2005 capital budget by $189,339, and b) increase the training reserve by $25,000, and c) increase the WSIB reserve by $75,000. Respectfully Submitted Approved for Submission c/~ Linda B. ve7 Director of Financial Services REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Linda B. Veger, Director of Financial Services DATE: June 23, 2005 SUBJECT: Health Unit - Refund of Surplus INTRODUCTION: The Elgin St. Thomas Health Unit refunded to the County $137,194.69 as a result of a surplus in their financial statements. DISCUSSION: As in previous years, the Health Unit will be making a request to the County for funding to control the spread of the West Nile Virus. This years request will be approximately $25,000. A large issue facing the County in 2005 and into the future is determining how to plan for the reduction in Provincial funding. Based on this unknown, staff suggest that the balance of the refund, after paying out the West Nile funding request, be recorded as revenue. The use of the revenue be determined later in the year. CONCLUSION: Staff recommend that the Elgin St. Thomas Health Unit surplus, net of the West Nile funding request, be recorded as revenue and the use of those funds be determined later. RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Elgin St. Thomas Health Unit surplus funds, net of the West Nile Virus funding request, be recorded as miscellaneous revenue. Respectfully Submitted Approved for Submission ~~~ Director of Financial Services REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Linda B. Veger, Director of Financial Services DATE: June 23, 2005 SUBJECT: Budget Comparison - May 31, 2005 Introduction: Attached is the budget comparison to May 31,2005 for the County operating departments. Discussion: Warden and Council - positive variance - 19,872 - timing of payrolls. Administration Building - positive variance - 30,798 - utilities and purchased services currently under budget. Overall the three Homes are in a positive position. Revenues are slightly under as increases to funding that have been reported previously to Council started in April. The coming vacation season will decrease the positive variance in wages. To date usage of the modified work program has been less than anticipated. Elgin Manor will be over budget in dietary equipment repairs. Both the oven and boiler require repairs that were not anticipated at budget time. Library - negative variance - (49,711) - the provincial grant for the Library will not be received until much later in the year. Collections purchases have been made early in the year. Provincial Offences - positive variance - 98,433 - payments to municipalities will be made in early July. Ambulance Services - positive variance 145,766 - Elgin St. Thomas EMS contract negotiations with the union is underway. Until the contract is settled, payments to the provider should show a positive variance along with reduced invoicing back to the City. Collections - positive variance - 105,659 - payments to municipalities to be made in early July. The WSIB reserve went over budget in 2004. Staff have been reviewing that account closely in 2005. Currently, it appears that there may be a small positive variance at year end. All other departments are reasonable. Recommendation: THAT the report titled Budget Comparison - May 31, 2005 and dated June 23, 2005 be received and filed. Respectfully Submitted ~~ Linda B. ve~ Director of Financial Services Approved fo Icer COUNTY OF ELGIN Departmental Budget Comparisons For The 5 Periods Ending May 31, 2005 Total YTD YTD Variance %OF Budget Budget Actual 0 Budget Warden & Council Wages 168,274 70,114 56,089 14,025 Benefits 7,573 3,155 2,600 555 Operations 70,175 34,285 28,993 5,292 Total 246,022 107,555 87,683 19,872 35.64% Administrative Services Wages 249,750 104,063 96,830 7,232 Benefits 52,448 21,853 23,120 (1,267) Operations 14,700 6,125 6,481 (356) Total 316,898 132,041 126,432 5,609 39.90% Financial Services Wages 281,000 117,083 110,169 6,915 Benefits 67,440 28,100 28,793 (693) Operations 17,151 7,146 5,227 1,919 Total 365,591 152,330 144,189 8,141 39.44% Human Resources Wages 322,279 134,283 125,491 8,792 Benefits 68,000 28,333 29,575 (1,242) Operations 19,550 8,146 3,681 4,465 Total 409,829 170,762 158,747 12,015 38.73% Administration Building Wages 116,600 48,583 45,280 3,303 Benefits 30,300 12,625 11 ,452 1,173 Operations 74,300 30,958 4,636 26,322 Total 221,200 92,167 61,369 30,798 27.74% Corporate Expenditures Insurance 206,500 200,092 196,430 3,662 Telephone 33,000 13,750 8,931 4,819 Legal & Professional 87,000 36,250 36,338 (88) Retiree Benefits 41,000 17,083 15,687 1,396 Other Expenditures 76,515 31,881 18,587 13,294 Total 444,015 299,056 275,974 23,083 62.15% Engineering Wages 245,000 102,083 91,017 11,066 Benefits 53,000 22,083 23,355 (1,271 ) Operations 82,000 34,167 41,058 (6,891 ) Maintenance 2,276,259 1,155,630 1,150,380 5,250 Total 2,656,259 1,313,963 1,305,809 8,154 49.16% Agriculture Operations 31,876 13,282 8,937 4,345 Total 31,876 13,282 8,937 4,345 28.04% Elgin Manor Revenues (4,169,961) (1,737,484) (1,734,437) (3,047) Wages 3,823,594 1,593,164 1,433,952 159,212 Benefits 1,005,216 418,840 416,172 2,668 Operations 911,144 379,643 270,941 108,702 Total 1,569,993 654,164 386,629 267,535 24.63% Terrace Lodge Revenues (4,627,251 ) (1,928,021 ) (1,899,783) (28,238) Wages 3,928,883 1,637,035 1,551,378 85,656 Benefits 993,613 414,005 433,655 (19,650) Operations 917,741 382,392 295,753 86,639 Total 1,212,986 505,411 381,003 124,408 31.41% Bobier Villa Revenues (2,650,555) (1,104,398) (1,107,586) 3,188 Wages 2,611,848 1,088,270 1,052,051 36,219 Benefits 608,993 253,747 257,778 (4,031) Operations 653,058 272,108 209,215 62,892 Total 1,223,344 509,727 411 ,458 98,268 33.63% Pioneer Museum Wages 56,553 23,564 30,143 (6,579) Benefits 11,672 4,863 6,653 (1,789) Operations 57,249 23,854 17,760 6,094 Total 125,474 52,281 54,555 (2,274) 43.48% Library Wages 428,447 Benefits 94,994 Collections 94,792 Operations 44,523 Total 62,756 44.79 0 Archives Wages 135,568 56,487 39,182 17,305 Benefits 27,606 11,503 9,384 2,118 Operations 45,900 19,125 8,934 10,191 Total 209,074 87,114 57,500 29,614 27.50% land Division Wages 1,393 Benefits 438 Operations 3,769 Total 5,60 Emergency Measures Wages 5,000 2,083 2,083 0 Benefits 1,300 542 542 0 Operations 11,800 4,917 1,923 2,994 Total 18,100 7,542 4,548 2,994 25.13% Information Technologies Wages 184,622 76,926 71,653 5,273 Benefits 48,002 20,001 17,177 2,824 Operations 318,862 132,859 115,548 17,311 Total 551,486 229,786 204,378 25,408 37.06% Provincial Offences Grant (75,900) (31,625) (41,303) 9,678 Fines Revenues (650,000) (270,833) (325,737) 54,904 Shared Revenues - Municipal 323,355 0 0 0 Wages 159,000 66,250 61,958 4,292 Benefits 33,500 13,958 15,388 (1,430) Operations 180,350 75,146 44,157 30,989 Total (29,695) (147,104) (245,538) 98,433 826.86% Ambulance Services Province of Ontario (1,658,846) (691 ,186) (736,337) 45,151 City of S1. Thomas (1,752,254) (730,106) (637,648) (92,458) Contractor Payments 5,828,740 2,428,642 2,196,077 232,565 Wages 63,650 26,521 25,113 1 ,408 Benefits 16,549 6,895 6,428 468 Operations 32,500 13,542 54,909 (41,367J Total 2,530,339 1,054,308 908,542 145,76 35.91 % Collections Revenue (380,000) (158,333) (184,914) 26,581 Wages 42,259 17,608 16,345 1,263 Benefits 10,565 4,402 4,475 (73) Operations 221,669 92,362 14,474 77,888 Total (105,507) (43,961 ) (149,620) 105,659 141.81% REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Cathy Bishop, Director of Library Services Brian Masschaele, Manager of Archives DATE: 12 July 2005 SUBJECT: Approval of Museum Contribution Agreement INTRODUCTION: The County's application to renovate the fourth floor of the Elgin County Administration Building as the future home of the Elgin County Pioneer Museum has now been approved. This report recommends that the Warden and Chief Administrative Officer be authorized to sign the contribution agreement and that the project proceed. DISCUSSION: The County's application under the Sports, Culture and Tourism Partnerships Initiative to support renovations to the fourth floor of the Elgin County Administration Building as the future location of the Elgin County Pioneer Museum has been approved by the Provincial government. Staff have also received verbal confirmation that the application has received Federal approval with a formal letter to be issued in the coming days. Each government will be contributing $80,000 towards the $400,000 project, with the remaining $240,000 approved by the County in the 2005 budget. It should be noted that MP Mr. Joe Preston and MPP Hon. Steve Peters have both assisted greatly with this application and their contribution should be recognized. The Chief Administrative Officer and the Manager of Archives have reviewed the funding agreement and are recommending that it be executed. Construction must be completed by March 2006. Staff are confident that this deadline can be met without compromising the quality of the project. A grand opening for the museum could take place as early as May 2006. Staff are recommending that Spriet Associates be authorized to develop a preliminary design for the new space given the firm's initial involvement with a feasibility study and costing analysis on the floor. In developing this design, the firm will be guided by the feedback staff received from County museums during a consultation meeting held in April 2005. The feedback received was generally supportive of the mandate and types of services that the County plans to deliver from the space as outlined in the report to County Council on March 22nd, 2005 entitled "Museum Proposal". The design will therefore incorporate ample space for exhibitions (including rotating exhibits), curatorial functions, collection storage and outreach activities. Staff furthermore recommend that Spriet Associates act as project manager, including the development of a tender for general construction, the results of which will be brought forward for Council approval. Construction will likely begin in October 2005 for completion in March 2006. The firm's fees for design and project management will be $40,125 (including GST), leaving a budget of approximately $360,000 for general construction, materials and equipment. The successful outcome of this application also enables staff to proceed with other recommendations contained in the aforementioned "Museum Proposal" report, including plans for staffing. Further consultation is nevertheless required with County museums to finalize a governance structure, new museum name and the matter of surplus property at 32 Talbot Street. Councillors can be assured that County museums and stakeholder groups will be consulted further regarding any proposals relating to these matters and that staff will be bringing forward further reports in the coming months. CONCLUSION: The County's application to renovate the fourth floor of the Elgin County Administration Building has received Provincial approval and is awaiting final confirmation of Federal approval. Staff recommend that a contribution agreement be authorized by the Warden and Chief Administrative Officer and that the project proceed under the management of Spriet Associates. RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Warden and Chief Administrative Officer be authorized to execute a funding agreement under Ontario's Sports, Culture and Tourism Partnerships Initiative to renovate the fourth floor of the Elgin County Administration Building as the future home of the Elgin County Pioneer Museum based on contribution levels of $80,000 from the Federal Government, $80,000 from the Provincial Government and $240,000 from the County of Elgin; AND THAT Spriet Associates be authorized to design and project manage renovations according to the terms of the funding agreement for a fee of $40,125 (including GST) and based on a total project budget of $400,000; AND THAT the Warden issue letters of appreciation to MP Mr. Joe Preston and MPP Hon. Steve Peters for their support of this application. Respectfully Submitted c~~ . ctor of Library Services Brian Masschaele Manager of Archives REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Larysa Andrusiak, Ambulance and Emergency Management Coordinator DATE: July 19, 2005 SUBJECT: Thames EMS Second Annual Performance Review INTRODUCTION: The second annual Performance Review of Thames EMS was conducted June 14, 2005 as required by the ambulance service contract. This review encompasses the time period January 1, 2005 to June 30th, 2005. The Performance Review Report is attached and is provided for Council's information. DISCUSSION: As per Schedule "H" Performance -Based Incentive Plan of the Ambulance Service Contract, the second performance review of Thames EMS of 2005 was conducted by the Ambulance & Emergency Management Coordinator and Director of Finance. Out of a possible score of 110 Thames EMS scored 89.5. A score of 85 or higher on the performance review, shall result in the maximum "incentive" payment of 25% of the annual management fee. Some highlights include: Shift Coverage - there have been no incidences of downstaffing during the review time period. Downstaffing is when an ambulance scheduled for duty is unable to be operationalized due to unavailability of staff usually due to illness and inability to get other staff to cover off. This used to occur regularly prior to 2004, due to staff shortages and on -call shifts, which were unpopular with staff. Reaction times - Elgin County continues to respond in less time than Provincial Standards require, an enviable position as regarded by many other municipalities. Even so, in the last reporting period of the Quarterly Report, the Code 3 call chute times had risen over the last reporting period. This has been brought to staff's attention and is thought to be due to the hospital trailer location and time for crew to get to vehicle. labour/Management Environment - A negotiated settlement has been successfully reached with the CAW and ratified with salary levels well within the parameters of other wage settlements in our area. Positive relations with staff have been maintained. Interactions with Client and Stakeholders and Value Added - Both of these areas are strengths of our operators and it is noted that Thames EMS generously declined their administrative fee of $25,000 for their extensive services in the building process of the two ambulance bases. CONCLUSION: Staff continue to be pleased with Thames EMS in carrying out their contract for the provision of ambulance services in Elgin County through Elgin-St. Thomas EMS. This report and attached Performance Review Report are presented for Council's information RECOMMENDATION: That the Report titled Thames EMS Second Annual Performance Review dated July 19, 2005 and reported by the Ambulance and Emergency Management Coordinator be received and filed. Respectfully Submitted Approved for Submission d~~~ Ch~~1u Larysa. ndrusiak Ambulance and Emergency Management Coordinator Mark Chief Administrative Officer Schedule "H" PERFORMANCE-BASED INCENTIVE PLAN Performance Review Six month Performance Review (January 1, 2005 - June 30, 2005) Conducted June 14, 2005, 2 - 4:30 p.m. by Larysa Andrusiak, Ambulance and Emergency Management Coordinator and Linda Veger, Director of Finance. Total Score Earned: 89.5 out of 110 Scores and Criteria: 1. Shift Coverage: 9 There have been no incidences of downstaffing during the review time period. Twelve new staff have been hired and the Dutton ambulance base has been upstaffed to 24/7 on site coverage as of AprilSth, 2005. The Over-time rate has fallen and is at approximately 1.9% of total hours worked. Shift over-run incidences are also relatively low at less than 1 % of total shift hours worked. Using 2 additional vehicles in St. Thomas and Rodney for use by staff starting their shifts, while a crew may be out finishing their call on a shift over-run allows for more efficient use of resources and staff time. 2. Reaction Times: 7 Receiving data from the Ministry continues to be a problem. Results of the last Quarterly Report representing data from the time period of October 1 to December 31, 2004 were discussed. Compliance with chute time requirements for Code 4 calls ranged from 93.2% to 98.1 %. Compliance with chute time requirements for Code 3 calls had slipped from the last Quarterly Report to 82.3% to 89.5% in St. Thomas, to 88.2% to 94.1 % in the County stations. Average response times for this time period for Code 4 calls by stations range from 12 minutes for St. Thomas, 18 minutes for Aylmer and Dutton to 14 minutes for Rodney. These times vary with time of year, distances traveled and number of calls. The response times referred to above have increased two minutes for Aylmer and Dutton for this reporting period but are within the response time requirements for the county. 2 3. Paramedic Staff Recruitment & Training: 8 There are currently a total of 42 Full-time paramedics, 4 Duty Managers and 1 Operations Manager positions and 26 Part-time positions. Pre-Hospital Trauma Life Support training has begun, we have trained two of the Duty Managers to instruct these courses. One course has been completed with 9 participants, and several more courses are planned for the Fall. Fleet Net Training which is required by the Ministry and involves 3-4 hours training per paramedic has been done at no additional cost to the service. The Ministry agreed to pay our Duty Managers who are recognized Ministry instructors to teach the course. The Operations Manager and a Duty Manager participated in Federally funded training in Emergency Operations Centre and Site Management at the College of Emergency Preparedness in Ottawa. Thames EMS will be revising the annual recertification education to include 4 hours of on- line training time for the theoretical material with the skill component remaining as observable classroom time. This is to be in place some time in 2006. 4. Labourl Management Environment: 8 The current labour contract expired March 31, 2005. A negotiated settlement was reached in early June with a ratification vote scheduled for June 20th. It appears that both sides are pleased and positive relations with staff were maintained while keeping well within the parameters of other wage settlements in our area. Occupational Health and Safety Committee has met several times. The goal is to meet quarterly. One issue identified and dealt with was the posting of No Parking and other traffic signs at the Edward St. Base. 5. CQII QA: 7 Questionaires regarding quality of service have been mailed to members of the public who utilized ambulance services. Thames EMS is awaiting the results. Station Managers and DM's are continuing to do audits of Ambulance Call Reports (ACR' s), 80% of Code 1,2, 3 calls and 100% of Code 4 calls. Performance Reviews are being conducted annually. Dr. Lewell of the Base Hospital Program has completed several ride alongs to observe paramedics in action and has done several in- service educational sessions for staff on staff initiated topics such as ECG Interpretation, Pediatrics and Obstetrics/Delivery. 3 Two specific cases of Quality Improvement initiatives successfully achieved with staff were related, one having to do with driving skills and the other with transition to Ontario protocols from another jurisdiction. 6. Records and Reports: 8 The MOH Certificate to Operate an Ambulance Service in Elgin County was received by Thames EMS. The County Policy on PHIPPA was discussed and Thames was notified of the coming county requirement for third party contractors to sign an addendum indicating that the requirements of PHIPPA were being met. It was recognized that ambulance invoices were being reviewed monthly and that the process was working well. The ambulance budget to date was reviewed and spending was largely on target. 7. Ambulance Stations: 9 Randy will follow up with the municipality of Dutton/Dunwich regarding their agreement to re-asphalt the driveway of the ambulance bay. The Rodney base had some problems with the radiant heating system due to the location of a bird nest. The trailer located at the hospital needed a door replaced and it was noted that chute time was an issue at this base due to the location of the trailer and vehicle. It was also noted that once the Shaw Valley Base was completed this would be a non-issue. 8. Readiness of Personnel, Vehicles and Equipment: 8 The County purchased two new ambulance vehicles in early 2005. An additional spare vehicle was retained to allow greater flexibility in the fleet. It is anticipated that up to two vehicles will be purchased in 2006. Due to the Medical Equipment Grant provided by the MOH, the County was able to replace 6 stretchers and purchase electronic suction machines for each front line vehicle. These are to be put into service within the next week with the appropriate orientation training for $taff. An agreement was reached by the County with the Hamilton Health Sciences Centre Biotechnology department to provide Preventative Maintenance on the Defibrillators at a significant cost savings to the County ($120 I defibrillator vs Laerdal's cost of $400 I defibrillator ). It was noted that in the next couple of years replacement of difibrillators will need to be considered. 4 9. Security and Continuity of Service: 7 An Essential Services Agreement was negotiated by Thames EMS for Elgin-St. Thomas EMS with the CAW. The Ambulance Coordinator is to be issued Fobs for entrance into the new Bases. The Combination locks on the other bases will be changed again before the December Performance Appraisal. Four vehicles to date do not have the Automatic Locking feature. This is a security issue that will be addressed through attrition as vehicles are replaced. There have been no thefts in the service to date. Linen is tracked as far as possible to limit loss at the hospital and other facilities. 10. Interaction with Client & Stakeholders: 9.5 Through the Duty Managers there is very good rapport with the hospital. The management team of Thames EMS deals effectively with lower tier municipalities regarding ambulance base and other issues. Good relations are maintained with the CACC, Base Hospital and the Ministry of Health. This is an area of strength for the operators and they have a very good relationship with the County of Elgin. It is noted that Thames EMS generously declined their administrative fee of $25,000 for their services in the building process of the two ambulance bases. 11. Value Added: 9 The operators active role on the Ambulance Base Building Committee and in the building process is a large value added component. An increased participation in the upcoming Fire Muster is planned with the addition of Bike Paramedics at that event. Volunteer staff participation at various events such as Wallacetown Tractor Pull and Demolition Derby, IMPACT at the St. Thomas Elgin General Hospital, ambulance tours,etc. REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Sandra Heffren, Deputy Clerk DATE: July 21,2005 SUBJECT: Agreement with the Town of Aylmer for Regulation of Traffic Introduction: Council previously adopted a resolution agreeing to the transfer of powers to the Town of Aylmer for the regulation of traffic on County Roads located within the Town, pending agreement by a majority of Elgin's member municipalities. Discussion: A condition of the transfer was that a majority of the County member municipalities adopt resolutions consenting to the transfer. All six member municipalities have now adopted resolutions agreeing to the transfer of powers for regulation of traffic on County Roads in the Town of Aylmer. Conclusion: The legislative requirements for transfer of power to the Town of Aylmer for parking enforcement on County Roads within the Town limits have been met and the agreement setting out terms and conditions for the said transfer can now be signed. Recommendation: THAT the Corporation of the County of Elgin hereby consents to the transfer of specified powers for the regulation of traffic upon John Street, Elm Street, and Beech Street within the geographic boundaries of the Town of Aylmer to the Corporation of the Town of Aylmer; and THAT the Warden and the Chief Administrative Officer be authorized to sign the agreement and the appropriate by-law be prepared. Respectfully Submitted Approved for Su Ion { Mark G. Mc Chief Administrative Officer. 2 CORRESPONDENCE - JULY 26. 2005 Items for Consideration 1. Marian Millman, Chair, Board of Governors, St. Thomas-Elgin General Hospital regarding County representation on St. Thomas Elgin General Hospital Board of Governors. (ATTACHED) 2. Jenny Phillips, Chair, Joint Elgin/Central Elgin Accessibility Advisory Committee, regarding the appointment of Ms. Donna Baldwin, Eden, Ontario, as representation from eastern Elgin County and requesting a change in the voting membership from 3 members to the 5 members on the Committee. (ATTACHED) 3. City of Clarence-Rockland, with a resolution petitioning the Provincial Government to consider amending the formula used to calculate a municipality's debt capacity. (ATTACHED) 4. Township of Springwater, Township of Clearview and Town of Wasaga Beach, with a resolution requesting assistance of other non-contract municipalities and A.M.O. in lobbying the Province for equity with the contract municipalities. (ATTACHED) 5. Anita Dubeau, Mayor, Town of Penetanguishene, requesting Council's support that the Ministry of Finance review the methodology to allocate grants under the OMPF as it is unfair to taxpayers in urban areas. (ATTACHED) 6. Cynthia St. John, Chief Administrative Officer, Elgin-St. Thomas Health Unit, with West Nile Budget request for 2005. St. Thomas-Elgin General Hospital Working Together for Your Good Health June 24, 2005 189 Elm Street, PO Box 2007 St. Thomas, Ontario, Canada N5P 3W2 Tel 519 631-2020 . Fax 519 631-1825 0f11 {, j Warden Jim Mcintyre and Elgin County Council County of Elgin 450 Sunset Dr St. Thomas, ON N5R 5V1 Dear Warden Mcintyre, Thank you for speaking with me recently regarding County representation on our St. Thomas Elgin General Hospital Board of Governors. Currently, our bylaws allow for the appointment by the Elgin County Council (and the Council of the City ofSt. Thomas) of an individual to serve as a member of our Hospital Board. ltis nota criterion that the appointee be a member of the Council, although this has been the traditional practice. As I shared with you, Councilor Bonnie Vowel has served as the County's appointee and when able to attend meetings has demonstrated her commitment, a very good knowledge of the Board's workings and great support for the hospital. However, she has found it very difficult to regularly attend Board meetings and to address the business of the Board, in addition to her many duties and obligations as a council member. I might also add that the combined role of hospital Board member and council member can create periodic situations where the role of council member is in conflict with the hospital's governance role and the interests of the hospital. As well, issues of confidentiality associated with the business of the hospital or the council can create a moral dilemma for the publicly elected council member. In conversation with Bonnie she has acknowledged these as problems during her term. The role of a hospital Board member in today's volatile health care environment is becoming more onerous and time consuming. Our Board has recently adopted the "Policy Governance" model which we will be implementing in September. This model is expected to assist us to be better stewards of the hospital on behalf of the community but also requires usto strengthen our linkages with the community and to improve oUr listening capabilities. The time commitment for Board members includes a full afternoon once a month from September to June as well as the occasional full day Our Core Values Compassion Respect Accountability Simplicity and/or evening for special meetings or education purposes. Our new model also emphasizes the necessity of member preparation through pre-circulated materials in advance of each meeting. The Elgin County Council certainly has the right to appoint a council member if they so choose, but based on the rational I have provided here I would suggest that the council may wish to consider appointing a non-council member to the hospital Board when council next makes their appointment to the hospital board. Recently at our Corporate Annual General Meeting, three excellent applicants who currently reside in the County stood for election for one vacant county position. We are happy to supply the names of the two un- elected county nominees if you wish, or you may wish to identify another alternate. Thank you for your consideration of our suggestion. Please know that we value the County's participation on our Board and will respect any decision the County makes for continued representation. Sincerely, ~~ Marian Millman Chair, Board of Governors Cc: B. Vowel P. Collins Board of Governors JOINT ELGIN/CENTRAL ELGIN ACCESSIBILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas. Ontario N5R 5V1 July 15, 2005 Warden Mcintyre and Council County of Elgin 450 Sunset Drive ST. THOMAS, Ontario N5R 5V1 Mayor Rock and Council Municipality of Central Elgin 450 Sunset Drive ST. THOMAS, Ontario N5R 5V1 Dear Warden, Mayor and Councils: The Joint Elgin/Central Elgin Accessibility Advisory Committee (JAAC) at its meeting held on June 22, 2005 considered an application for membership on the JAAC from Ms. Donna Baldwin and adopted the following resolution: "THAT the Joint Accessibility Advisory Committee (JAAC) recommends to the Councils for the County of Elgin and the Municipality of Central Elgin that Ms. Donna Baldwin from Eden, Ontario, be appointed as a voting member on the JAAC; and THAT the Councils be requested to approve that all five members on the JAAC be permitted voting member status. - Carried." The JAAC as well as Councillors have made many efforts to attract a member from eastern Elgin County and we are pleased to report that the appointment of Ms. Baldwin would provide the representation we have been seeking. Some time ago, the JAAC requested a change in voting membership on the Committee and Councils agreed to appoint 3 of the 5 members as voting members and 2 as non-voting members. This has proven not to be effective and the JAAC is requesting that the membership revert back to 5 voting members, to assist with situations that sometimes results in the Chair and Vice-Chair making all of the decisions, depending on meeting attendance. We look forward to your approval for this appointment and change in voting membership. Yours truly, ~ ny Chair, Joint Elgin/Central Elgin Accessibility Advisory Committee. CORPORATION DE LA CITE DE CLARENCE-ROCKLAND CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF CLARENCE-ROCKLAND VRAIE COPIE CONFORME / CERTIFIED TRUE COPY RESOLUTION NU / RESOLUTION NO: 2005-351 Date: Juillet / July 12, 20051 Article #: 13.4 Comite/Committee: Gouvernement general/General Government President/Chairperson: Conseiller / Councillor Kyle Cyr Service/Department: Administration Directeur/Director: Daniel Gatien Propose par/Moved by: Conseillere / Councillor Francine Mault Appuye de/Seconded by: Conseiller / Councillor Ronald Lalonde Objet/Subject: Capacites d'emprunt / Borrowing capacity ATTENDU QUE les municipalites ontariennes sont sujettes it une capacite de dette basee sur 25% des revenus de taxation de l'annee precedente; et ATTENDU QUE Ie calcul des capacites de dette comprend les dettes pour les utilites publiques, telles que I' aqueduc et I' egout sanitaire; et ATTENDU QUE les dettes d'utilites sont remboursees it travers les frais usagers qui ont aucun impact aux operations du fonds general d'une municipalite; par consequent QU'IL SOIT RESOLU que la Cite de Clarence-Rockland demande au gouvemement provincial de considerer apporter un amendement it la formule utilisee pour Ie calcul de la capacite de dettes pour une municipalite afin d'exc1ure les dettes des utilites publiques afin de permettre it une municipalite d'augmenter Ie financement des projets capitaux de chemins, ponts et autres infrastructures municipales dont Ie remboursement provient des taxes foncieres; et QU'IL SOIT EGALEMENT RESOLU qu'une demande de support soit acheminee it toutes les municipalites Ontariennes et que ledit support de chacune des municipalites soit achemine au Ministre des Affaires municipales, au Ministre des Finances ainsi qu'it la Cite de Clarence-Rockland, tel que recommande. https://mail.elgin-county.on.calexchange/dbutcherlInbox/FW: Resolutions (2).EMUResolution _ ClarenceRockland _ 2005Jul I 2.doc/C58EA28C-18C0-4a97 -9 AF2- 036E93DDAFB3/Resolution_ ClarenceRockland _ 2005Jul I 2.doc?attach= 1 02- WHEREAS Ontario municipalities are subject to a borrowing capacity based on 25% of their previous year taxation revenues; and WHEREAS the calculation of the debt capacity includes debts for public utilities such as waterworks and sanitary sewer; and WHEREAS the public utilities debts are reimbursed through user fees which have no impact on the operations of a municipality's general fund; therefore BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Clarence-Rockland hereby petitions the Provincial Government to consider amending the formula used to calculate a municipality's debt capacity by excluding debts for public utilities in order to allow a municipality to increase the financing of capital projects such as roads, bridges and other municipal infrastructures which are reimbursed through property taxes. BE IT ALSO RESOLVED that a request for support be forwarded to every municipality in Ontario and that they forward their support to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Finance Minister and to the City of Clarence-Rockland, as recommended. Declaration pecuniaire par/Pecuniary conflict by: Adoptee/Carried: OUI/YES I Defait/Defeated: Diane Cyr Greffiere adjointe / Deputy Clerk https://mail.elgin-county.on.ca/exchange/dbutcher/lnbox/FW: Resolutions (2).EMUResolution _ ClarenceRockland _ 20051ul I 2.doc/C58EA28C- I 8C0-4a97 -9 AF2- 036E93 DDAFB3/Resolution _ ClarenceRockland _ 20051ul 12.doc?attach= I July 15, 2005 Municipalities of the Province of Ontario: RE: UNFAIR TREATMENT FOR NON-CONTRACT POLICE MUNICIPALITIES In solidarity, the Township of Springwater, Township of Clearview, and Town of Wasaga Beach passed the following resolution on the issue of policing service for non-contract municipalities: WHEREAS the Townships of Clearview and Springwater and the Town of Wasaga Beach are policed by Huronia West O.P.P. under status quo arrangements; AND WHEREAS our joint Policing Advisory Committee is concerned that there is obvious discrimination between Municipalities that are policed by the O.P.P. under status quo policing arrangements and those Municipalities policed by the O.P.P. under contract; AND WHEREAS at the time that policing costs were downloaded to the municipalities, it was clearly communicated that remaining status quo or going to a contract situation would not affect the treatment received; AND WHEREAS non-contract municipalities are unable to enhance the level of service or complement in response to local needs or growth pressures; AND WHEREAS non-contract municipalities are unable to benefit from a variety of miscellaneous Police revenue sources; AND WHEREAS non-contract municipalities do not receive reconciliations or estimates in a timely fashion which leads to undue delays in finalizing municipal budgets; AND WHEREAS non-contract municipalities are faced with lump sum requisitions rather than detailed calculations leading to lack of accountability to municipal ratepayers; AND WHEREAS converting to contract policing would create financial hardships due to the need for Police Service Boards; AND WHEREAS there are approximately 182 Ontario municipalities that are in a similar situation; NOW THEREFORE, the Townships of Clearview and Springwater and the Town of Wasaga Beach request the assistance of the other Ontario non-contract municipalities and A.M.O. in lobbying the Province for equity with the contract municipalities. Your endorsement of this resolution is respectfully requested. Letters of support may be forwarded to Premier Dalton McGuinty, Minister Monte Kwinter (Community Safety and Correctional Services), Minister John Gerretsen (Municipal Affairs and Housing), and copied to the Townships of Springwater and Clearview and the Town ofWasaga Beach. Sincerely, TWP. OF SPRINGWATER 1110 Hwy. 26 Midhurst, Ont. LOL 1XO Fax (705) 728-6957 TWP. OF CLEARVIEW 217 Gideon Street Stayner, Ont. LOM 1 SO Fax (705) 428-0288 TOWN OF WASAGA BEACH 30 Lewis Street Wasaga Beach, Ont. L9Z 1A1 Fax (705) 429-6732 TOWN OF PENETANGUISHENE 10 ROBERT STREET WEST MAILING ADDRESS P.O. Box 5009, Penetanguishene, L9M 2G2 TltL.EPHONB (705) 549.74153 FASCIMILE (705l 549.3743 Municipalities of Ontario JU.r,.f ""! r) '. ~\j :J lWJ Mayor and Members of Council: Re: Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund (OMPF) The Town of Penetanguishene was informed earlier this month that it would no longer be eligible for a provincial grant under the OMPF program after being provided a grant under the former Community Reinvestment Fund (CRF) for several years. Your municipality has been identified as another that will not be receiving funding as well. From our review the municipalities that did not receive funding are certainly the minority as most received the same or more than under the CRF Fund. The Town of Penetanguishene is of the view that this is unfair and the affected municipalities should take action to have this decision reversed. Council has directed that a letter be sent to your municipality requesting your support to have the Province re-Iook at the distribution of funds under this program. In Penetanguishene's case we have received $106,000 under the CRF program for a number of years. We will get this grant again this year and $66,000 as one time transitional funding. After 2006 we would not receive any further grants under the new program. Council has reviewed the few funding formula and has identified the following three main concerns. 1. The heavy emphasis on assisting rural municipalities increases taxation disparities between rural municipalities and urban municipalities on which they rely for many services. This will act as an unwanted incentive to move development out of urban municipalities into rural areas and goes against the Province's Smart Growth Strategy. 2. The measurement of rural versus urban used in calculating the grant is not easily understood and is not necessarily an appropriate tool to allocate Provincial support to communities. The Statistics Canada measure does not make sense and is therefore a questionable basis for allocation of OMPF support. 3. The Police Services Grant is restricted to offering assistance only to rural municipalities. The municipal tax cost per household is an issue to urban municipalities as well as rural. Enclosed is a copy of a Council approved report that outlines these issues in detail. Council is requesting that the Ministry of Finance review the methodology to allocate grants under the OMPF so that the issues Council has raised are addressed. Council is of the view that the allocation formula is fundamentally unfair to the taxpayers of Penetanguishene and will go against the policy direction of the Province of encouraging future growth to locate in urban centres that have the appropriate infrastructure in place. The increasing tax disparity between Penetanguishene and its more rural neighbours will encourage people to locate outside the urban area. ...2/ - 2 - Council would appreciate your support in addressing this disparity. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Yours truly, Anita Dubeau, Mayor Town of Penetanguishene enclosure " REPORT #6.5 DEPARTMENT/FUNCTION: SECTION CHAIR: SUBJECT: Finance & General Government Councillor Anne Murphy Impact of the Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund Allocations Introduction The Province of Ontario announced a successor program to the Community Reinvestment Fund (CRF). The new program has been named the Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund (OMPF), and has been implemented to allocate $656 million to Ontario municipalities in a manner that reflect the Province's perception of current municipal needs and Provincial priorities. The former CRF program was designed to mitigate the local Services Realignment and has proved to be hard to maintain, hard to und~rstand, and has outlived its usefulness as a transitional measure. Impact to the Town In implementation of the OMPF, the Town of Penetanguishene will receive no grant to replace the $106,000 which has been received under the CRF program. As transitional measures, the Province has guaranteed $106,000 to the Town for 2005, and given a one time grant of $66,211, which will be used by the Town to soften the impact of lost revenue for 2006. Analysis of the Grant Mechanism Town staff have reviewed the mechanism of the grant to understand whether the OMPF has calculated the grant accurately and fairly for the Town. There are three areas of concern to the Town of Penetanguishene. 1. The heavy emphasis on assisting rural municipalities increases taxation disparities between rural municipalities and the urban municipalities on which they rely for many services. The first attached table illustrates that the OMPF grant creates additional tax burden for those municipalities with higher tax rates and decreases taxation for those with low tax rates. This will act as an unwanted incentive to move development out of urban municipalities into rural areas and goes against the Province's Smart Growth Strategy. 2. The measurement of rural versus urban used in calculating the grant is not easily understood and is not necessarily an appropriate tool to allocate Provincial support to communities. The second table shows selected ...2/ -2- municipalities at County I Regional level and at a local urban level to illustrate that the Statistics Canada measure does not make sense and is therefore a questionable basis for allocation of OMPF support. 3. The Police Services Grant is restricted to offering assistance only to rural municipalities. The third table illustrates that the net cost of policing services expressed either as a percentage of the municipal budget or as at municipal tax cost per household, is an issue to urban municipalities as well as rural. Action Requested The Finance and General Government Section recommends that Council request the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Municipal Affairs review the methodology to allocate grants under the Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund so that the issues cited above are addressed. Section is concerned that the allocation is fundamentally unfair to the taxpayers of Penetanguishene and will go against the policy direction of the Province of encouraging future growth to locate in urban centres that have the appropriate infrastructure in place. The increasing tax disparity between Penetanguishene and its rural neighbours will encourage people locate outside the urban area. Recommendations That the Town's concerns regarding the Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund be forwarded to the Minister of Finance and Minister of Municipal Affairs. for their action and to AMO, Simcoe County Municipalities similarly affected municipalities, and our local M.P.P. for support. Respectfully Submitted, Councillor Anne Murphy, Chair Finance & General Government Section Date: May 25th, 2005 Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund Summary The Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund will provide municipalities with $656 million in funding through four grants: · Social Programs Grant - $179 million Provides funding to municipalities with limited property assessment to support their share of social program costs. · Equalization Grant - $170 million Provides funding to municipalities with limited property assessment through two components: o Assessment Equalization - $138 M o Farmland and Managed Forest Assessment - $32 M · Northern and Rural Communities Grant - $249 million Provides funding to northern and rural communities to recognize their unique challenges through four components: o Rural Communities - $139 M o Northern Communities - $80 M o Northern and Rural Social Programs - $21 M o Stabilization - $9 M · Police Services Grant - $58 million Provides funding to rural communities to support policing costs. 1.0 o o ~ 1.0 S2 o N "C f? c ~ .to:: o.~ .c.c III .... ;;:) c c 1::: CI) CO CI) a.. ~ - '~ CI) :a"", . '0...... ',- ~ 0- C 'C ::J CO ~~ o ,- ,_ C .... CO C C ,2 on; >< co l- It- o CI) III co ~ o c - >< .. cu Gl I-~ C) 'C LL ~~~ 'O:tJ:0 o .. o Gl NQ. .. LLGl'C Q.- o.LL.t: :E 0:: I/) oo.t: tn CI) E n; 0. ,~ C ~ ~ >< cu I-'C C).t: > I/) <(J: .. 'O:t Gl OQ. o N LL 0. :E o LL 0:: o -'C ai'O E.c I/) Gl I/) I/) Gl ~ I/) 0 I/)J: <C_ Gl I/) ....~'C 00'0 =It:J:.t: ell - cu 0:: >< cu I- 'O:t o o N >. ~ Cii c. '~ c: ~ :!: OCO C"')CQ o;~ Q)CO CQCQ Q)'O:t coco NO; C"')CO ,...~~ .... .... ....CQQ)C"')Q)CQN,...,...'O:tOCO.... 'O:to....,...It)OIt)C"')'O:tNQ)O,... NQNQ~Q.,Jo;o;~N.,J.,J CO 'O:tC"') Q),...,... oco 0 0.... 'O:tQ) C'tC't'"':'"':c?'''''CO'''',...CQCQIt)N 'If'''"~~~''r'''" o>c.o 1.0...... MOO (Y) c.o ...... ~I.O . I ......~ NN ...... 01.0 O>COOOI.O 01.0 I.OI'--(Y)(Y) 00000 ON cD 00 0 "<icit.ri ~O>N~I.OL{)O>L{)CO ~T-~.,-.,- "-N .... .... ....NOC"')Q)........It),...'O:tIt)COCQ 'O:t1t)""""OCOQ)""'O:tNQ)O"" N~cDQ~NQo;o;~cD.,Jo; COCQ 1t)Q) C"')CQC"')NIt) It) 0 Q)"" C'tC'tC'ot,",:C?Q) Q)cnco,...,... CQIt) ......~ O>c.o '(Y)...... ci c.o- ......0 N"!. ...... I'--COI.O(Y)OO~O(Y) I'--c.o 0> CO 0 00>1.01'-- 'NO>ON(Y)(Y)......coc.o ~- cri l!"i 0>- 1'--- ....: ....: cri as O>~NL{)I.ON(Y)......co ......I'--CONO>L{)I'--(Y)N .,-- T-'" ~ T-"" .,-- N- 000 000 000 ~-CV)cD (Y)c.oo N ...... o o o (Y)- co 1.0 o o o c.o N ~ ...... 00 00 00 c.o- 1'--- lOCO L{) o o 'q N L{) (Y) ......COC'OL{)C'O......I'--L{)I'--OCOC'O(Y)NCO~ ......o......c.oo>o(Y)~(Y)coO>OI.OC'OO>(Y) ~L{)(Y)(Y)ON~............C'OC'OL{)I'--C'Oo...... ~- as L{)- l!"i ci N- ~- l!"i N- ~- ....: ~- t:?- 1'--- L{)- as COL{)l'--l'--c.oL{)(y)NO>L{)~"""NO>......~ ......N............N(Y)NN......N......NNNN...... I'--C'OI'--~NL{)CONO>L{)O>NNNO>O> C'O......C\II'--OO(Y)NI'--COCOCO~(Y)O>N O>I'--L{)......COO~I'--OOI'--(Y)......OI'--O c.o- 1'--- (Y)- ....: 0>- L{)- N- l!"i cri c.o - ~- c.o- ci ..,f co- co- ............ ...... C'O(Y)C\II'--O'<tNCO~NC'O(Y)~O(Y)C'O 1'--t:?......OI'--............C'OON~I'--~OCOI'-- ~L{)C\I(Y)~coO>O>......L{)......C'OI'--L{)C'O(Y) ......ococo(Y)C'OI'--I'--......L{)C'OOI.OI'--N...... NL{)I'--CONL{)OL{)oc.oL{)O(Y)(Y)NO> o>c.oCOI'--LO(Y)L{)~LO(\')c.o~(Y)N(y)(Y) 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 I- ~ :J .0 ~I- Q. ~Q) I- l- e.!) a5.!:: I- Q.g -.!::<-Q) .!:: Q. I- I:: I/) .!!1 r- I/) Q. U I- Q) e Q):J"OE I-mQj cO Q. 1-$ g>g:J 3:cc1O ~o ~ I- "0 "E 19 ~ ~ ~ I- .~ ~ 3: Q. I:: -g I::: Q. ~ 1::.8 I:: c:1- ti= C: co O)I-....~ co I- co ~ "0 Q) = 3: co I/) co I/) .f: CD I ro >, E :g ~ a5 (5 CD ~ 'c ~ g 6. ffi' a; e '6'.f: co ~CCll.UZWEU>(I)I-(I)O<(I-a::: cu ~ cu Cii '(3 Gl Q. I/) .. Gl .t: - o o z I/) 'C '0 .t: Gl I/) :J o .t: .... o .. Gl .Q E ~ I:: I/) cu 'C Gl - ~ ~ CJ Cii CJ I/) cu 3: 'C '0 .t: Gl I/) ~ Cii 0 CJ .s:: .E .. .. ! .2';'O:t I/)Glo ,- 'C 0 Gl~N 1::"(j>< ov c: cu 0:: '- I- >< ell Gl ~ig' 'O:t I/) .. oGlGl 0-> N~<( iii Gl I/) o Q. .. ~ Q. - c: Gl E Gl C) cu c: cu E Gl - I/) cu 3: 'C c: cu Cii Q. '(3 '2 :J E Gl - ~ >< cu - 'O:t o o N I/) Gl E :;: .. Gl .Q E ~ c: >. .Q 'C Gl 'C '> =s ~ o o N - LL 0:: o Gl .t: - I/) ~ c: 'S - c: ~ C) :I: Il. :E ,; o ~ Gl Gl .t: 'C - 'iij I/) c: cu 0 'C CJ Gl _ - 0 cu c: '5 CJ ~ Cii cu CJ I/) ,~ 5 "0 'iij '0 '> .t: e m Q. ~ 1/)- o"Ocu .t:-c: 00 .. .t: ,- Gl Gl~ Q.I/)I/) J:~C: 0. 0 ~ :E.t:1- 00 i I l!) o o N -- l!) !2 o N "C C :J u. .9- Q) .c ~ In :J ~ In Q) ca C Q) ~:e ca a. ca ~ - :J [0::: -U .......... C C :J ca :e-e 0::) .;: ca - C o U- n. :?: o U- 0:: o n;~e E 'c ;j ;j 1Il ~ E ~ ~E:?: ;:, 0 0::0 1Il "C "0 .c CD 1Il ;j o :I: .... o :t:t >. ~ Cii Q. :~ c ;j :?: l/) Cl) E c Cii 0 c.. .- '_ C> (,) Q) C 'c 0:::.2 ~ ;j g ~ E :?:;::O:::ctl ctl Q)~..c eroo5 < S>-O LOl!) /'-. (") coo~ LO (") /'-...... ": "<1"0 LON 00 00 ~~ N/'-. (")LO ~C\!. (") ..... ~~ C!:?-r: l!)LO COo) /'-./'-. "<1"0) ":~ LOO (") (") u>- lIlC a.> :J ~ 0 ctlC) ...J C ctl 0 ..c - -0> ..... C ctl ._ :5:= ctl a.> ~S N "<I" I ..... I 0) ..... q (") "<I".....LOOO"<l"(").....(")"<I"(")(")O>O /'-. CO coo CO 00 "<1"(") LOCO N 00 CO I!) · (")N(")/'-.l!)LON"<I"O)/'-.(")COl!)LO cD 0) cO ci (")0 cO ri ci N- 0) cD ~ /'-.- r-: (")ooooCON.....NOCO.....oo(")oo('\J N..... CO ""'0 CO ~C\!.C\!. "":.~~~co /'-. ~ ~~~~."C"'-~or- 0000 0000 0000 ~"<I"-cD/'-.o 0(")000 l!)N't""OO ri 000000000000 000000000000 000000000000 cO cO r-: ri 0) /'-.- ci -.i" .....0 0) (")" cO O)oo.....OOl!)O)oo(Oooo..... "":.co LO.....o"<l""<I"...../'-.cooo('\J ..... ..... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 00000"<1"0)00000000000 oooo~mNoooooOooooo NNcoooooooooooo ~~~~T"'""T"'""T"'""T"'""T"'""T"'""T"'"" (")"<I"/'-.~oo"<I"Noo(")l!)"<I""<I"CON(")ool!)LO OLOCON...../'-.CO(")OCO.....O)NCOooOoo/'-. (")(")O)~.....(")o/'-./'-......o)(")O/'-."<I"LOo)CO O)cDcDM-.i"-.i"cDr-:~ri~NriNri-.i"~N ..... ~ J- J- ~ ~ ~ ,9- -; "i I- (,) J- .- "" I- - C) ;:'1- ..ca.>1- I- Ca.> C) - a.> I- ~=>~I-C~ c~~l-l-fr I-..cl-I-~ ~a.>o"CS>l-o~..........=o (,)~ctl>- co>.....cc~ ~D:JQecl-~~oo=~ ctlCDctlCD>6.....a.>~~(,)ctl..cEa.>.....02 DctlE~c$_O>(,)a.>ccCt_"Ca.>~ ..........a.>-CDa.>=~~..c.....ctlctla.>>-oO>a.>~ ~O~2n.~2ZroOO~ro0~~0~~~ I.{) o o ~ I.{) o -- o C'\J "C e LL:s II> - Q.O :c~ ~w CD- e e 1:: E cae> a. II> g CD 0.. .~ 'u ~ .- CD 5cn ~ CD o .~ 'i: 15 .Ba. e o >" - c: ~ C) 0) c: :~ '0 Q" LL Q" ~ o .... o - Q) z ~ 0 C) c: :~ '0 - Q" c: f! '- C) ~'t:J LL Q" c: '0 :E o.c: 0 .- Q) - U) ~ C'll :;, ~ 0 .E I-.c: Q) m 't:J -- - 0)0 c:.c: '- Q) .~ U) - :;, o 0 Q"J: >. ;t::: i6 C, :~ c: :;, ~ *' 0) c: :~ "0 Q" ~ *'*'*' O'>~~ C'\JC'\J('I) *'*'*'*'*'*'*'*'*'*'*'*' ............O......~......C'\JI'-COOoo('I) C'\JC'\JC'\JC'\JC'\JC'\JC'\JC'\J......C'\J............ '- Q) C,'t:J c:'O o.c: .- Q) - U) C'll :;, ~ 0 I-.c: C'\JO'>...... 000'>0'> "!."!."": ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... COI.{)C'\JC'\J('I)OC'\JCOO'>~......O CO I.{) 001'-0'> C'\J01'-1.{)0'> I.{) 00 ...... ('I) ('1)0'>00 0'> 0'> CO 00 CO 1'-1.{) 0'> ...... ...... 00 ......0 "<t "<t"<t 't:J -- - 0)0 c:.c: .- Q) .~ U) - :;, o 0 Q"J: LL - Q) , Q" c: .~ ~ ~ '0 OC) Q" ......('I)OooC'\JC'\J('I)NOOI'-I.{) "<t 00 000"""0'>0 OO"<t "<t('l)1'- NNNNN......N........................ 1'-000OO"<t"<t 1'-..................0'> '0'>00......1'-('1), I.{)" "<t"oo" l'--cD ('I)I'-OOI'-N ('1)......('1)............ *'*'*' O)"<t~ NN('I) *'*'*'*'*'*'*'*'*'*'*'*' CO......OCOI'-"<t1.{) o CO 0 00 ('I) NNNNNNN('I)......N............ C'\JO'>...... 000'>0'> "!."!."": ...... ...... ...... I'-NN......O('l)......I'-O'>~......O I.{) CO 00 ('1)('1) CO ('I) 0 I.{) 0'> I.{) 00 "!. ('I)" ~ ~ 0'> 0'> 0'> I'- 00 CO I'- I.{) 0'>............ 00......0 "<t"<t"<t I.{) N('I)O OI'-l.{) ('I)('I)......~~('I)I'- NNN.................. I- ~ ::J .0 ~ I- ~ .~ ~ I- I- ~ C9 Q)..c: :;::; ~ - .c: 0)1- .c: ~c:: I- U) .!!! U) ~ U I- e (]) (]) ::J E"OI- ~mo 'E~ $1- g> ::Jg~ a)Cii~~ 01- "0 I-co~u~(]) CO:>!::: "0 eo L. "0 - I- (]) Ol 0- ~ 0> > c:: ~ (]) L. .EC::~c:: I-c::C:l-eoOlSQL.I-~eo "0 SQ .!!! ~ eo ~ == eo (/) oE eo ~ >. ' E ~ :2 c:: (]) ~ (]) 0 .$! ~ ~ ~ '0' (]) oS e eo a)~.f:a.UJZUUI->(J)<{(J)l-oa::: elgin st.thomas health unit 99 Edward Street S1. Thomas, Ontario N5P 1 Y8 Telephone: (519) 631-9900 Toll Free Telephone: 1-800-922-0096 Fax: (519) 633-0468 www.elginhealth.on.ca Thursday, June 30, 2005 JUL 2 2 2005 Mr. Mark McDonald Chief Administrative Officer County of Elgin 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, ON N5R 5V1 Dear Mark, RE: West Nile virus Budget - 2005 I am writing to advise you that the 2005 West Nile virus budget has recently been approved by the Board of Health, As noted in our November 4, 2004 letter to you, this budget was not included in the mandatory program budget for the 2005 year as the timing and funding is different than the mandatory budget. As with last year, the Elgin St. Thomas Health Unit will be engaged in West Nile virus activities that will include public education, surveillance, and other preparatory work. The total cost of this work is $90,082. At the May 2005 Board of Health meeting, the Board directed the Health Unit staff to implement the approved 2005 activity plan. The breakdown of funding including the County of Elgin's portion is noted below: Cost Shared West Nile virus Activities Ministry of Health and Long Term Care (55%) City of St. Thomas (41% of 45%) County of Elgin (59% of 45%) $49,545.10 $16,620.13 $23,916.77 A breakdown of the surplus for the 2004 West Nile virus season is as follows: Total 2004 Surplus City of St. Thomas (41% of 50%) County of Elgin (59% of 50%) $21,585.03 $ 4,424.93 $ 6,367.60 /!L Page 2 We will apply the 2004 surplus dollars to the amount owing for 2005, which leaves a balance owing of $17,549.17 for the cost shared West Nile Virus program. Please forward the amount noted in boldface/red ink at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions regarding the above information, please contact me at 519-631-9900, ext. 202. Kind regards, q(/L- Cynthia St. John Chief Administrative officer c. Laura McLachlin, Director, Health Protection Department Mary Ens, Accounting Supervisor /5 CORRESPONDENCE - JULY 26, 2005 Items for Information (Consent Aaenda) 1. John K. Oosterhof, Warden, County of Dufferin, with a copy of correspondence to President Roger Anderson, Association of Municipalities of Ontario, concerning the formula to be used for the Federal Gas Tax calculations and the impact on small rural municipalities. (ATTACHED) 2. Ontario News Release Communique: 1) Government and Business Work Together to Bring Stronger Protections to Consumers; 2) Ontario Supports Community Revitalization; 3) Ontario Supports Improved Access to Health-Care Services in Rural Ontario (ATTACHED) 3. Honourable Greg Sorbara, Minister of Finance, responding to Council's resolution supporting the request for the provincial government to adjust the distribution formula used for sharing the provincial gas tax. (ATTACHED) 4. Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care announcing Leadership of Local Health Integration Networks. (ATTACHED) 5. Jeff Marshall, Government Relations Specialist, CM South Central Ontario, outlining changes in the organization's programs and CAA's National Highways Strategy program to ensure money collected from gas taxes are returned to community infrastructure programs. (ATTACHED) 6. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, announcing the 2005 Ontario Southwest Municipal Conference, November 18,2005, at the Best Western Lamplighter Inn, London, Ontario. (ATTACHED) 7. AMO Member Communication ALERT, MOE Seeking Input on Board Policy Proposal for the Regulation of Drinking Water Systems in Ontario. (ATTACHED) 8. Ontario Association of Non-Profit Homes and Services for Seniors, "Province To Pay Only A Dollar More A Day Per Resident For The Delivery Of Long Term Care. (ATTACHED) 9. Hon. Steve Peters, M.P.P., Elgin-Middlesex-London, regarding a press release from Ms. Kimberley Johnson at St. Thomas Lawyer and President of the Elgin Law Association concerning the existing court facilities in this community and the government's recent announcement on pending improvements to these facilities. (ATTACHED) 10. Hon. George Smitherman, Minister of Health, with an update on health care reform concerning community-based health care and funding for LTC Homes programs and base funding. 11. Staff Sergeant Ryan Cox, Detachment Commander, Elgin County OPP, thanking Council for the presentation of two framed photographs of OPP cruisers. John K. Oosterhof County Warden joosterhof@dnfferincounty.on.ca Ext. 25012 Court House 51 Zina Street Orangeville, ON L9W 1E5 Telephone: (519) 941-2816 Fax No: (519) 941-4565 COUNTY OF DUFFERIN June 16,2005. Mr. Roger Anderson, President Association of Municipalities of Ontario 393 University Avenue, Suite 1701 Toronto, Ontario M5G lE6 JUN 2 1 200i Dear Mr. Anderson: Re: Federal Gas Tax Thank you for your letter of May 31 st, 2005, addressed to our Deputy Clerk. I disagree with some of the statements made in your letter. Under the "different options" paragraph on page 2 of your letter, you make reference to "lane kilometers which did not reflect eligible area and had significant data reliability issues" but that "population data is objective, reliable and verifiable and cannot be manipulated". The opposite is true. The population data is not accurate unless a census is undertaken. In terms of lane kilometers, every municipality as part of their FIR, Schedule 94 has to state how many lane kilometers are in their municipality. We note that the Federal Government has stated "gas tax revenues for municipalities are intended to help municipalities to invest in environmentally sustainable infrastructure in our communities including: transit, water and wastewater systems, waste management, the rehabilitation of roads and bridges, community energy projects and capacity building". Most ofthese items are either user-pay, area-rated and thereby "group" user- pay, or come under the umbrella of development charges. The funding that municipalities require then, is to maintain present transportation infrastructure. Also on page 2 the underlined section states "every property taxpayer in Ontario would benefit from a fair share of federal investment" . Would every taxpayer not benefit if another method such as a lane kilometer formula were used. In our resolution circulated to all Ontario municipalities, we suggested that a formula be based on per lane kilometer and per route kilometer for public transit so that the municipalities that had transit system could benefit twice over. It is our contention that the gas tax is collected for the purpose of putting government money back into the infrastructure. In Dufferin County, based on the per capita formula we will receive 459,177 based on the 2001 census. This equates to $740.51 per lane kilometer. In Province wide, using the same formula, this equates to $788.74 per lane kilometer. The Township of East Garafraxa in Dufferin has 302 lane kilometers and is receiving $19,926 in the "per capita" scenario. Under the "lane kilometers" scenario, they would receive $238,197.17. This is 1097% increase in funding ifthe formula were to change to per lane kilometer. We cannot stress enough how important this type of funding is to small rural municipalities. Larger municipalities such as Toronto, Mississauga, Peel, York, Durham, have many different sources of revenue such as licencing, grants and larger tax base. The small rural municipality has limited resources. As you know, we circulated a resolution in February to all municipalities in Ontario and of the 141 responses, 124 were in support of the recommendation to change the funding formula. In closing, I would like to state my disappointment with this entire process. I don't believe AMO in this case is representing the wishes of the majority of municipalities in Ontario. We are enclosing 124 letters from AMO members supportinl! our position. Yours truly, Original Signed hy John K. Oosterhof Warden County of Dufferin cc: 124 municipalities who supported DUFFERlN's resolution with letter from Mr. Anderson FEDERAL GAS TAX ALLOCATION ANALYSIS Per Capita vs Per Lane Kilometer Per Cap Upper Tier $18 Lower $918,234 Municipality Pop* Lane Kms. Amaranth 3770 450 $33,930 $75.40 $354,929.58 E. Garafraxa 2214 302 $19,926 $65.98 $238,197.18 ELGV 2842 260 $25,578 $98.38 $205,070.42 Melancthon 2796 470 $25,164 $53.54 $370,704.23 Mono 6922 500 $62,298 $124.60 $394,366.20 Mulmur 3099 536 $27,891 $52.04 $422,760.56 Shelburne 4122 52 $37,098 $713.42 $41,014.08 ** Orangeville 25248 273 $227,232 $832.35 $215,323.94 ** incl 37 km bus I I Dufferin 51013 620 $459,117 $740.51 $489,014.08 ITotal Lane Kilometers 34631 $918,2341 $265.161 $2,731,380.281 *Based on Stats Canada 2001 figures for consistency IOntario 12,444,444 284000 $224,000,0001< $7'8$:'t$'1 I ...". Ii .;; IJ -- ~td Association of Municipalities of Ontario OFFICE OF THE PR~/~ENT Administration Department Rao~'''$d May 31, 2005 JUN (I 1 2005 Pam Hillock Deputy Clerk County of Dufferin Court House 51 Zina Street Orangeville, ON L9W 1 E5 For Information; "'''_"~~.~....,_''' Uu~. I4dc( for Aotlon: -~-'~"--~__~~M~'~___,"_", ...- Dear Ms Hillock: Thank you for your correspondence related to AMO's proposal for an allocation formula for the equivalency of the federal gas tax. AMO understands the infrastructure challenge being faced by every municipality in Ontario and has long promoted solutions, among them the sharing of federal gas tax. It would be our preference for each municipality to receive every dollar it needs to fix its aging infrastructure, but that appears to be beyond the fiscal reality of either the province or the federal government. The Board was cognizant that the federal government had clearly articulated that "Funds from the gas tax will be directed at environmentally sustainable municipal infrastructure, such as public transit, water and wastewater systems, community energy systems, solid waste management, rehabilitation of roads and bridges, and capacity building." This a relatively broad list of eligible areas, one that gives municipalities greater flexibility of use given local needs and priorities. The Board made its decision based on analysis of different options. It worked from a principled position developed by an Advisory Group with representatives from upper and lower tier, single tier. small, northern and large municipalities. Those principles were: · Fairness and Equity - municipal government's of all sizes in every part of Ontario must benefit as every municipality has an infrastructure deficit and every community can contribute to environmental sustainability. · Reliability and Predictability R federal gas tax revenues must provide municipal governments with a reliable and predictable source of new infrastructure funding to enable them to make long~term commitments and investments. · Autonomy and Accountability ~ eligibility for federal gas tax funding must reflect the autonomy of elected municipal governments to make investment decisions based on local circumstances, local knowledge and local priorities. In turn, municipalities will be accountable for investing federal gas tax funds to achieve measurable outcomes that ___~upport shared national objectives. . 393 ~niversityAve., Suite 1701 Toronto, ON M5G 1E6 7.6-1.../2 tel. (416) 971~9856 · toll free. 1-877-426-6527 · fax: (416) 971~6191 · email: amo@amo.municom.c6m ~ 2- . Susta/nablllty - federal gas tax revenues for municipalities can support long~term, sustainable municipal infrastructure. The cultural, social, economic and environmental sustainability of our communities can also guide the investment of federal gas tax revenues in municipal infrastructure. A variety of different options for allocating these funds were considered: equali2ation~based approach which generated issues of factors; operating and capital budgets which are significantly skewed by social and community health costs; gas consumption which had fairness and equity concerns; lane kilometers which did not reflect eligible areas and had significant data reliability issues; transit model and hybrids of different approaches. In the end, allocation based on population means that every property tax payer in Ontario would benefit from a fair share of federal iny,?stment in sustainable infrastructure and sustainable communities. A per capita distribution meets the principle of fairness and equity. Population data is objective, reliable and verifiable, and cannot be manipulated. I want to assure you that AMO continues to advocate for additional share of the provincial gas tax for infrastructure other than transit. We were disappointed that the Province chose not to do it in their budget this year. We have clearly articulated that since health was the focus of last year's budget and education this year's, that in 2006/07, the focus must be on righting the downloading which sees us subsidizing the province by almost $3 billion - the gap between what we pay and receive for the social and community health services that we must deliver on the province's behalf. A copy of a slide deck that depicts this municipal fiscal challenge is attached. Until we can rectify this, our ability to rehabilitate the annual $4 billion plus infrastructure deficit is further curtailed. . AMO is anxious to get these new federal revenue-sharing dollars flowing to municipal governments soon. The Board of Directors knew that there had to be an allocation formula that treated taxpayers in all 445 municipal governments fairly and equitably. The Board will continue to advocate for new revenue~sharing areas as well as to see that these new funds become a permanent flow of revenue. I hope that upon reflection, the County will agree that a population-based approach is a principled approach that treats every taxpayer fairly and equitably. Yours truly, ~~,c/ Roger Anderson President 7.6-2 John K. Oosterhof' County Warden joosterhol@dul'fel"incounty.oll.ea Ext. 2501 Court House 51 Zinll Street Orangevllle. ON L9W lES Telephone: (519) 941-2816 Fax No: (519) 941-4565 COUNTY OF DUFFERIN June 16, 2005 The Right Honourable Paul Martin Prime Minister of Canada ......,.-. The Honourable John Godfrey Minister of State (Infrastructure and Communities), Government of Canada The Honourable John Gerretsen . Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Government of Ontario Honourable Sirs: RE: Provincial Gas Tax and Federal Gas Tax The purpose of this letter is to let you know how disappointed the County of Dufferin is with the manner in which both the Provincial and the Federal Gas Tax has been allocated to municipalities. The Provincial Gas Tax has been allocated solely for the benefit of municipalities who have transit systems, by far the great minority of municipalities in the Province of Ontario. The Federal Gas Tax is being allocated to municipalities on the basis of population We would argue that drivers who do not use public transit pay the gas tax. These drivers use local, regional and provincial roads and as such this revenue should be applied to roads. It is our firm belief that a more equitable and fair allocation would be on the basis of lane kilometer of roadway, and for both bus and rail transit systems on a per route kilometer basis. This method would assist rural municipalities in catching up on their transportation infrastmcture deficit and would still be an additional benefit to those municipalities that have transit systems. For people traveling from one high-density urban area to another, provincial highways are usually the preferred routes. Travelers to rural towns and communities usually do not have an option of using provincial highways as many of these have been downloaded to counties and these roads, as former provincial highways, experience a high rate of use and therefore have a high maintenance/rehabilitation cost. The County of Dufferin circulated a resolution to all municipalities seeking their support of Dufferin's request asking the Government "to develop a new formula for the gasoline tax rebate to municipalities, based on a per lane kilometer of roadway, and for both bus and rail transit systems on a per route kilometer basis". We have received an enthusiastic response to this resolution. Gfthe 141 responses received, 124 were in support of Dufferin's position The Chart below, illustrates the difference in funding to municipalities in Dufferin County, if the lane kilometer allocation method is used. We suggest that this would be indicative of other rural areas across the Province. FEDERAL GAS TAX ALLOCATION ANALYSIS Per Capita vs Per Lane Kilometer Per Cap Upper Tier Pro 'ected Allocation Municipality $18 Lower $918,234 Pop* $9 $~J,'j~:~tqYi>..:, y .A:~;[~~~......... Amaranth 3770 450 $33,930 $75.40 $354,929.58 E. Garafraxa 2214 302 $19,926 $65.98 $238,197.18 ELGV 2842 260 $25,578 $98.38 $205,070.42 Melancthon 2796 470 $25,164 $53.54 $370,704.23 Mono 6922 500 $62,298 $124.60 $394,366.20 Mulmur 3099 536 $27,891 $52.04 $422,760.56 Shelburne 4122 52 $37,098 $713.42 $41,014.08 ** Oranaeville 25248 273 $227,232 $832.35 $215,323.94 ** incl 37 km bus Dufferin 51013 620 $459,117 $740.51 $489,014.08 ITotal Lane Kilometers .1 /Mississauga I 34631 $918,2341 $265.161 $2,731,380.281 6129251 20001 $5,516,3251 $2,7581 $1,577,464.791 IOntario 12,444,444 284000 $224,000,0001 $788.731 "'Based on Stats Canada 2001 figures for consistency While municipalities are certainly appreciative of this additional funding source, we feel that a different manner of distributing these funds would be fairer and more equitable. We strongly urge both the Government of Canada and the Government of Ontario to reconsider the method for allocating gas tax revenues to municipalities. We look forward to news of an alternate method for distributing these funds. Yours truly / ~~- Warden County of Dufferin In Case of Transmission Difficulties, Please call 416-863-2101 or 1-866-309-3811 Please Deliver To: County of Elgin News Release Communique @ Ontario Ministry of Consumer and Business Services Ministere des Services aux consommateurs et aux entreprises For Immediate Release June 23, 2005 GOVERNMENT AND BUSINESSES "VORK TOGETHER TO BRING STRONGER PROTECTIONS TO CONSUMERS Smart Consumers Are Good For Business TORONTO - The McGuinty government will put in place the most significant changes to consumer protection laws in more than 30 years, Minister of Consumer and Business Services Jim Watson told the Toronto Board of Trade today. "We have updated our consumer laws to reflect today's more complex, dynamic and diverse marketplace," said Watson. "The new act will provide a fair marketplace for businesses and ensure their contributions to Ontario's economy." The new Consumer Protection Act, 2002 will come into force on July 30, 2005. Businesses will have to meet new requirements, such as: . Delivering goods or services within 30 days ofthe date specified in the contract . Ensuring final costs of home renovations or moving services do not exceed a written estimate by more than 10 per cent . Prohibiting negative-option billing - consumers won't be liable for goods or services they did not ask for . Allowing a 10-day cooling off period for agreements with fitness, dance and vacation clubs, timeshares and most door-to-door contracts worth more than $50. "The new Consumer Protection Act is the result of much work and careful consultations with more than 90 businesses and associations," said Watson. "These changes deliver a package that makes Ontario a leader in consumer protection." The new legislation also provides Ontario consumers with new protections in areas where none existed before, including Internet sales. In addition, the new Consumer Protection Act increases enforcements with maximum fines of $50,000 for individuals and $250,000 for corporations. Where warranted, imprisonment for individuals will be up to two years less a day. -30 - Contact: Rui Manuel Estevao Minister's Office (416) 326-8497 Julie Rosenberg Ministry of Consumer and Business Services (416) 326-8558 Disponible enfranr;ais wWVi'.cbs.gov.on.ca Backgrounder Document d'information ~ Ontario Ministry of Consumer and Business Services Ministere des Services aux consommateurs et aux entreprises June 23,2005 CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2002 The new Consumer Protection Act, 2002 (CPA, 2002) brings together and updates six existing consumer protection laws: The Business Practices Act, The Consumer Protection Act, The Consumer Protection Bureau Act, The Loan Brokers Act, The Motor Vehicle Repair Act and the Prepaid Services Act. The new act simplifies consumer protection legislation - making it easier for both businesses and consumers to consult one piece of legislation rather than the six existing laws. Consumers now have new rights and businesses have new responsibilities that reflect today's more complex and dynamic marketplace. The CPA, 2002 covers the purchasing and leasing of both goods and services. Background In 2000, the Ministry of Consumer and Business Services released a proposal to reform and update consumer law, followed by public consultations with more than 90 business and consumer groups who were supportive ofthe directions proposed. Overview The act applies to consumer transactions if either the consumer or the business is in Ontario. Under the CPA, 2002, a consumer is defined as an individual acting for personal, family or household purposes and does not include a person who is acting for business purposes. The new act applies to both goods and services. Earlier legislation largely addressed goods, but did not provide sufficient coverage ofthe rapidly growing service sector. The CPA, 2002 will apply to service-based businesses such as: health and fitness clubs, motor vehicle repair and credit . . repaIr agenCIes. The act does not apply in an area of exclusive federal jurisdiction, such as banking. .../3 2 The CPA, 2002 outlines specific lUles applicable to the four most common consumer contracts: · Direct contracts: contracts negotiated or concluded away from the place of business, e.g., door-to-door sales. . Internet contracts: contracts entered into on the Internet, e.g., a website where consumers place online orders. · Remote contracts: contracts entered into when the business and the consumer are not present together, e.g., by phone, fax or mail. · Future performance contracts: contracts where delivery, performance or payment in full is not made when the consumer enters the agreement, e.g., fitness clubs. The new legislation also provides specific lUles for businesses involved in any ofthe following sectors: . Time share: a consumer can cancel an agreement, for any reason, within 10 days after receiving a written copy of the agreement. · Loan brokering and credit repair: advance payments for loan brokers and credit repair are prohibited. . Auto repair: repair shops cannot charge for work without giving the consumer an estimate. Final charges for repair work cannot be more than 10 per cent over the original estimate. . Credit: lenders must disclose the cost of borrowing. . Leasing: a disclosure statement must be given to the lessee before entering the lease or before accepting payment. . Personal development services and facilities: businesses such as fitness clubs and dance studios must provide consumers the option to pay monthly installments. All consumer agreements must comply with the new law. Businesses should consult a lawyer to find out how. Penalties Under the CPA, 2002 Stronger enforcement remedies include: . Maximum fines of $50,000 for individuals . A corporation convicted of an offence under the act can be fined up to a maximum of $250,000 . Maximum prison sentence of two years less a day. Getting Ready for the New Law The CPA, 2002 was published in the Ontario Gazzette on FeblUary 19,2005 and takes effect on July 30, 2005. Businesses were given five months to prepare. To read or download a copy of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, visit the government's e-Iaws website: www.e-Iavvs.gov.on.ca. 3 Consumer infOlmation is also available on the Ministty of Consumer and Business Services' website at ww,v.cbs.gov.on.ca. - 30 - Contacts: Rui Manuel Estevao Minister's Office 416-326-8497 Julie Rosenberg Ministry of Consumer and Business Services 416-326-8558 Disponible enfran9ais www.cbs.gov.on.ca In Case of Transmission Difficulties, please Call 416-863-2101 or 1-866-309-3811 please Deliver To: County of Elgin News Release Communique ~ Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Ministete des Affaires municipales et du Logement F or Immediate Release June 24, 2005 ONTARIO SUPPORT S COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION Invests In .1vJarketing Strategy For Regional Recreation/Education Wellness Complex CHATHAM - The Ontario government is supporting comn1l1nity revitalization ill. the Chatham- Kent area by fUnding a markding strategy to attract investment for a multi-use recreational facility, Pat Hoy, MPP for Chatham-Kent Essex, announced today on behalf John Gerretsen, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. <'Our government is pleased to work with rural communities like Chatham-Kent to provide them with the tools to thrive," Hoy said. 'This announcement supports Ontario's IUral plan to help IUral conl.nllmities enj oy a higher quality of life." The Ontario gO\Temment will contribute $30,000 for the development of a marketing strategy that will identify potential investors who could help finance the construction of the proposed n1l1lti- regional and multi-use complex. ''The funding given today will help us meet our commitment to create a safer and healthier environment for our citizens," said Diane Gagner, mayor of the Municipality of Chatham-Kent. "This represents the next step in our plans to expand recreational, wellness and educational opportunities in our area," said Patricia McFarlane, principal of Thames Campus, S1. Clair College. <<This is another important step to meet the needs of our oommunity made possible through the commitmt:nt of our pattners, the Municipality of Chatham- Kent and S1. Clair College, and the support of the government," said Sean Dillon, general manager, Chatham-Kent Family YMCA. Today's investment was made through the Rural Economic Development (RED) program, which invests in projects that support sustainable rural economies and community paltnerships, and is a key part of Ontario's Rural Plan. The rural plan provides a coordinated framework across government to build on rural Ontario's strengths - committed people, diverse eoonomio oppOltunities, unrivalled resources and a solid sense of community. - 30 - Contacts: Patti Mun()e Minister's Office (416) 585-6333 Brian Cardy Rural Invest.ments Bratlch (519) 826-3787 Disponible enfranrais www.mah.gov.oll.ca In Case of Transmission Difficulties, please Call 416-863-2101 or 1-866-309-3811 please Deliver To: county of Elgin News Release Communique @ Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Ministere des Affaires municipales et du Logemellt For Immediate Release July 7, 2005 ONTARIO SUPPORTS IMPROVED ACCESS TO HEALTH-CARE SERVICES IN RURAL ONTARIO Invests In Software Application To Enhance Delive~y Of Health-Care Services GUELPH - The Ontario government is supporting improved aooess to health care servioes in mral Ontario by investing in an integrated software application to enhance delivery of health care services, Liz Sandals, MPP for Guelph-Wellington, announoed today on behalf of John Gerretsen, Minister of Munioipal Affairs and Housing. "The McGuinty government is committed to meeting the top priorities for mral Ontario - strong people and strong t:conomit:s, and better health," said Sandals. "Today's amlouncemt:nt supports our goal to help communities like Guelph-Wellington and the sun-ounding areas offer their residents more opportunities and a higher quality of life." The Ontario govemment will contribute $300,000 to the project led by Therapy Partners Inc. and its partners, Professional Rehabilitation Outreaoh and Miorosoft Canada_ The project will use the software application to streamline the information and business processes of OntaJ:io Home Health Care Providt:rs Association in iUral Ontario, improving direct client cart: through greater administrative eflicienoy_ "I am delighted that the province has provided funding for this project," said Kate Quarrie, mayor of the City of Guelph. "111is innovative proj ect will enhance the delivelY of medical services to all of V\T ellington County and benefit all residents. " "Tht:rapy Partnt:rs is excited to partner with tht: govt:l11mt:nt to hdp defint: tht: future of oommunity health QaJ-e delivery by providing timely and efficient servioes to olients in all community settings," said Christint: Rt:no, busint:ss dirt:ctor, Tht:rapy Pmtnt:rs Inc_ "We will be direoting our efforts to ensure the provinoe's investment results in improved care to clients, regm-dlt:ss of their location," said Chris Linton, managt:r, Professional Rehabilitation Outreaoh. "It is our goal to ensure home-oare servioe providers keep paoe with ohanges in the broader sector, ensuring seamless health-care service delivery." .. ./2 2 "Our company is very pleased to be able to leverage technology to help support local health care and to give back to our community," said Robed Vos, manager of central sales, Microsoft Canada. Today's investment was made through the Rmal Economic Development (RED) program, which invests in projects that support sustainable rural economies and community patinerships, and is a key part of Ontario's Rural Plan. The rmal plan provides a coordinated framework across government to build on rural Ontario's strengths - committed people, diverse economic opportunities, unrivalled resources and a solid sense of community. - 30- Contacts: Patti MUllce Minister's Office (416) 585-6333 Briatl Cat'dy Rural Investments Branch (519) 826-3787 Dispo1Jible e1Jfronfais .www.mah.gov.Oll.ca Nj ~,.. Ontario Ministry of Finance Office of the Minister Ministere des Finances Bureau du ministre 7th Floor, Frost Building South 7 Queen's Park Crescent Toronto ON M7 A 1 Y7 Telephone: 416 325-0400 Facsimile: 416325-0374 7e etage, Edifice Frost sud 7, Queen's Park Crescent Toronto ON M7A 1Y7 Telephone: 416325-0400 Telecopieur: 416325-0374 June 23,2005 Mrs. Sandra J. Heffren Manager of Administrative Services County of Elgin 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas ON N5R 5\11 J Ii Dear Mrs. Heffren: Thank you very much for your letter enclosing the resolution carried by your County Council supporting requests that the provincial government adjust the distribution formula used for sharing the provincial gas tax. I appreciate your taking the time to write and share your concerns on this matter. I apologize for the delay in responding. The government consulted extensively with municipalities, transit agencies and stakeholders to determine how best to distribute provincial gas tax funds. The approved funding model is based 70 per cent on transit ridership and 30 per cent on population. Better transit improves our health, our environment and our economy, which ultimately improves the quality of life for all Ontarians. Unfortunately, the County of Elgin does not have public transportation, and as you are aware, it does not receive a portion of provincial gas tax funding. I would like to assure you, however, that the government is sensitive to the needs of municipalities, like the county of Elgin, without public transit systems. These municipalities can apply to the Canada-Ontario Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund (COMRIF) program and the Ontario Strategic Infrastructure Financing Authority (OSIFA) to help address their infrastructure financing needs. With respect to the COMRIF program, the Governments of Canada and Ontario signed an agreement to each provide up to $298 million over the next five years to improve public infrastructure in small urban centres and rural municipalities throughout the province. All small urban and rural municipalities in Ontario can apply immediately to COMRIF to improve their public infrastructure. .../2 - 2 - In the 2004 Ontario Budget, the government committed to utilizing OSIFA to support provincial infrastructure initiatives in the broader public sector. Pooled financing through OSIFA will enable our government and its public-sector partners to renew critical municipal, health, education, post-secondary, and housing infrastructure priorities. Municipalities that are not currently providing public transportation, but decide to begin providing such services, will be eligible for funding if they introduce public transit services. These municipalities must inform the Province of their intent to provide public transportation services by October 1, 2005. Dedicated gas tax funding will be then available beginning the last quarter of 2005 and into 2006. Thank you again for writing. Yours sincerely, ~, c. The Honourable Harinder Takhar Minister of Transportation The Honourable Steve Peters, MPP Elgin- Middlesex -London ONTARIO MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND LONG-TERM CARE Transmitted by CNW Group on : June 28, 200509:00 McGuinty Government Announces Leadership Of Local Health Integration Networks LHINs Will Allow Greater Community Involvement In Local Health Care Decisions TORONTO, June 28 /CNW/ - The McGuinty government is moving forward with the creation of Local Health Integration Networks - 14 local organizations that will be responsible for planning, integrating and funding local health services to make it easier for patients to access the care they need. The founding board members, CEOs and office locations for each of the LHINs were announced today at events across the province. "We are creating LHINs because local health services are best planned at the local level, by people familiar with the needs of a community," Health and Long-Term Care Minister, George Smitherman said. "You can't micromanage a $33 billion health care system from an office in Toronto. We need local expertise from right across Ontario to help plan and co-ordinate the health care services that are right for people in different communities." Local Health Integration Networks are local health organizations designe to plan, integrate and fund local health services - including hospitals, community care access centres, home care, long-term care, mental health, community health centres as well as addiction and community support services - within a specific geographic area. Smitherman today announced the names of the 14 LHIN board chairs and 28 founding board directors. The board chairs then announced the CEOs for each LHIN. The government proposes that each LHIN would have a full complement of nine board members by the end of the year. 6/28/2005 Page 2 of 5 "Leadership is the key to making any significant system change work," Smitherman said. "The founding board members for our LHINs have impressive records of service in their communities. They bring diverse leadership experience in the private and public sectors to the task of improving the way we manage our health care system." The roles of LHINs will be phased in over time. Subject to the passage 0 legislation, they would begin by working with the local community and health care providers to set priorities and plan health services in their area. They would then move to integrating and co-ordinating local health services, and eventually, to determining and providing funding and resources. "LHINs will make it easier for patients to access all of the different health services they need, in their own communities, because these services will be co-ordinated in those communities," said Smitherman. This initiative is part of the McGuinty government's plan to build a health care system that delivers on three priorities - keeping Ontarians healthy, reducing wait times and providing better access to doctors and "nurses. This news release, along with other media materials, such as matte stories and audio clips, on other subjects, are available on our website at: under the News Media section. For more information on achievements in health care, visit: Version fran9aise disponible Backgrounder LOCAL HEALTH INTEGRATION NETWORKS The McGuinty government is creating a health care system that keeps people healthy, cares for them when they are sick and will be there for their children and grandchildren. The plan for making that vision a reality has three priorities: Healthier Ontarians, reduced wait times, and better access to doctors and nurses. These priorities will be supported by initiatives to improve the planning, management and coordination of services throughout the health care system. One of these initiatives is the creation of 14 Local Health Integration Networks (LHINS) What are LHINs? LHINs are 14 local entities designed to plan, integrate and fund local health services, including hospitals, community care access centres, home care, long-term care and mental health within a specific geographic area. They reflect the reality that a community's health needs and priorities are best understood by people familiar with the needs of that community and the people who live there, not from offices hundreds of miles away. What will LHINs do? LHINs will determine the health care priorities and services required in their local communities. They will improve planning and integration at the local level in order t improve health results for patients in every part of the province. Their roles will be phased in over time. Subject to the approval of any necessary legislative changes by the Legislative Assembly, they would begin by 6/28/2005 Page 3 of5 engaging local community and health care providers in setting priorities and planning health services in their area. LHINs would then move to integrating local systems and co-ordinating services, and eventually, to providing funding and allocating resources. By 2007-2008: LHINs will have developed and implemented accountability and performance management agreements with local providers They will have developed and will be carrying out strategies to respond to community concerns and requirements, and will be working with local providers to specifically address local health needs They will be responsible for evaluating and reporting on their local health system's performance They will be providing funds to local health providers, as well as advice to the Ministry about local capital needs Benefits LHINs will result in a number of benefits. Specifically, LHINs will: enhance integrated health care delivery so that patients can more easily navigate across the continuum of health care reach accountability agreements with providers that will ensure that resources intended for patients are used for patients provide more community-based input into health care decision-making Boundaries There are 14 LHINs whose geographic boundaries are based on existing patient referral patterns. These boundaries will in no way prevent people from seeking health care services outside their own LHIN area. In that sense they are considered permeable in terms of patient care. People will continue to be able to choose their health care provider as they do today. Governance LHINs are operating as not-for-profit organizations governed by boards 0 directors who were appointed by the province through Order-in-Council, after a rigorous skill and merit-based selection process. The government has appointed one chair and two founding board members for each LHIN. The government proposes that each LHIN would have a full complement of nine board members by the end of the year. The board of directors will be responsible for the management and contro of the affairs of the LHIN and will be the key point of interaction with the ministry. CEO's were selected after an extensive search and selection process, and with input and final approval from the founding board chairs. They will report directly to the LHIN boards. Relationship with Ministry The ministry will continue to set priorities for improving the health care of all Ontarians, such as keeping Ontarians healthy, reducing wait times, and improving access to doctors and nurses. Better management of the system through LHINs will help in achieving these priorities. The ministry will outline the principles, goals and requirements for all LHINs to ensure that all Ontarians have access to a consistent set of health care services. At the same time, LHINs will have the flexibility to address unique local health needs and priorities. 6/28/2005 Page 4 of 5 The relationship between the government and each LHIN (including operational, financial, auditing and reporting) will be outlined in a Memorandum of Understanding and an annual performance agreement between each LHIN and the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. FOUNDING LOCAL HEALTH INTEGRATION NETWORKS LEADERSHIP Listed below are the three founding board members and CEOs for each of the 14 Local Health Integration Networks. LOCAL HEALTH INTEGRATION NETWORK HEADQUARTERS FOUNDING BOARD MEMBERS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Erie St. Clair ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Gary Switzer Chatham Mina Grossman-Ianni David Wright Mary Kwong Lee South West ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tony Woolgar London Norm Gamble (chair) Janet McEwen Dr. Kerry Blagrave Waterloo Wellington ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sandra Hanmer Guelph Kathryn Durst (chair) Jay Paul Truex Paul Holyoke --~--------------------------------------------------------------------- Hamilton Niagara Haldimand Brant Grimsby Juanita Gledhill (chair) Pat Mandy Jack Brewer Kim Stasiak ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Central West Brampton Joe McReynolds (chair) Terry Miller Kuldip Kandola Mimi Lowi Young Mississauga Halton ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Michael Fenn Oakville John Magill (chair) Enola Stoyle Dr. Elliot Halparin Toronto Central ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Barry Monaghan Toronto Penny Thomsen (chair) Daniel Sullivan Harley Nott Central ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hy Eliasoph Markham Ken Morrison (chair) Arthur Walker Sandy Keshen ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Central East Ajax Foster Loucks (chair) Marilyn Emery Jean Achmatowicz MacLeod Joseline Sikorski South East ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Belleville Georgina Thompson (chair) Paul Huras Florence Campbell Ian Wilson Champlain ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dr. Robert Cushma 6/28/2005 Ottawa Michel Lalonde (chair) Wilmer Matthews Jo-Anne Poirier Page 5 of 5 North Simcoe Orillia Muskoka Ruben Rosen (chair) Shelly van den Heuvel George Todd Jean Trimnell North East North Bay Mathilde Gravelle Bazinet (chair) Michael DiAngelo Margaret Ashcroft Dave Murray North West Thunder Bay - John Whitfield (chair) Janice Beazley Ennis Fiddler Gwen DuBois-Wing -30- /For further information: Members of the media: David Spencer, Minister's Office, (416) 327-4320; Dan Strasbourg, Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, (416) 314-6197; Members of the general public: (416) 327-4327, or (800) 268-1154/ . f" ~ -: ;":,!. ~, ''"Jt{., i';:'.: '( (.:.1' q{ l.d. 'TH }\~4D L()NC;-TERJit C.:\f<[ .-1\1or(! on thi~; ~~'-q~jnfZdUOn ~~!ib '::..~:. "" II " ; t'.:': r,:~ p!~::~;(':~;(i ~(; i:~fh.~r !"j p!:~l":',>J! Jiizt-,':j c-rl"l<1il ~t;r\/i(;(> iYf()'o,:I'.:1;nD you '.M!th 11!~':\NS ;'~H1d I! -"P)! ;.:"1 ".":' <.";",;; f(jr(:;trv:s! pul")l!:,' ;::l:'1(1 private: CO\~.ipan;,=::.~~. qovernr~';l:.:j as}~;nc;(;s and ~ ! I,' .;: i.-~:~: ~:.r:~''.:i('::~' !::t,~~ ':/C!1 ~.e!ec: ;;H~' ~/nl.J .1H-:: I :10~~~~ :(~:' d! " '. i~' ..,.~.:, "cL:I~.'~::>:<~. dir'-';"'.!!.,' Ie \c ;: r;(';(~:~' ;l::i: (~-in,~~:! 6/28/2005 SOUTH CENTRAL ONTARIO TELEPHONE (416) 221-4300 1-800-268-3750 FAX (905) 771-3101 60 COMMERCE VAllEY DRIVE E., THORNHill, ONTARIO l3T 7P9 July 7,2005 Warden Jim McIntyre 450 Sunset Dr St. Thomas, ON N5R 5V1 Dear Warden McIntyre: Your local CAA club has gone through a significant change in the last six months. CAA Mid-West, CAA South Central and CAA Central Ontario merged to become CAA South Central Ontario. The new club represents 1.6 million members and employs over 1100 associates throughout its territory. You probably think about our Emergency Road Side Service first when you think of CAA, but we were originally founded as a public advocacy club and we have continued through our history to advocate on behalf of motorists to make our roads and highways as safe as possible. Today we operate several programs including: · Safety Patroller Program, to make school crossings and school buses safer · Shifting Gears, educational seminars to assist senior drivers with information they and their families need to know . Women Auto Know, educational seminars to increase basic car maintenance knowledge · Licensed to Live Program, an educational program aimed at high school students to warn them of the dangers of drinking and driving through real life tragedies · Mobility Express, our public and government advocacy programs to make our roads and highways safer, more environmentally friendly and to help strengthen our economy · Watch for Bikes Program, an awareness program to remind drives to watch for bikes while driving or parked. We are also currently working with our National Public and Government affairs department on a National Highways Strategy and ensuring that more money collected from gas taxes are returned to communities to be spent on infrastructure, especially roads and bridges. There are currently many fringe groups, a very vocal minority advocating against automobiles and motorists and for a predominately transit based transportation plan, despite the realities of Ontario's population density patterns and increasingly de-centralized employment locations. CAA has on behalf of our members, your AFFILIATED WITH: CANADIAN AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION' AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION. FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE DE LAUTOMOBILE' ALLIANCE INTERNATIONALE DE TOURISME CS.OOll (01105) constituents and a silent majority of our population consistently called for a balanced transportation plan that recognizes the importance of roads and highways in our communities. At CAA South Central Ontario, Public and Government Affairs Department we are working hard to advocate on behalf of our members by having available to them and municipal leaders a variety of research information on transportation trends and safety. We also welcome any and all opportunities to speak on behalf of our members at public meetings dealing with transportation issues. If you have any questions or we could provide you with any information please contact me at (519) 501-8916 or by email atimh@caasco.ca. CAA South Central Ontario looks forward to working with you to make your communities roads a safer place for motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists. s..r.71YYO../y)/ /f / / Ii V"-- J-". I , "/' J efff Marshall '",,-,,- Government Relations Specialist CAA South Central Ontario (519) 501-8916 jmh@caasco.ca @ Ontario The Ministry of Municipal Affairs & Housing together with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario are pleased to present the 2005 Ontario Southwest Municipal Conference to be held November 18, 2005 at the Best Western Lamplighter Inn, London, Ontario. For registration information please contact Brenda Harvey at 1.877.426.6527 (x. 330). Global Issues I Local Impacts November 18, 2005 London, Ontario Member €ommunication / r.... ..... ,......... Association of Municipalities tf ".. of Ontario rt 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 July 13, 200S - Alert OS/060 MOE seeking input on Broad Policy Proposal for the Regulation of Drinking Water Systems in Ontario (EBR P A05E0011) Issue: In addition to the newly amended Regulations 169 and 170, the Ministry of the Environment is seeking feedback on its proposed risk-based, site-specific assessment approach and a new legislative and regulatory framework that will see Public Health Units responsible for assessing and inspecting small, private systems that serve the public to ensure compliance with provincial drinking water quality standards. Background: After extensive consultations with AMO's Regulation 170 Task Force, stakeholders, as well as with the Advisory Council on Drinking Water Quality and Testing Standards, the Ministry has decided to propose a new legislative and regulatory framework for non-residential systems (both municipal and privately- owned) and for privately owned seasonal residential systems. Systems in these categories that supply water to a designated facility (e.g. school, day care etc.) will remain under Regulation 170103. The Ministry has supported AMO's call for Public Health Units to return to their role of overseeing small, private water systems that serve the public. The Ministry intends to work with the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care to develop a new legislative and regulatory framework that will see Public Health Units responsible for assessing and inspecting small, private systems that serve the public to ensure they comply with provincial drinking water quality standards. The Ministry of the Environment will continue to playa lead role in developing provincial drinking water policy, a role recognized by Commissioner O'Connor. Consistent with recommendations by the AMO Task Force, the government is proposing to transfer responsibility for five out of eight categories of systems (excluding those systems that serve a designated facility) from the Ministry of Environment to the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHL TC). Public Health Inspectors would carry out inspection, compliance and enforcement activities and require actions on the part of the system owner to ensure that drinking water quality standards are met on the basis of individual risk-based, site-specific assessments. The Ministry recently developed and implemented Regulation 252 to govern these five systems as an interim step until the transfer is complete. The government proposes to recover some of the ongoing costs of an inspection program administered by Public Health Units through the collection of a user fee upon inspection of a drinking water system by the local Public Health Unit. Following their consultations, the Advisory Council on Drinking Water Quality and Testing Standards concluded in their report back to the Minister of the Environment, that owners of these water systems were receptive to the concept of a user fee for inspections, and recommended the introduction of user fees as part of their recommended risk-based approach. The Ministry invites comments from stakeholders and the public on an appropriate level of cost recovery through inspection user fees. Written submissions may be made before August 1S, 200S. Action: AMO's Regulation 170 Task Force is currently reviewing the revised regulations and the proposed regulatory framework. We will share our conclusions with members so that they may consider them in their own submissions. This information is available in the Policy Issues section of the AMO website at www.amo.on.ca For more information, contact: Scott Vokey, Policy Advisor at 416-971-9856 extension 334. ~~ OANHSS ~ a ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF ~,~ NON-PROFIT HOMES AND SERVICES ~~ FOR SENIORS FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE PROVINCE TO PAY ONLY A DOLLAR MORE A DAY PER RESIDENT FOR THE DELIVERY OF LONG TERM CARE TORONTO (July 18, 2005) - The Ontario government has announced this year's base operating funding increase for long term care, and it is a major disappointment. Of the $264 million in increased funding earmarked for the sector in the recent provincial budget, only $27.6 million in new money will actually flow to care programs and services in the homes. That amounts to only about a dollar a day per resident. The details were confirmed in letters sent to homes from George Smitherman, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. "The McGuinty government has fallen far short of its own commitment to adequately fund long term care. Tragically, the people affected are the most frail and vulnerable in our society - the very people who were promised a better deal by this government," said Donna Rubin, CEO of the Ontario Association of Non-Profit Homes and Services for Seniors (OANHSS). "The public hears a lot of big numbers related to long term care. But when you look at what's really going towards the care of the residents, it's a different story," Rubin notes. Here are the facts: · During the last election, the Liberals pledged to raise annual funding for homes by $6,000 per resident, or by $450 million a year. The Liberals acknowledged that this was the amount needed to ensure an appropriate level of care after years of funding neglect. · But after two provincial budgets, they are less than a third of the way to their commitment. The total increase in funding per resident is little more than $2,000. · This year's increase is about 1.5 per cent, while costs are going up by more than 3 per cent. Minister Smitherman says homes now have sufficient funding to hire an additional 2,000 staff (including 600 nurses) as well as implement new enhanced care requirements. The truth is - with funding falling behind inflationary cost pressures - most homes will have difficulty keeping the staff they hired last year. And that means residents will receive less service. OANHSS calculates that the annual operating funding shortfall is now $320 million. Until the province meets this obligation, many long term care residents will continue to go without the services they require - such as adequate levels of nursing and personal care, mental health services, and rehabilitation and restorative care. "The government wants to lead a revolution in long term care, but that's not going to happen on a dollar more a day per resident," added Rubin. OANHSS is the provincial association representing not-for-profit providers of long term care, services and housing for seniors. Members include municipal and charitable homes for the aged, non-profit nursing homes, seniors' housing projects and community services agencies. Member organizations operate over 26,000 long term care beds and over 5,000 seniors' housing units across the province. -30- For further information, contact: Debbie Humphreys Director of Communications 905-851-8821 ext. 233 Steve Williams PR POST 416-777-0368 ~ Ontario Steve Peters, M.P.P. Elgin - Middlesex - London July 15, 2005 ~ Honourable Michael Bryant Attorney General of Ontario 11 th Floor 720 Bay Street Toronto, ON M5G 2Kl Jut 1 9 20D5 Dear Minister: Please find enclosed a press release from Ms. Kimberley Johnson, a St. Thomas lawyer and President of the Elgin Law Association who has several concerns regarding the existing court facilities in this community and our government's recent announcement on pending improvements to these facilities. While most of the stakeholders in the St. Thomas-Elgin area were pleased with our government's recent announcement, there is a fair amount of skepticism in the community, the justice community in particular, that the announcement will become a reality. Dithering on this vitally important matter by several prior governments have left doubts in many stakeholders' minds despite our government's commitment that new consolidated court facilities will be built in St. Thomas by 2009/1 O. As you will read in the press release, the Law Association will continue to lobby our government to make this project come to fruition in what they believe is in a timely, much awaited fashion. The Association will also press the province to choose an option that involves renovations, improvements and additions to the existing historic Wellington Street Courthouse. With this in mind, I would appreciate your reviewing the press release and responding directly to Ms. Johnson. As always, thank you in advance for your time and consideration. Sincerely, 9::-~ Steve Peters, M.P.P. Elgin-Middlesex-London Cc: Ms. Kimberley Johnson, President, Elgin Law Association St. Thomas Police Service City of St. Thomas County of Elgin 542 Talbot Street, St. Thomas. ON N5P IC4 T - (519) 631-0666 Toll free - 1-800-265-7638 F - (519) 631-9478 TTY - (519) 631-9904 E - speters.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org www.stevepeters.com 07/19/2005 15:44 519-631-9478 STEVE PETERS MPP PAGE 02 ._-~_._....~ ; r" . "F'.' ...,.~ I;".. r" f!'f".:.' :") i It"i.i U.', ~';./; Ii:; i! 'V ii;;:,1.'~~: . I I!:' \ h ~,"'''''(' I ~ \... \.. ' , . "., L_--------,~---, \ .1...-...--",.-.----.- ELGIN LAW ASSOCIATION cOURT l"l"<.JS~. 9 WELLINGTON STREET, i 51', -rHOMAS. ON.AFlllo NSR ;:I,P.?, PHON'" e:1l-16'O Thursday, 14 July 2005 , The Elgin Law Association applauds the efforts of our M.P.P. Steve P~ters and other Members in his Government for making a commitment to the citizens 6f Elgin County to fund a consolidated court facility. The courts are an integral part of th~ infrastructure of any civil society and the pre-eminent symbol of justice. We ask Mr. Peters to ensure that this commitment is maintained and Mot lost by any unnecessary delay. The courthouse and justice facilities in this jurisdi~tion are sadly deficient. For example) the Wellington Street Courthouse does not haye a ramp or an elevator to transport disabled persons into the building or up to the $e~ond floor where the court rooms are located. Nor is there a public elevator at the Coliri McGregor Justice Building. In order to access the court rooms, disabled person~ must travel through the cell area in the police station. In 1987, the St. Thomas Times Journal reported that the Wellington Street Court building was ranked by the provincial auditor as among the worst court houses in Ontario. Local M.P.P. Ron McNeil was quoted at the time as saying that the building was, "... well maintained at 19th century standards." He also pointed dutthat "... the administration of justice should not put the lives of citizens in jeopardy:whether they are witnesses, suspects or employees of the legal system." From a public: safety standpoint, the building 18 years later still raises significant security concerns. These are just some of the inadequacies of the justice facilities in Elgin. . Our community demands better. Justice must be accessible to everydne. As recently as July 2002 a very thorough and well researched "needs"~study was completed by Ontario SuperBuild and the Ministry of the Attorney Gen~ral. The report delivered at that time, and others previously commissioned, have c1ear,ly identified the needs of this community. Government officials have promised action Qn a number of occasions over at least the past 25 years. We need a spade in the grdund, not further promises or further studies. Mr. Farhi has owned the Wellington Street facility for 18 years. He has not been able to reach a deal concerning a long-term lease with any of the successive ~overnments over that time period, despite several attempts to do so. The results of any !money spent by him to date have been largely cosmetic. The aging facility outlived its .usefulness for 07/19/2005 15:44 519-531-9478 STEVE PETERS MPP PAGE 03 ...... ELGIN LAW ASSOCIATION cOU~T ~OUSE. J) WELLINC;TON STRl!:~T, 5i. THOMAS, ONTARIO l'l:.l~ "2P2 PHONE 631.7650 court purposes at least 40 years ago when the problem first began to be actively studied. Mr. Farhi has been quoted recently in the press as offering $4 million to expand the building, but this is no where near what is required to turn it into a facility that meets current day needs. The much more modern court house in London has recently been allocated the sum of $17.5 million for relatively minor upgrades and improvements. The time for studying our needs and for prolonged negotiations is over. The citizens of St. Thomas and Elgin have been shortchanged far too long. Placing a time limit on a final agreement being struck between Mr. Farhi and the province is essential at this time. Making that time limit the end of the year is our way of conveying the message that the time to remedy this problem is now. Kimberley G. R. Johnson President, Elgin Law Association 07/19/2005 15:44 519-531-9478 STEVE PETERS MPP PAGE 02 ._--_._".~ ; r'" , "F'.' ,~'.~ P'" r '. f7 'f':' :") ! !'t"'I\' !. ,~.I, :~..../ I~~~ i! \\1 I!"/' 1!:!::,~ I ,--, ' 'I I ~ :' I l~ .,~"".- I ~ \.. \.., . , ,'" "', L_------~-----, \ ..i.---"... -....-......- ELGIN LAW ASSOCIATION cOURT ~Olls{!;. 9 WELLINGTON STREET, i 51. iHOMAS, ONIAFi!IO N~R ;>,P.?, I'HONIf; G3T-'/'HO Thursday, 14 July 2005 , The Elgin Law Association applauds the efforts of our M.P.P. Steve Psters and other Members in his Government for making a commitment to the citizens of Elgin County to fund a consolidated court facility. The courts are an integral part of th~ infrastructure of any civil society and the pre-eminent symbol of justice. We ask Mr. Peters to ensure that this commitment is maintained and rtot lost by any unnecessary delay. The courthouse and justice facilities in this jurisdi~tion are sadly deficient. For example) the Wellington Street Courthouse does not haVe a ramp or an I elevator to transport disabled persons into the building or up to the sec1;ond floor where the court rooms are located. Nor is there a public elevator at the Caliri McGregor Justice Building. In order to access the court rooms, disabled persons must travel through the cell area in the police station. In 1987, the St. Thomas Times Journal reported that the Wellington Street Court building was ranked by the provincial auditor as among the worst court houses in Ontario. Local M.P.P. Ron McNeil was quoted at the time as saying that the building was, n... well maintained at 19th century standards." He also pointed dut that"... the administration of justice should not put the lives of citizens in jeopardy:whether they are witnesses, suspects or employees of the legal system." From a public: safety standpoint, the building 18 years later still raises significant security cQncerns. These are just some of the inadequacies of the justice facilities in Elgin. ' Our community demands better. Justice must be accessible to everydne. As recently as July 2002 a very thorough and well researched "needs"istudy was completed by Ontario SuperBuild and the Ministry of the Attorney Gent;ral. The report delivered at that time, and others previously commissioned, have c1ear:-ly identified the needs of this community_ Government officials have promised action Gn a number of occasions over at least the past 25 years_ We need a spade in the ground, not further promises or further studies. Mr. Farhi has owned the Wellington Street facility for 18 years. He has not been able to reach a deal concerning a long-term lease with any of the successive ~overnments over that time period, despite several attempts to do so. The results of any 'money spent by him to date have been largely cosmetic. The aging faCility outlived its wsefulness for f 07/19/2005 15:44 . 519-531-9478 STEVE PETERS MPP PAGE 03 '.", ELGIN LAW ASSOCIATION cou~.,. tiOUSE, o WELLINGTON STR~e:T, 51. THOMAS, ONTARIO NtI~ 2.PZ PHONE 631-7650 court purposes at least 40 years ago when the problem first began to be actively studied. Mr. Farhi has been quoted recently in the press as offering $4 million to expand the building, but this is no where near what is required to turn it into a facility that meets current day needs. The much more modern court house in London has recently been allocated the sum of $17.5 million for relatively minor upgrades and improvements. The time for studying our needs and for prolonged negotiations is over. The citizens of St. Thomas and Elgin have been shortchanged far too long. Placing a time limit on a final agreement being struck between Mr. Farhi and the province is essential at this time. Making that time limit the end of the year is our way of conveying the message that the time to remedy this problem is now. Kimberley G. R. Johnson President, Elgin Law Association /" ~ Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care Ministere de la Sante et des Soins de longue duree Office of the Minister 10th Floor, Hepburn Block 80 Grosvenor Street Toronto ON M7A 2C4 Tel 416-327-4300 Fax 416-326-1571 www.health.gov.on.ca Bureau du ministre ~ ....." Ontario 1 0. etage, edifice Hepburn 80, rue Grosvenor Toronto ON M7A 2C4 Tel 416-327-4300 Telec 416-326-1571 www.health.gov.on.ca JUL 19 2005 )Ul 2 , 200li Mr. David Rock Warden Corporation of the County of Elgin 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas ON N5R 5Vl COij~\rl Dear Mr. Rock: Last year, the McGuinty government unveiled an ambitious health reform plan. I would like to thank you for your continuing effort and co-operation in working with my Ministry to improve Ontario's health care system. The success of our reform plan is dependent on our enhancement of resources to strengthen care in the community to relieve pressure on hospitals and improve health outcomes. To this end, we have undertaken the largest expansion of community-based health care in Ontario's history, delivering the best kind of care to Ontarians where they need it most, closer to home. We are making significant investments in primary health care, long-term care homes, home care and mental health. We are expanding local services such as meal programs and attendant care, and are improving standards and services in long-term care. Our plan also involves a major emphasis on healthy living and illness prevention to keep people well in the first place. A strong community sector is essential to delivering effective preventative initiatives. As announced in the budget, total funding for Community Services will increase by $27.5 million this fiscal year, over last year's spending. IFIS No.: 100931 Region: Southwest Page 1 ~ Your organization's share of this new 2005/06 funding is as follows: ~ $15,957 base funding increase. In the coming weeks, you will receive further correspondence from the Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM), Community Health Division, outlining the details of this new funding, including any accountability requirements and sign-backs concerning your allocation. Where applicable, funding increases are also contingent upon approval and execution of your 2005/06 accountability agreement. Your increased cash flow will be initiated as soon as possible and your final cash flow will subsequently be adjusted based on your 2005/06 sign- back of the accountability agreement. I have written to you earlier this year and arranged for you to receive your new funding so your agency can start planning and delivering its services. At this time, however, I would ask that you refrain from communicating this information beyond your necessary stakeholder engagements until the Ministry has publically announced its funding for your program. I would like to take this opportunity to again convey my sincere appreciation for the considerable contributions all members of your organization make in the provision of health services in your communities. Yours truly, ~~ '~ George Smitherman Minister c: Hon. Steve Peters, MPP, Elgin-Middlesex-London Mark McDonald, A/General Manager, Long-Term Care IFIS No.: 100931 Region: Southwest Page 2 1 07/20/2005 12:01 7522351 07/19/2805 17:30 416~212-7144 BOBIER VILLA PAGE 03 MIN OF HEALTH PAGE E12/84 .....'nld'y Of Health and Long.Term CaN OfIk::e tJf tha Minister 10111 Floor. H.urn 81DCk SO Gt'OfMllYiOr StrlHlt Tamnto ON MIA 204 Till 41a.3a'.4900 Fa 418.32601571 1TNnII.hElftlth.gov.on.CllI M1nl'~re de I~ Smt9 at des Solna de lon9uI! du* !Ul'GNlU dU mlniStrel 10'" Gtagg, l3dIRCIl H'I'lbl.lm 80, ruo GmBVGl'lOr TOJI'HnQ ON M7A 2C4 nil 416-327..4300 TAI~ 416-S2&-1571 WWW.heafth.gav.on.C2I JUl1'9 2005 Mr. Mark Mcdonald Chief Administrator Bobier Villa 39262 Fingal Line, RR. #1 St Thomas; ON NOr. lJO Dear Mr. Mcdonald: Last year, the McGuinty government unveiled an ambitious health ;reform pllm. I would like to thank yuu for your continuing effort and co,.operati<m. in working with my ministry to improve Ontario's health care system. The success of our reform. plan is dependent 'on ou.r enhancement of resources to strengthen. care in the community, to relieve pressure on hospitals ~m.d improve health outcomes.. To this end, we have undertaken the largest expEl!1sion of comm.unity..based health ou-e in O",tario'i history, delivering the b~!st kind of caxe to Ontarians where they need it mostJ closer to home. We are making slgttificant mvestmenm itl PrlmAry Health Care, LO:llg--Term Care (LTC) Homes, Home Care and Mental Healtl'l.. We are expanding 1000. semces such. as meal programs and atb:!ndant care, and are improving standards and services in LTC. Our plan also involves a major etnpha3is on healthy li'Ving and illn~!Ss prevention to keep people well in the first place. A strong community sector is~ essential to delive1;ing effeclive preventat.i,ve ~tiaiive5. As announced in the budget, total funding for the LTC Homes Program will increase by $264 million this fiscal year over last year's spending. 'l11is includes $107.9 million in additional funding over and above previous comrnitments. This funding will maintain the government's commitment to syst~n expansj,on Facility No.: M6C3 Regitm! SW Pag111 g 07/20/2005 12:01 7622361 e7/19/2ees 17:38 416-212-7144 BOBIER VILLA M!N OF HEALTH PAGE 04 PAGE 133/134 and 5ervice improvements bl, LTC Homes. It will provide addiiiorlal BUppOl't for .operational pressures in nursing and petsonal cate and programming and support services, operators' pay equity obligations,. municipal tax ;illowances and structural compliance premiums among other items. I also am pleased to confirm that this new funding commitment indudes an additional $27.6 million in base funding for the LTC Homes. The new funding will support a per diem funding increase of $1.01, effective Apri11.. 2005, to be a110alted as follows: )- Nursing and Personal Care~ $0.92 )- Program and Support Services $0.09 * Based on a. Caee Mix Index (CMl) of 100 The government is approving this increase to provide additional S11ppOrt to the goal ofbiring 2,000 new staff (including 600 nurses) and to implement new enhanced care requirements such as around-the-clock registered n'l.u:sing care coverage and pravidmg LTC residents with at least two baths per week. Your next ~cheduled payment notice will be adjusted to reflect the new per diem rates as well as a :retroactive adjustment to April 1, 2005. ill the COIning weeks, you will receive further correspondence from G~:rge Zegarac, Assistant Deputy Minister, Community Health Division, outlining the details of this new funding" including applicable accountability requirements conc:enting yaux allocation. !his new funding will also be subject to the ministry's existing reconciliation processes. The ministry is monitoring the LTC sectOt's progr~s in meeting the new staffing and. enhanced care requireInents, an.d w:Ul report to the public on the sector's a.~evement at a later date. P,QcWty No.: MG03 R@g:igre ~ t'lIge 2 c; 07/20/2005 12:01 7522351 BOBIER VILLA PAGE 05 07/19/2005 17:30 416-212-7144 MIN OF HEALTH PAGE El4/El4 I would like to take this opportunity to again convey my sincere apptedation for the considerable contributioM a,11 members of your organization mlike in the provision of health services :in your communities. Yours truly, &Q~ &~ Geo;rge Smitherman ~Minister c: George Zegarac, Assistant Deputy Minister, Community Health Divis~on Honourable Steve Peters, 1MPP, EIgh1rMiddlesex-London Ms. Pat VaJ;'l.d.everm.e, Administrator PMility Nl:I.! MG09 Rl.1g\o1\: sw If) Pae;v a Ontario Provincial Police a;;) ~ Police provinciale de l'Ontario d JUL 2 2 zons COu~\rrY Of ELG\~.~,,,,,,, 5!. f't~fi~~.,W~'i'W! 11,'f, WE ~~f}( \{j:v~,j S"\i.!i,;"t.",,,,, , n, . ' , Warden Jim McIntyre County Of Elgin 450 Sunset Blvd St Thomas, Ontario N5R 5Vl Warden McIntyre: Elgin County O.P.P 42696 John Wise Line St. Thomas, ON N5P 3S9 Telephone: 519 - 631-2920 Fax: 519 - 631-2923 July 22, 2005 On behalf of all the officers and staff at the Elgin County OPP Detachment, I wish to thank you and the Elgin County Council for the two outstanding photographs of our OPP cruisers at the County Building. I am impressed with the way the photographer captured our OPP pride and professionalism in a simple yet distinct manner. We will display our photographs proudly at both the St. Thomas and Dutton detachments for everyone to enjoy. Your presentation to me at the Elgin Group Police Services Board meeting was a pleasant surpnse. Thank you again for your kindness. Sincerely, f~ S/Sgt. Ryan Cox Detachment Commander RBC:teh cc: Elgin Group Police Services Board H'P1IttUt9 ()fIIl, ~'"tIf 9iMt" II