June 28, 2005 Agenda
ORDERS OF THE DA Y
FOR TUESDA ~ JUNE 28. 2005 - 9:00 A.M.
PAGE # ORDER
Meeting Called to Order
Adoption of Minutes - meeting June 14, 2005
Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof
Presenting Petitions, Presentations and Delegations
PRESENTATIONS
9:00 a.m. Employee Recognition (see page 2)
Motion to Move Into "Committee Of The Whole Council"
Reports of Council, Outside Boards and Staff
Council Correspondence - see attached
1) Items for Consideration
2) Items for Information (Consent Agenda)
OTHER BUSINESS
1) Statements/Inquiries by Members
2) Notice of Motion
3) Matters of Urgency
9th In-Camera Items (see separate agenda)
10th Recess
11 th Motion to Rise and Report
12th Motion to Adopt Recommendations from the Committee Of The Whole
65-72 13th Consideration of By-Laws
14th ADJOURNMENT
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
2
5th
3-25 6th
7th
26-27
28-64
8th
llUNCH WILL NOT BE PROVIDED I
EMPLOYEE SERVICE RECOGNITION/RETIREMENT PRESENTATION - JUNE 28. 2005
YEARS OF SERVICE
HOMES
Margaret Dyck 25 years (full-time) Bobier Villa
Lise Jones 25 years (full-time) Terrace Lodge
Jewell McKenzie 25 years (full-time) Elgin Manor
Chris Symms 25 years (full-time) Elgin Manor
Claire Labonte 20 years (full-time) Elgin Manor
Lin McCann 20 years (full-time) Bobier Villa
John Smith 20 years (full-time) Elgin Manor
Venna West 20 years (part-time) Elgin Manor
Garry Hepburn 15 years (full-time) Elgin Manor
Patty Wilson 15 years (part-time) Elgin Manor
Christine Fielding 10 years (full-time) Elgin Manor
Sandra Powers 10 years (full-time) Elgin Manor
Debbie Adams 10 years (part-time) Terrace Lodge
Robyne Ford 10 years (part-time) Bobier Villa
Janice Krebs 10 years (part-time) Bobier Villa
UUULlBRARY SERVICE
Carol Smetheram
25 years (part-time)
Port Stanley Library
HUMAN RESOURCES
Kelly Carr
15 years (part-time)
REPORTS OF COUNCIL AND STAFF
JUNE 28. 2005
Staff Reports - (ATTACHED)
4 Manager of Administrative Services and Purchasing Co-Ordinator - Tree Commissioner
and Weed Inspector Leased Vehicle
7 Manager of Administrative Services - Land Division Mandate and Purpose
14 Director of Financial Services - Capping Options
16 Director of Financial Services - New Construction Tax Treatment
18 Manager of Archives and Purchasing Co-Ordinator - Surplus Book Sale
20 Purchasing Co-Ordinator and Director of Engineering Services - Security Services
Construction Technologist and Purchasing Co-Ordinator - Avon Drive Reconstruction
(to be sent out on Friday Fax)
23 Manager of Road Infrastructure - 2004 Lower Tier Operations Cost Summary
Director of Financial Services - Federal Gas Tax Allocation
Construction Technologist and Purchasing Co-Ordinator - Avon Drive
Reconstruction
Director of Senior Services - Elgin Manor - In-Kind Support for the VON Great
Community Walk
Chief Administrative Officer - Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund (OMPF) - Status
Report
Director of Engineering Services - Sunset Road Engineering
3
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM:
Sandra Heffren, Manager of Administrative Services
Sonia Beavers, Purchasing Co-Ordinator
DATE:
June 20, 2005
SUBJECT: Tree Commissioner/Weed Inspector Leased Vehicle
INTRODUCTION:
The County of Elgin leases a pick up truck for the Tree Commissioner and Weed Inspector
as per the existing contract agreement with the Kettle Creek Conservation Authority. The
lease ends July 1, 2005.
DISCUSSION:
The current leased vehicle is a 2002 Ford F-150 that has almost 54,000 km and has
served the Tree Commissioner well. A similar vehicle should replace the existing truck.
Quotations were circulated to all Elgin County new vehicle dealers. The results of the
quotation are as follows:
Dealer Option # 1 Option # 2
m Monthly Lease Purchase Price
(36 month term)
Eastway Ford $16,665.12 $23,562.35
Fordham GM $15,979.01 $26,277.15
Elgin Chrysler Ltd No Bid No Bid
Hutchison Motors No Bid No Bid
Miller Ford No Submission No Submission
Talbot Ford No Submission No Submission
Co- Trac No Submission No Submission
Dempsey Chrysler No Submission No Submission
Fordham G.M. submitted the lowest price for a Monthly Lease Option for a 2005 GMC
Sierra. Eastway Ford submitted the lowest price for a Purchase Option for a 2005 Ford
F150-F12. Eastway Ford also submitted a pricing option of paying for the lease in a one-
time up front payment thereby saving financing charges, which results in the lowest lease
price option of $14,847.65.
The County has the option of: 1) purchasing the leased vehicle coming off lease, 2)
leasing a new vehicle over a three-year term, 3) leasing a new vehicle and paying the
three-year lease up front, 4) purchasing a new vehicle.
2
Option 1 (purchasinq the leased vehicle)
The lease end purchase option price is $12,255.41 (includes P.S.T.). There are also
governmental fees and related charges such as safety certification, license transfer fees,
emissions testing which may total approximately $500.00, plus possible repair costs that
may be determined during the required safety and emissions check.
Option 2 (Ieasinq a new vehicle over a three-year term) and Option 3 (Ieasinq a new
vehicle and payinq the three-year lease up-front)
The pricing difference between Option (2) and (3) is:
Fordham G.M. $ 15,979.01
Eastway Ford One time payment $ 14,847.65
Savings of $ 1.817.4 7 or approximately 7.5% compared to
the 36 monthly payments
The County currently earns approximately 2.35 % on cash deposits. Eastway Ford
financing cost of the three-year monthly payment lease is quoted as 3.3%, and Eastway
Ford financing cost for paying the three-year lease up front is .1 %.
The County is currently paying $398.00 per month for the lease of the 2002 Ford F150.
Option 4 (purchasinq a new vehicle)
In the past, the County has not considered purchasing a vehicle for a number of reasons:
· Reduced repair and maintenance costs with having a vehicle no more than three years
old,
· Benefit of a new vehicle in three years,
· Excellent leasing prices reflecting the low interest rates available over the last number
of years and the competition amongst the car manufacturers,
· Unknown whether or not a vehicle will be required at the end of the three year term.
CONCLUSION:
The existing lease on the pick up truck for the Tree Commissioner will expire on July 1,
2005 and another vehicle is required. Quotations were circulated as per the County's
Procurement Policy and sent to all new vehicle dealers in Elgin County. Staff recommends
that the County lease the vehicle using the most cost-effective option, which is to pay the
lease as a one time up-front payment. Eastway Ford located in St. Thomas submitted the
lowest quotation.
The 2005 F150 would be delivered in mid August. The lease for the 2002 F150 expires
July 1, 2005. Eastway Ford has confirmed that should an order for a 2005 F150 be
processed, the County can continue leasing the 2002 F150 for the same monthly fee of
$398.00 per month (taxes included) until the 2005 vehicle has been delivered.
3
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT, one 2005 F150-F12 be leased for the Tree Commissioner for a 36 month term from
Eastway Ford for the submitted up-front one lease payment price of $14,847.65 inclusive
of all taxes and fees, with funds allocated from the Capital - Vehicle Replacement fund,
and
THAT, the lease for the 2002 F150 Ford pick up be continued for the same monthly fee of
$398.00 per month (taxes included) up to the delivery of the new 2005 Ford F150.
Respectfully Submitted
Approved for Submission
~~O~
. onia Beavers
Purchasing Co-Ordinator
~~-+
Director, Finan .
fJ; !/J}.~
San r He
Manager of Administrative Services
cer
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM:
Sandra Heffren, Deputy Clerk
DATE:
May 3, 2005
SUBJECT: Land Division Mandate and Purpose
Introduction:
Council directed that the mandate and purpose of the County Land Division Committee be
codified in writing.
Discussion:
The Land Division Committee has reviewed their procedures over the past several
meetings and has adopted the attached policy, which delineates the mandate and
processes of the Committee's function.
Conclusion:
The attached Policy should be reviewed by Council as the procedure for the Land Division
Committee and adopted by by-law.
Recorrllllel1dation:
THAT the attached Policy entitled "Procedures Governing the Calling, Place, and
Procedures of Meetings of the Land Division Committee for the County of Elgin" be
adopted and the necessary by-law prepared.
Respectfully Submitted
Approved for Submission
0~
San He ,
Depu y Clerk.
Mark .
Chief Administrative Officer.
-2-
SCHEDULE "A"
BY-LAW NO. 05-
PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE CALLING, PLACE AND PROCEEDINGS OF
MEETINGS OF THE LAND DIVISION COMMITTEE FOR THE COUNTY OF ELGIN
1. AUTHORITY:
Elgin County Council, by By-law No. 2162 dated June 15, 1971, in accordance with
provisions in the Planning Act, did constitute and appoint a five-member Land
Division Committee and authority to decide planning matters was thereby delegated
to said Committee. County Council has the right to alter, amend or revoke these
delegated powers as deemed appropriate.
2. MANDATE AND PURPOSE:
The mandate and purpose of the Land Division Committee is to determine the
viability of Applications for Consent and to make Decisions that reflect sound planning
principles, based on their understanding and judgement of the information provided.
Consent may be given if satisfied that a plan of subdivision of the land is not
necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. A Decision is
to approve or to deny.
Statutory requirements governing Consent Authorities are found in Sections 50
through 57 of the Planning Act (Section 53 deals specifically with consents, however,
since the consent process relates to subdivision of land and other issues additional
sections must be consulted); Ontario Regulation 197/96 (which sets out in more detail
what the Planning Act requires when processing applications); and the Provincial
Policy Statements. Local Municipal Official Plans and Zoning By-Laws; Agency
Correspondence; and public input are also considered.
For example, together with necessary modifications, to grant a provisional consent
the Committee shall have regard to the following criteria:
(a) (i) Does the application conform to the necessary plans and policies?
(ii) Does the application contribute toward a development pattern that should
be encouraged?
(iii) Does the application avoid a need for costly municipal expenditures?
(iv) Does the application permit the continuation of safe and efficient traffic
patterns and efficient land use?
(v) Does the application contribute toward or preserve the visual appearance
of the municipality?
(vi) Are the physical site characteristics suitable for the use proposed?
(vii) Is the site access safe?
(viii) Will the proposed use be compatible with surrounding uses?
(b) the effect of development of the proposed subdivision on matters of provincial
interest;
-3-
(c) whether the proposed subdivision is premature or in the public interest;
(d) whether the plan conforms to the official plan and adjacent plans of subdivision,
if any;
(e) the suitability of the land for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided;
(f) the number, width, location and proposed grades and elevations of highways,
and the adequacy of them, and the highways linking the highways in the
proposed subdivision with the established highway system in the vicinity and the
adequacy of them;
(g) the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots;
(h) the restrictions or proposed restrictions, if any, on the land proposed to be
subdivided or the buildings and structures proposed to be erected on it and the
restrictions, if any, on adjoining land;
(i) conservation of natural resources and flood control;
U) the adequacy of utilities and municipal services;
(k) the adequacy of school sites;
(I) the area of land, if any, within the proposed subdivision that, exclusive of
highways, is to be conveyed or dedicated for public purposes; and
(m) the physical layout of the plan having regard to energy conservation.
3. DEFINITIONS:
(a) "Committee" means a group of individuals appointed by County Council, to the
Elgin County Land Division Committee, pursuant to provisions of the Planning
Act, P.13, RS.O. 1990, as amended.
(b) "Member" means an individual appointed by County Council, to the Elgin County
Land Division Committee, pursuant to the provisions of the Planning Act, P .13,
RS.O. 1990, as amended.
(c) "Chair" means the Chairman of the Elgin County Land Division Committee,
elected from amongst the Members of the Committee at the first general
meeting of the Committee of each year and the person responsible for
conducting a meeting to consider consent applications.
(d) "Vice-Chair" means a Vice-Chairman of the Elgin County Land Division
Committee, elected from amongst the Members of the Committee at the first
general Committee meeting of each year. The Vice-Chair shall act as and have
all the responsibilities of the Chair, in the absence of the Chair.
(e ) "Secretary-Treasurer" means the Secretary-Treasurer of the Elgin County Land
Division Committee, pursuant to the provisions of the Planning Act, P.13, RS.O.
1990 as amended.
-4-
4. CALLING OF MEETINGS
All meetings of the Committee, pursuant to Section 239 of the Municipal Act, 2001,
S.O. 2001, C.25, as amended, shall be called by the Secretary-Treasurer or by the
Chair of the Committee.
5. NOTICE
(a) The Notice of an Application for Consent to be considered at a meeting shall be
given in a manner that the Committee deems appropriate, in accordance with
the provisions of the Planning Act as amended, O. Reg. 197/96 Section 3, and
any regulations passed thereunder.
(b) Notice of Application procedures with respect to an application for Validation of
Title, Power of Sale and Foreclosure and for change to conditions shall be the
same as the procedures for Consent Applications.
(c) Notice of Hearing giving the date on which the Committee will hear the
application shall be mailed to the applicant and persons or interested parties
who have expressed an interest in the application and requested such notice.
In consultation with the Chair, the Secretary-Treasurer may cancel or reschedule a
meeting.
6. LOCATION OF MEETINGS
All meetings of the Committee shall be held in a meeting room located within the
County Administration Building, 450 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas, or another location as
directed by County Council. The room shall be identified on the Notice of Hearing
that is circulated by the Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee.
7. QUORUM
(a) The quorum for the Elgin County Land Division Committee shall be three (3) of
the five (5) members on the Committee.
(b) The Chair shall be counted in determining a quorum and shall be entitled to all
the rights of a member on the Committee, including voting. The Elgin County
Warden (or Deputy Warden), is an Ex-Officio Member of the Committee and
shall be entitled to all the rights of a member on the Committee, including voting.
(c) If no quorum is present within thirty (30) minutes after the time appointed for a
meeting, the Committee Chair or the Secretary-Treasurer may discharge the
members present and may cancel or reschedule the meeting and notice for
same shall be given.
-5-
8. APPLICATION INFORMATION
An application information packet shall be provided by the Secretary-Treasurer or
designate prior to the meeting for the use of applicants, authorized agents, applicant
representatives, Committee Members and anyone having an interest in an
application. A copy of the comments received from various agencies shall be made
available at the meeting for the Committee members.
9. MEETING PROCEDURES
(a) The meeting of the Committee shall be called to order by the Chair of the
Committee or the Secretary-Treasurer or a designate of the Committee.
(b) Any member required to do so shall disclose any direct or indirect pecuniary
interest and state the general nature of such interest and the Secretary-
Treasurer as required shall record it. Any Member who discloses such a
pecuniary interest shall refrain from discussion or voting on the matter.
(c) The Secretary-Treasurer or designate shall call for any requests for deferral of
an application or for any request for withdrawal of an application.
(d) A request for deferral of an application to a later meeting date must be for
reasonable cause. The Committee shall set a new meeting date for the
consideration of a deferred application and shall indicate any other requirements
or conditions for deferral, such as re-notification, amendment or additional
required information.
(e) The Secretary-Treasurer or designate shall call each application in an order
determined by the agenda or in an order determined by the Chair and/or the
Committee.
(f) The Secretary-Treasurer or Chair will read the application and any comments
received from agencies, residents and others who responded to the circulation
of Notice of Application. At the discretion of the Chair, the Secretary-Treasurer
or designate may summarize the nature of the interests or concerns being
expressed.
(g) The Chair shall ask the applicant, authorized agent or the applicant's
representative to explain the application and offer any further information or
comments.
(h) The Committee may ask questions of the applicant, authorized agent or
applicant's representative at this time. Questions may be asked during the
presentation, however, typically questions are put forward by members of the
Committee at the conclusion of the presentation.
-6-
(i) The Chair shall ask the applicant, authorized agent or applicant's representative
whether or not he/she is able to indicate consent to the imposition of the
conditions should the application be favourably considered.
U) The Chair shall invite anyone else having an interest or concern with respect to
the application(s) to come forward and advise the Committee of his or her
position. The Committee members may ask questions of those parties
expressing an interest or concern.
(k) The Chair shall give the applicant, authorized agent or the applicant's
representative the opportunity to respond to any comments received from
commenting agencies or interested parties.
(I) The Committee members may ask additional questions at this time.
(m) The Chair shall ask the members of the Committee for a motion with respect to
the disposition of each application after all applications presented at the meeting
have been considered. Consideration shall include issues raised by the
applicant, authorized agencies, applicant's representative(s), respondent(s),
planning evidence heard at the meeting, and requirements of the Planning Act
and Provincial Policy Statement. The Chair upon receipt of a motion from a
Committee member shall ask for a seconder to the motion.
(n) The Secretary-Treasurer shall be asked to repeat the motion and any conditions
placed on an approval or reasons if the Consent was denied.
(0) The Chair shall call for a vote by the Committee on the motion and the Chair
shall announce, at the meeting, the Decision of the Committee.
(p) Committee members concurring in the Decision of the Committee shall sign the
Decision.
(q) The Committee shall deal with the business matters in the following order:
(i) adoption of Minutes of the previous meeting
(i) business arising out of the Minutes
(ii) correspondence
(iii) business arising from correspondence
(iv) new business
(v) new files
(vi) set date for next meeting.
10. VOTING
All members of the Committee shall vote and each vote shall be counted as one.
-7-
11. APPEALS
All Consent Appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) are to be referred to a
Solicitor and/or Professional Planner, as deemed appropriate, in order that the
Decision of the Land Division Committee is defended at OMB Hearings.
12. CONDUCT OF MEETINGS AND MEMBERS
The conduct of meetings and members, with respect to matters not specifically
addressed, shall generally be considered in accordance with the Statutory Powers
Procedure Act, C.S 22, R.S.O. 1990, as amended, the Municipal Conflict of Interest
Act, R.S.O., 1990, C.M 50, as amended, Robert's Rules of Order, and the County of
Elgin Procedural By-Law.
13. COMMITTEE REMUNERATION
Members of the Committee shall be paid a per diem for attendance at each
Committee meeting, travel to attend Committee meetings at the approved County
travel rate, and a fee for investigation of applicable applications, which is established
by By-Law.
14. CONVENTIONIWORKSHOP ATTENDANCE
A Member may attend a convention/workshop that is relevant to the business of the
Land Division Committee. Convention/workshop attendance is subject to budgetary
limitations and must be submitted on the County Convention Expense Claim Form.
15. ANNUAL BUDGET
An annual budget is established to provide for expenditures of the Committee.
Expenditures may not exceed budgetary limitations without County Council approval.
Fees charged for Applications for Consent are designed to meet the anticipated cost
to the County to process such Applications and may change from time to time.
16. GENERAL
The conditions and policies, as set out in this Policy Manual and the Procedural By-
Law for the County of Elgin, which relate to the Land Division Committee and which
are consistent with this by-law, shall be the conditions and policies for the operation
of the Land Division Committee.
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM:
Linda B. Veger, Director of Financial Services
DATE:
June 13, 2005
SUBJECT: Capping Options
INTRODUCTION:
The Province has allowed new capping options contained in Bill 83, The Budget Measures
Act, 2004. The options are:
1. cap on previous year's annualized tax may be increased in the range from 5% to 10%;
2. an additional capping parameter to a maximum of 5% of the previous year's CV A tax;
3. any property within $250 (maximum threshold) of CVA can be moved directly to the
CVA tax burden.
DISCUSSION:
Option 1 allows for an increase of greater than 5% on capped properties. The capping
increase has been no more than 5% for some time. Increasing the cap to 10% may bring
more properties to CV A taxes.
Option 2 is calculated by applying a percentage between 0% and 5% of the previous
year's CVA tax and, as above, may bring more properties to CVA taxes.
Option 3 allows properties to move closer to CVA tax by as much as $250. This can apply
to capped or clawed back properties.
The Treasurers met to discuss these options and reviewed examples of how the above
would affect Elgin County taxpayers and the number of capped properties. One significant
roadblock identified is the fact that next year is a reassessment year. Any property that
moved to CV A taxes by utilizing the above options could very well move back into capping
depending on the new assessment. These options were also seen as being more
confusing to taxpayers who already have difficulty understanding capping.
The above options had very little affect on the industrial class. Most properties would
remain capped. With multi-residential, clawed back properties would not benefit and may
have more dollars clawed back to support capped properties. There was a reduction in the
number of capped properties if the options were applied to the commercial class. However
with reassessment a property could move out of capping in 2005 and back into capping in
2006.
To date, the Province has not introduced legislation stating that once a property has
reached its CV A tax it would no longer be eligible for capping.
CONCLUSION:
The Treasurers agreed that the recommendation to Council be to stay at the 5% cap as
previously allowed and to review the implications of any capping change in 2006 after the
affect of the next reassessment is known.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT, for 2005, capped properties remain at the 5% capping level as legislated in
previous years; and,
THAT the capping options be reviewed in 2006.
Respectfully Submitted
Approved for Submission
d:~~
Director of Financial Services
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM: Linda B. Veger, Director of Financial Services
DATE: June 14,2005
SUBJECT: New Construction Tax Treatment
INTRODUCTION:
The Province has introduced a new option for the tax treatment of new construction in Bill
83, The Budget Measures Act, 2004.
DISCUSSION:
Currently, eligible new construction (new buildings) are to be taxed at the lower of CVA tax
and an average level of assessment for up to six com parables in the vicinity. The County
can choose the option to introduce a "floor" on tax levels for comparable properties:
. 2005 - 70% minimum
. 2006 - 80% minimum
. 2007 - 90% minimum
. 2008 - 100% minimum
The above only applies to properties that become eligible during the year in question.
The Treasurers discussed the above parameters and reviewed the new construction
percentages for previous years. The number of newly constructed buildings is low each
year and the percentages have been higher than the above minimums. In order to protect
the tax base in future years, the Treasurers agree that the above minimums should be
adopted.
CONCLUSION:
The Province has introduced an option for new construction that will move newly
constructed properties to CVA taxes by 2008. Staff suggest that Council agree to the
option.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT the minimum percentages for new construction, 70% in 2005,80% in 2006,90% in
2007, and 100% in 2008 be selected; and,
THAT the appropriate by-law be prepared.
Respectfully Submitted
Approved for Submission
~~~
Linda B. Veger
Director of Financial Services
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM: Brian Masschaele, Manager of Archives
Sonia Beavers, Purchasing Co-Ordinator
DATE: June 20, 2005
SUBJECT: Surplus Book Sale
INTRODUCTION:
The Elgin County Library possesses a large quantity of historical books that staff have
deemed surplus to its needs. This report recommends that these books be sold by auction
to be conducted by Cosens Auctions.
DISCUSSION:
The Elgin County Library has accumulated a large quantity of historical and antiquarian
books on the third and fourth floors of the Elgin County Administration Building that no
longer fit the library's mandate or have been deemed surplus to its needs. These include
publications on the history of other regions of Ontario or Canada, old statute books from
the County's tenure at the courthouse and duplicates of local history publications that are
already available in local branches or through the archives. Many of these items have
been in dormant storage for several years.
Staff of the Elgin County Archives have begun the process of reviewing materials on the
fourth floor in anticipation of future renovations to the space. This review has revealed
that the County possesses a number. of books that should be sold instead of discarded due
to their apparent value. Library staff have also set aside a number of historical books on
the third floor that are no longer in the library system due to low demand or
incompatibility with the library's current mandate but could nevertheless be sold. Initial
estimates indicate that the number of books on both the third and fourth floors is at least
one thousand.
Such a large quantity of historical, and in some cases rare, books is bound to attract the
interest of book dealers and buyers throughout the region. Staff are therefore
recommending that these books be sold by auction given the volumes involved and the
higher financial return an auction could generate. This is also the most efficient and
effective way of clearing such a large volume of books through one transaction given that
staff do not have the means or resources to facilitate their sale on a piece-meal basis.
Staff will nevertheless maintain the right of final approval before any items are sold.
A request for quotation was issued to prospective auctioneers based on criteria such as
previous experience with similar sales and ability to complete the initial work by August
1 st, 2005. The following is a summary of the bids received:
Company Selling Price Range AND Selling Price Range
Percentage Fee(based AND
on final selling price) Percentage Fee(based
on final selling price)
Cosens Auctions $0.00 - $2/999.99 - 35% $3/000.00 and up - 250/0
McKenzie Assoc. Auctioneers No Bid No Bid
Shackelton Auctions No Bid No Bid
Gardner Auctions No Bid No Bid
Staff recommend that Cosens Auctions proposal be accepted. Services to be provided for
a premium fee of 10 per cent include all costs associated with cataloguing, publication,
advertisement and sales. Trucking costs from Administration Building to the Auction at 560
Talbot Street, St. Thomas of $50.00 per hour is extra. The County's portion will
therefore be 55-65 percent of all final sales which includes the premium fee. Taxes and
cartage are extra.
The timing of the auction will be at the discretion of the auctioneer. Upon its completion,
staff will report on the outcome of the sale with recommendations on how the proceeds
should be allocated.
CONCLUSION:
The Elgin County Library possesses a large collection of historical publications on the third
ahd fourth floors Which haVe been deemed surplus to its heeds. Staff are recommending
that a book auction take place to sell these items and that Cosens Auctions be authorized
to proceed with this sale.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT the Director of Library Services be authorized to enter into an agreement with
Cosens Auctions to auction surplus historical publications of the Elgin County Library as
approved by the Manager of Archives, with the County retaining 55-65 per cent of all
proceeds from this sale, which includes 10% premium fee, plus $50.00 per hour for
cartage (taxes extra).
Respectfully Submitted
Approved for Submission
~~
Brian Masschaele
Manager of Archives
J~~ ~talH'A/l
.. Sonia Beavers
Purchasing Co-Ordinator
~c:::?-' '
cathy B" nap _..I~
Director ary ervl
Mark
Chief Administrative Officer
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM: Sonia Beavers, Purchasing Co-Ordinator
Clayton Watters, Director of Engineering Services
DATE: June 10, 2005
SUBJECT: Security Services
Introduction:
Currently the County of Elgin has security service agreements in place for Terrace Lodge,
Bobier Villa, New Elgin Manor, vacant Elgin Manor and the Pioneer Museum. The
agreement for the New Elgin Manor is a five-year agreement which was signed in 2003
and due to expire in 2008. Terrace Lodge, Bobier Villa, vacant Elgin Manor and the
Museum are due to expire throughout various years. Currently the security systems are
leased from ADT Security Services. The contract includes fire and/or burglar alarm panels.
Discussion:
While reviewing the agreements for Terrace Lodge, Bobier Villa, vacant Elgin Manor and
the Pioneer Museum it was noted that the agreements had not been updated. There is a
clause in the agreement that permitted the contractor to renew the agreement following
the initial term and that the service would continue for subsequent periods of one year at
a time.
Management's goal is to implement standardization when possible. This can be achieved
by reviewing the service required for various buildings and securing one vendor for the
same service when possible.
Therefore, a decision was made to contact ADT Security Systems to request current
agreements, itemizing the current pricing for Terrace Lodge, Bobier Villa, vacant Elgin
Manor and the Pioneer Museum. As well, the request included a termination of service for
all the agencies to conclude in 2008 at which time the service may be tendered.
1
The current confirmed annual rates from ADT Security Services are as follows:
Annual Rate GST included
709.41
738.30
1 416.68
747.93
$ 837.17
$ 4,449.49
In addition there are various owned security systems in place for the following County
agencies;
County Agency
Company
Annual Rate
(GST
included
$ 256.80
295.32
294.69
637.82
1 484.63
$5 934.12
E.C.M. Securi
William Dowd & Sons
RMB
Chubb Securi
Sub- Total
Grand Total
Expiration of
Contract
June 2006 *
March 2008
June 2006 *
Jul 2006 *
* denotes automatic yearly renewal, all other contracts were renewed for 5 year term.
Dutton Library also has a security system in place that is owned by the Municipality of
Dutton-Dunwich. The Municipality of Dutton-Dunwich pays the yearly fee of
$ 408.57(G.S.T. included) for the Dutton Library's security system.
The remaining eight library branches do not have a security system in place, however
staff are currently assessing the need. If staff determine that a security system needs to
be in place, quotations for a new system will be obtained.
The annual fees from ADT Security Systems are calculated and based on the amount of
equipment leased at each location. The more equipment the higher the annual costs of
additional services such as a dvac line. When there are few or no other customers in
remote areas, (West Elgin) then the cost to proVide services such as dvacs is escalated.
In addition, there may be an annual escalating increase based on the Canadian Consumer
Price Index.
2
Conclusion:
ADT has been providing security service to the County since 1998 and past performance
has been favourable. Consistency is also a factor that needs to be considered. Therefore,
the recommendation would be for Council to authorize the Warden and CAO to bind the
County of Elgin for security service with ADT Security Services until July 1, 2008. During
this time staff will review the service required for the various departments and a Request
for Quotation may be considered to secure one vendor if it deems to be for the best
interest of the County.
Recommendation:
THAT, the Warden and CAO be authorized and directed to sign the agreement for security
service with ADT Security Services until July 1, 2008; and
THAT, prior to the end of the term (June 30, 2008), staff will report to Council with a
recommendation on whether or not it is in the best interest of the County to issue a
Request for Quotation for Security Service.
Respectfully Submitted
Approved for Submission
aMA1J1
J~ ~C1XJJJ
Sonia Beavers
Purchasing Co-Ordinator
~~~
Linda Veger
Director, Financial Services
Clayton Watters
Director of Engineering Services
Officer
3
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM: Peter Dutchak, Manager of Road Infrastructure
DATE: June 8, 2005
SUBJECT: 2004 Lower Tier Operations Cost Summary
Introduction
As directed by Council this annual report summarizes the local maintenance activities and cost
expended in 2004 as provided by our lower tier municipalities.
In 2001 Council amended the maintenance payment allocations for the lower tiers and payments
are now based on the number of kilometers maintained and roads with higher traffic volumes
receive more compensation. In 2002 the compensation formula was once again adjusted to reflect
additional urban maintenance responsibilities. The compensation is also adjusted to include the
Ontario Consumer Price Index inflation for October annually.
The County inspects the road system quarterly and identifies any deviations from the County's
Minimum Maintenance Standards and reports these to the municipality. The municipality is then
requested to rectify the specific condition and sign and date when the work was completed and
return the notice back to the County of Elgin.
Discussion
The following table examines expenditures per municipality and their surplus or deficit for
maintenance activities during 2004.
Municipality 2004 Allocation Expenditure Variance 0/0 of Number of
(as reported) Allocation Kilometres
Sent Maintained
13 557.33 13 334.00 223.33 98.35 4.07
307 772.12 308 280.45 - 508.33 100.17 97.421
438,267.37 480,801.30 -$42,533.93 109.71 136.089
308 558.00 349 298.70 - 40740.70 113.20 96.787
466 333.39 471 943.26 - 5 609.87 101.20 146.135
339763.32 373,931.41 -$34,168.09 110.06 106.593
314705.97 324,546.60 -$9,840.63 103.13 99.453
Totals $2,188,957.50 $ 2,322,135.72 -$133,178.22 106.08 686.548
Please note that a 5% overhead allowance has been included in the expenditures. It should also
be noted that all expenditure figures are provided by the municipalities and are not audited.
Discussion (continued)
It may be assumed that all of the municipalities overspent their 2004 allocation due to the number
of winter storm events experienced during this reporting period. Approximately two-thirds of each
municipality's maintenance allocation is spent on winter control activities each year. For Council's
information, the following table depicts winter control costs for County Roads during 2004.
Municipality
Percent of Maintenance
Dollars Spent on Winter
Control Activities
46%
69%
61 %
62%
68%
66%
56%
Amount Spent on Winter
Control Activities on
Coun Roads
6 241.51
209 742.51
279 279.00
216 354.07
322 969.05
246943.16
182 763.00
Almer
Sa ham
Central EI in
Dutton / Dunwich
Malahide
Southwold
West EI in
for
Winter
$1,464,292.30
The newly adopted Salt Management Plan may reduce salt usage and therefore may reduce winter
control costs in the future.
Road maintenance funding is allocated for the repair and maintenance of road infrastructure in
order that it functions as it was designed and it is maintained at its current state. The County as
part of its capital program, which is approved annually by County Council, completes all
improvements to the infrastructure. Municipalities can request minor capital improvements to
reduce maintenance activities in identified areas through the County's Capital Project
Communication Protocol.
In addition to requesting financial reporting, the County also requested a maintenance summary
report from the municipalities. These reports will assist the County in planning future capital
budgets so that areas requiring extraordinary maintenance activities can be addressed with capital
improvements to reduce costs.
The County has been keeping track of lower tier expenditures on County Roads since 1998. The
following table summarizes the total expenditures by each municipality for the last 7 years and the
cumulative differences. Collectively, the municipalities overspent their allocations by $70,421 since
1998. Over this period, the municipalities have been paid over $14.54 Million to maintain the
County Road system, therefore, the municipalities collectively overspent their maintenance
allocations by 0.48% over the last 7 years.
Discussion (continued)
Summary of 6 year (1998 - 2004) Maintenance Expenditures
Municipality
Amount Spent
Amount
Spent Total
Number of
Kilometers
Almer
Sa ham
Central EI in
Dutton / Dunwich
Malahide
Southwold
West EI in
Total
78 824
4.07
97.42
136.09
96.79
146.14
106.59
99.45
686.55
214452
$32,297
22241
81 123
$322,098
140556
$251,677
Conclusion
Last year the municipalities collectively over spent their Maintenance Allocations by 6% or
$133,177. Since 1998, the municipalities have collectively overspent their allocations by $70,421
or 0.48% during that period.
The County has requested annual maintenance activity summaries to understand where
maintenance dollars are spent so that capital projects can be planned to reduce these activities in
an attempt to reduce maintenance costs.
Winter control costs exhaust approximately two-thirds of the maintenance allocations, and
therefore, maintenance budgets are typically exceeded when an above average number of winter
storm events occur. The newly adopted Salt Management Plan may help to reduce winter control
costs in the future.
Recommendation
That this report be received and filed.
APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION
aMv.~
PETER DUTCHAK
MANAGER OF ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE
MARK MCD
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM: Linda B. Veger, Director of Financial Services
DATE: June 21, 2005
SUBJECT: Federal Gas Tax Allocation
INTRODUCTION:
On June 17, 2005 an agreement was reached on the Transfer of Federal Gas Tax
Revenues under the New Deal for Cities and Communities.
DISCUSSION:
The County of Elgin is set to receive:
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
$ 471,075.41
471,075.41
628,030.41
784,985.42
1,569,970.83
Eligible projects include:
. public transit
. water
. wastewater
. solid waste
. community energy systems
. local roads, bridges, and tunnels
Payments are to be received semi-annually; July 1st and November 1st of each year.
Allocations are based upon population using the 2001 National Census data.
Highlights:
. Ontario agrees to ensure that Gas Tax funding is incremental to provincial
infrastructure funding available to Municipalities. Ontario also agrees to not reduce,
eliminate, or claw back any Gas Tax Funding to municipalities.
. The funding agreement will be between AMO and the County.
. Eligible costs are those costs incurred after March 31,2005.
. The County will be permitted to carry over unexpended funds into subsequent years in
reserve accounts.
. An annual audited statement will be required.
. The County will ensure that funds will result in net incremental capital spending on
municipal infrastructure.
. The County will ensure that there is no reduction in capital funding.
CONCLUSION:
The Government of Canada, in conjunction with the Province of Ontario and the
Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), has announced the gas tax funding for
2005 to 2010. The County and lower tier Municipalities share equally in the tax available
within the geographic limits of the County. Council will be apprised of additional information
as it becomes available.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT the report titled Federal Gas Tax Allocation and dated June 21, 2005 be received
and filed.
Respectfully Submitted
~~
Linda B. Veger
Director of Financial Services
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM: Meredith Goodwin/ Construction Technologist
Sonia Beavers/ Purchasing Co-Ordinator
DATE: June 21/ 2005
SUBJECT: Avon Drive Reconstruction
Introduction
As part of the 2005 approved Budget/ a Request for Tender was issued as per the
County's Purchasing Policy. Sealed bids were received until Tuesday/ June 21/ 2005/
for labour/ equipment and material required for the reconstruction of Avon Drive
. (County Road # 37).
Discussion
Formal Bids were received as follows:
Birnam Excavating Limited submitted the lowest quotation at a total price of
$ 445/919.78 (including taxes). The total price includes labour/ equipment and material
required for the reconstruction of Avon Drive using methods described in the tender.
The Capital Budget allocation for the labour/ equipment and material required for the
reconstruction of Avon Drive is $ 580/000.00.
Conclusion
Birnam Excavating Limited submitted the lowest bid at a total price of $ 445/919.78
(taxes included) to provide labour/ materials and equipment necessary for the
reconstruction of Avon Drive. Therefore/ since Birnam Excavating Limited's bid is
favourable/ the recommendation would be to award the contract to Birnam Excavating
Limited.
Recommendation
THAT Birnam Excavating Limited be selected to provide labour, equipment and material
required for the reconstruction of Avon Drive (County Road # 37) at the quoted price of
$ 445,919.78 inclusive of all taxes and,
THAT the Warden and Chief Administrative Officer be directed and authorized to sign
the Agreement for the Reconstruction of Avon Drive.
Approved by,
(iJw f^ bAti J
edith win
Construction Technologist
~c__ ~~ ~~~
/Sonia Beavers
Purchasing Co-Ordinator
REPORT TO COUNCIL
FROM:
Melissa Lewis, Elgin Manor
Director of Senior Services
DATE:
June 22, 2005
SUBJECT:
In-Kind Support for the VON Great Community Walk
INTRODUCTION:
In previous years, the Homes and Seniors Services Department has provided in-kind
support to the annual VON Great Community Walk in the form of donated food items.
The County Homes also have an ongoing partnership with the VaN through the Meals
on Wheels Program.
DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION:
In June of 2005, the Middlesex/Elgin Branch of the VaN contacted our Homes to
request continued support for their annual event. The donated food items would be
used to feed the people who participate and volunteer at the walk. Monies raised during
the walk go to support community programs within Elgin County. Event sponsors are
recognized on promotional materials, including posters and a T-shirt for each participant.
Through discussion with the VaN Community Support Manager for Elgin County, it
became apparent that the Homes have historically provided food for this event and that
their timeframes for confirming support and printing materials was quickly approaching.
In light of this, staff contacted the VaN office the week of June 17th to confirm Elgin
County's support for 2005 by the requested deadline. Explanation regarding the new
process for grant applications through County Council for inclusion in annual budget
deliberations in future years was provided to the VaN. This information will be followed-
up with written materials for the VaN at the time of food delivery for the walk.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT the report entitled In-Kind Support for the VaN Great Community Walk be
received and filed.
Respectfully Submitted
~
Melissa Lewis, Elgin Manor
Director of Senior Services
1
Mc
Chief Administrative Officer
Approved fo
VON
MIDDLESEX-ELGIN
0\....(1::0 _
~<,., "'1$
" ~
{J ~
<t "
A BrilJlch of YON Can,'JI!a
I GO. 115'1 FklrenceSlreet, l.ondon, ON N5W 21'\-17
Tel: (;519) 659-1273 . Fax; (519)659-6191 . www.von.ca
. .
o(\~_..., .J'
....,44,. co.l'"
June 7, 2005
O'NWM&l.~
. ~f @1'}~
Melissa Lewis
Director of Senior Services
Elgin Manor
R.R. #1
81. Thol)las. ON N5P 3S5
900l;itu N n ("
Dear Ms. Lewis:
Tinle to dust off those tunningshbes - summer is here! And we want togivey.ou plenty
of notice. that once>again VON isproudtopres,ent our YON G feat COln.lllunity Walk
scheduleg for Sunday, Augus128, 2005.
I~ast year Elgin Manor and Terrace Lodge generously donated. gift~in-kind to this event.
With the help of these gifts we were able to feed the man)' people who came out to
Sllpport our event - they helped us raise $1 3 lOOO to supportVON community programs in
Elgin County, including Meals on Wheels! In return, we were able to note your
generosity on the promotional Items for the Walk, incIllcling t-13hirts that wel'e given to all
participants.
Plans are well underway to offer a Pork EBQ to 2005 walkers, and I'd like to ask that
you consider extending your gynerosity to us for another year, We are asking that Elgin
Manor donate cheese and veggie trays and thatTenace Lodge donate applesauce. We
will require enot1gh supplies to feed 100 people. Wi'th this gift, I am able to offer you
acknowledgnwrttOilall of our posters, as well as on this yeaes. Walk t-shirt. The
deadline for 1IlcIusiol1 on all ofth1s material is JUlle 17,2005.
I can be contacted at 637-6408 if you require any fllrth~rinformation.
Thank you for caring! -::::;1 ~~;;iu~6t~iI;
Sincerely,~Copy 0 Fonvrttd
':5i.w,- 6Y'a..k-- a{Admin --' Mark 0 Libraries - Cathy
o Finance - Linda 0 Engineering -- Clayton
Lynn Graham
Manager of Community Support, Elgin County 0 I-IR - Harley 0 IT -- Al {;"y-J
VON M'ddl El "B 1 IS{ Other: 'ek.~ (E( Other: (~..
. .. . l' . esex- gm ranc 1
DATE: OJ ~vQtf FROM: Meliss~ EM
ELGIN OFFICE
175 S. Edgeware Road
51. Thotll<ls, ON NSP 4C4
Tel: (519) 631-3270
VOLUNTEER PROGHAMS
Tel: i519;. 637-64013
Fil.x: i.S 1 f)) 63] -47'lH
MIDDLESEX OFFICE
174 I'lead Street North
5lrathroy, ON N7G 4L7
Tel: (519) 245-3'170
Fax: is J 9) 245-3164
FAMilY SUPPORTS PROGRAMS
100-115 1 Florence Street
London, ON NSW 2M7
Tel: (519) 657-4570
klH Free: 1-866-662-6605
Fax: (5 J 9) (157.803 J
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM:
Mark G. McDonald,
Chief Administrative Officer
DATE:
June 22, 2005
SUBJECT:
Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund (OMPF) - Status Report
Introduction:
As indicated to Council through previous reports, the newly created OMPF represents a
significant reduction in provincial unconditional grants to Elgin County. Potentially, the
Province of Ontario could eliminate $3.7M from the County's current grant of $5.8M by
2009. However, the exact amount of the financial loss has not been verified to date.
There is some speculation that the loss will be "capped" at no more than $1 M. The
purpose of this report is to update Council on several ongoing initiatives relative to the
OMPF program.
Discussion:
The Western Ontario Warden's Caucus will be discussing the merits of hiring a financial
expert to examine the implications of the program from a Southwestern Ontario
perspective, in the near future. The goal is to develop evidence of the unintended
consequences of the Fund and to illustrate the depth of the financial impact on local
economies.
The Eastern Ontario Warden's Caucus will be working on the development of a "Rural
Plan" to persuade the Provincial Government to give priority consideration to rural Ontario.
In May, a meeting was held with Minister Steve Peters to discuss the devastating impact of
the funding loss on the County and the City of St. Thomas. Mr. Peters agreed to organize
a meeting with senior Ministry of Finance bureaucrats to clarify the details of the program,
a meeting that would involve the City, the County and Lower-Tier Municipalities. This
meeting is expected to be announced in the coming weeks. Nevertheless, the minimum
loss to the County will be $1 M by 2008 and Mr. Peters should be encouraged to advocate
on the County's behalf at Queen's Park.
In June, the County Senior Management Team spent two and one half days focussing on
the potential loss of $3.7M in grants with a view to developing short, medium and long-
term plans to help mitigate the financial loss. A number of recommendations are being
investigated and cost/benefit analyses of options are currently being explored. A full report
is expected to be presented to Council this Fall.
2
In addition, the Chief Administrative Officer, with approval of the Warden, has agreed to an
invitation from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) to participate on their
Fiscal Advisory Group. The Group will be examining the OMPF from a province-wide
perspective, with a view to advising AMO on the implications of the program.
Finally, the rules and regulations regarding the use of the Federal Gas Tax remain
unknown at this time. It is estimated that the County will enjoy approximately $1.6M in
new revenue by 2009/10. This mayor may not influence our funding loss under OMPF.
Hopefully, this will be made clearer in the coming months.
Conclusion:
A number of proactive initiatives are at play while we sort out the impact of the OMPF. It is
hoped that the implications of the new program will be more fully understood in the next
few months. In the meantime, County staff are developing a plan to cope with the "worst
case" scenario for consideration by Council this Fall.
Recommendation:
THAT this report be received and filed for information purposes.
ALL of which is respectfully submitted,
Icer.
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL_
FROM: Clayton Watters, Director of Engineering Services
DATE: June 28, 2005
SUBJECT: Sunset Road Engineering
Introduction
As part of the approved 2005 Capital Budget, tenders were advertised per the County's
Purchasing Policy for engineering services for the Sunset Road. This project is part of our
approved COMRIF project. Tenders were received until Monday June 27, 2005.
Since the next County Council meeting is not until July 26, 2005 staff is requesting
approval of the engineering component of the Sunset Road Rehabilitation so that the
engineering firm has an additional month to complete the engineering component before
the public meetings and construction advertisement.
Discussion
Sunset Road between Bridge Street in Port Stanley and the City of St. Thomas limits is 11
kilometers long and will be rehabilitated in 2006 and 2007. The roadway is effectively at
the end of its lifecycle and must be rehabilitated.
The County of Elgin solicited prices for detailed design, construction inspection and
contract administration for the Sunset Road Rehabilitation Project. Staff estimated the
total project at $6,993,350, which is an approved COMRIF project.
The preliminary schedule includes surveying, design and public meeting before the tender
award in February. This requires an early start to the project so that engineering and
public input is complete before the project is advertised for construction.
The tender was publicly advertised as per the County's purchasing policy. Four companies
submitted tenders for this contract as follows:
Tender Bid
$394 081
$422650
$497 550
$529 650
Spriet Associates submitted the lowest tender at a total price of $394,081 (including all
taxes) to complete work on Sunset Road.
Conclusion
Since County Council does not meet until July 26, 2005 and due to the amount of work to
complete before the public meeting staff are requesting that approval be granted to
complete the engineering for the Sunset Road Rehabilitation Project.
As Council is aware, this COMRIF project is funded equally between the County of Elgin,
the Provincial Government and the Federal Government. Therefore, one third of this
engineering contract will be paid for by the County of Elgin.
Recommendation
THAT Spriet Associates be selected to provide engineering services, contract inspection
and contract administration for Sunset Road, Contract No. 6090-05-02 for their submitted
price of $394,081 inclusive of all taxes.
Respectfully Submitted,
Approved for
mN~
Clayton Watters,
Director, Engineering Services
Mark G.
Chief Administrative Officer.
CORRESPONDENCE - JUNE 28, 2005
Items for Consideration
1. Warden Patricia Davidson, County of Lambton, with a resolution concerning the costs
in the dissolution of District Health Councils and the establishing of the LHINs.
(ATTACHED)
85/15/2885 13:25
15198453872
LAMBTON COUNT'Y
PAGE 82
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY WARDEN
789 BI"I*Iway Street, Box 3000
Wyomiq. ON NONITO
Telophone: ($19> 845-0801
Fu.: (519) 845.3160
www.lambtODOaline.ca
June 13. 200S
Hon George Smitherman
Minister of Health and Long-Term Care
Hepburn Block, lOtb Floor
80 Grosvenor Street Toronto ON M7 A 2C4,
Dear Mr Smitherman:
Lambton County' Council endorsed the following recommendation at its June 1 ~ 2005 meeting:
"Thllt the County request an accountingfrom the Province regarding the costs of
a) devolving the District Health Councils;
b) the settlements paid out to their former employees; and
c) the 'cost of establishing the LHINs across the Province; and further
That this moh'on be circulated to other Municipalities in the Province as well as the County's
two MP.P.s. .,
At the May COmmUIlity Services Committee meeting, Councillors once again discussed a number of
questions related to the creation of the LHIN's and the dissolution of the District Health Councils.
Council has previOUSly requested an estimate of the costs involved in establishing the LHINs and to
date has received no specifics regarding the costs. The dissolution of the District Health Councils and
the subsequent severance payments made to their former employees, many who may be hired back by
the' new LHIN's Boards, again has Council concerned regarding the costs involved in this exercise.
The funds expended on this effort could have been more appropriately allocated to direct health care.
The fact that the DHS's were disbanded as of April 1, 2005 while the new LHINs are not yet
ope.rationalleaves a large void in the health care planning process. Local agencies are ill prepared and
understaffed to be providing planning services at the regional level.
The lack of available infonnation and the cost of the changes being implemented are of serious
concern to County Council. Council looks forward to your immediate response to these questions.
Yours truly,
~~
Patricia Davidson. Warden
cc: Maria Van Bommel, MPP Lambton-Kent-Middlesex Riding
Caroline Di Cocco, MPP Sarnia-Lambton Riding
-All Ontario Municipalities
CORRESPONDENCE - JUNE 28. 2005
Items for Information (Consent Aaenda)
1. Association of Municipalities of Ontario, Member Communication ALERT,
1) "Legislative Updates: - Bill 128 re: Marijuana Home Grow Operations
- Legislation to End Mandatory Retirement
2) AMO on the Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund
3) COMRIF Intake Two Launch Planned for Mid-June
4) COMRIF Intake Two Launched
5) AMO Secures $2.2 Billion Gas Tax Deal for Ontario Municipalities
2. Ontario Municipal Board, with its decision on a motion for costs on an appeal against
a Land Division Committee Decision. (ATTACHED)
3. Marie Hubbard, Chair, Ontario Municipal Board, advising the 2003-2004 Ontario
Municipal Board and Board of Negotiation Annual Report has been released.
(ATTACHED)
4. Greg Sorbara, Minister of Finance, acknowledging Council's correspondence
concerning the Community Reinvestment Fund (CRF) and the provincial gas tax fund
allocation. (ATTACHED)
5. Michael S. Raymond, Chair (2005), Western Ontario Warden's Caucus, with copy of
correspondence to Prime Minister Paul Martin, congratulating the government on the
passage of the Budget. (ATTACHED)
6. Ontario News Release Communique: (ATTACHED)
1) Government Supports Growth of Local Business
2) McGuinty Government Enhances Greenbelt Legacy
3) Ontario Government Strengthens Prosperity in West Nipissing
4) Ontario Strengthens Prosperity in Timmins
5) Ontario Invests in Building Stronger Communities in Ingersoll
6) Government Strengthens Prosperity in Hearst
7. City of London, with an invitation to tour the new Dearness Home on Wednesday,
July 6,2005 from 1 :00 to 3:00 p.m. (ATTACHED)
8. Centre for Advancement of Trenchless Technologies (CATT) and Benjamin Media
Inc., hosting the Niagara Falls Rehab Road Show - "Infrastructure Management and
Renewal", June 21-23,2005, at the Brock Plaza Hotel. (ATTACHED)
9. Ontario, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Press Release, June 16, 2005,
"Greenbelt Foundation Board Members". (ATTACHED)
10. Michael Coleman, President, Federation of Canadian Municipalities, MEMBERS'
ADVISORY, "Congratulations to Ontario's Municipalities", concerning the "New Deal"
for cities and communities. (ATTACHED)
2
11. Hicks Morley, Barristers & Solicitors, Client Update, June 10, 2005, The Overhaul of
OMERS.
12. AMO Member Communication ALERT, "MOE Releases Proposed Amendments
to Regulations 170".
Member Communication
j\,
F" Association of
l... \" . i Municip<;tlities
F:m.' ..... 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
June 9, 2005 - Alert 05/050
Legislative Updates:
· Bill 128 re: Marijuana Home Grow Operations
· Legislation to End Mandatory Retirement
Bill 128:
Issue: Bill 128, the Proposed Law Enforcement and Fortified Property Management Statute Law
Amendment Act, which addresses marijuana home grow operations, is being brought
forward for Third and Final Reading.
Background:
Bill 128 proposes amendments to seven pieces of legislation to address issues that have surfaced
with increasing instances of marijuana home grow operations. It addresses:
· enforcement powers;
· increased penalties for building, electricity and fire safety violations; and
· the Crown's authority to deal with forfeited property.
AMO Submission:
In May 2005, AMO submitted its position on Bill 128 to the Standing Committee on Justice Policy.
Recommendations focused on:
· liability protection;
· allowing municipalities to decide what type of inspector (not just building inspectors) should
inspect a home grow;
· respecting upper tier vs. lower tier jurisdiction;
· costrecovery;and
· consumer protection.
Amendments Going to Third and Final Reading:
Most of AMO's recommendations were supported by the amendments that came out of Committee.
We were successful in expanding some liability protection to municipalities and their staff,
broadening the definition of inspectors and differentiating the roles and responsibilities related to
upper and lower tier authorities. We will continue to advocate for cost recovery not only with the
Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, but also through the Municipal Act review.
.../2
- 2 -
Leaislation to End Mandatory Retirement:
Issue: On June 7, 2005 Minister of Labour, Chris Bentley, introduced legislation that would end
mandatory retirement at the age of 65. The intention of the legislation is to provide greater
choice to workers, without compromising existing rights to pensions, early retirement or
benefit plans.
Implementation:
· The legislation would come into effect one year after receiving Royal Assent, which would
allow for a transition period to amend workplace policies.
· Ending mandatory retirement would require changes to various Ontario statutes.
Municipal Impact:
As employers, municipalities would need to amend employment policies to eliminate any policy
related to mandatory retirement, unless under the Human Rights Code mandatory retirement is a
"bona fide occupational requirement".
Municipalities should also be aware of the following points:
· Collective agreements would no longer be permitted to include provIsions requiring
mandatory retirement (unless otherwise indicated in the Human Rights Code).
· Unions and employers could still negotiate voluntary retirement incentives.
· Existing mandatory retirement provisions would no longer be in effect one year after the
legislation receives Royal Assent.
· This would not have an effect on pension benefits; employees could continue to pay into
pension plans and accrue benefits past age 65, subject to service/contribution caps.
AMO will be reviewing the Bill and will advise members of any significant issues.
Additional Information:
Additional information about the legislation to end mandatory retirement can be found on the
Ministry of Labour's website. (www.Qov.on.ca/lab)
This information is available in the Policy Issues section of the AMO website at www.amo.on.ca
For more information, contact: Sherri Hanley, Senior Policy Advisor at 416-971-9856 extension 315
Member Communication
L llitr' Association of
\ · C"~), . \ ..... Municip~lities
_,__!ft!. ........./ of Ontano
Alert
393 University Avenue, Suite 1701
Toronto, ON MOO 1E6
Tel: (416) 971-9856' fax: (416) 971-6191
email: amo@amo.on.ca
To the immediate attention of the Clerk and Council
May 17, 2005 - Alert 05/041
AMO on the Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund
Issue: The Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund (OMPF) will have serious financial impacts
on many municipalities.
Background:
The Government announced the replacement of the Community Reinvestment Fund (CRF) with
the OMPF on March 31, 2005. When the OMPF was announced, AMO stressed that it would
reserve judgment until it received more detail about how the program would impact
municipalities. While there are some positive impacts on a regional basis, the impacts on
individual municipalities facing reductions cannot be ignored. In a good number of cases, the
impact on municipalities is significant and unsustainable.
AMO's position on the OMPF is that, like its predecessor the CRF, it fails to bridge the
significant gap between the true costs municipalities incur funding provincial health and social
service programs and the insufficient revenue that they receive from the Ontario Government.
As municipalities are all too aware, this situation was aggravated by massive downloading by
the previous government of costs and programs ranging from drug and disability benefits to
5,000 km of provincial roads and related bridges.
In discussions with the Government prior to the announcement of the OMPF, AMO indicated
that replacing the CRF with something better would require some very bold moves. First, it
would require a lot more money than was available in the CRF. Second, it would need to start
to address the fundamental problems with provincial-municipal cost-sharing. Third, it would
take time to get it right and give municipalities time to adjust.
Ultimately, AMO seeks to reduce the Province's reliance on municipal property taxes to pay for
provincial health, social services and income redistribution programs. In the meantime, the
fiscal imbalance between the Province and Ontario's municipalities limits the ability of
municipalities to fund and invest in key local services and infrastructure. The OMPF offers
partial mitigation in some communities.
As much as AMO appreciates the positive intent of the OMPF, AMO has not lent its support to
what it sees as a partial measure that ignores the fundamental and unworkable problems
associated with using the municipal property tax base to finance provincial programs. Tax
experts agree that property taxes are the most regressive form of taxation and are not
conducive to the dynamic pressures brought about by downloaded provincial costs.
Action: AMO will continue to work towards addressing the fundamental problems with current
provincial-municipal fiscal arrangements.
For more information, contact: Brian Rosborough. AMO Senior Policy Advisor at 416-971-9856 extension 318
J [......"-....~..../ r.....'.........' Association of
.. tr{~, . Municip~lities
it; r .... of Ontario
t
393 University Avenue, Suite 1701
Toronto, ON M5G 1E6
Tel: (416) 971-9856' fax: (416) 971-6191
email: amo@amo.on.ca
To the immediate attention of the Clerk and Council
May 30, 2005 - Alert 05/046
COMRIF Intake Two Launch Planned for Mid-June
Issue:
The launch of the second of three application intakes for the Canada-Ontario Municipal Rural
Infrastructure Fund (COMRIF) is anticipated for mid-June.
Background:
AMO has been working with federal and provincial officials on the development of COMRIF
Intake Two.
It is expected that the Intake Two application process will be launched in mid-June. Applicants
are expected to have until the end of September 2005 to complete and submit Intake Two
applications.
As in Intake One, all municipalities of fewer than 250,000 people will be eligible to apply for
Intake Two.
The application process will include a number of improvements recommended by individual
municipalities and by AMO.
Additional details about Intake Two will be available at the time of the mid-June announcement.
The COMRIF Joint Secretariat received over 350 applications when Intake One closed on
January 10, 2005. On April 25, 2005, the governments of Canada and Ontario announced
investments of up to $249 million in 120 communities under COMRIF Intake One.
As previously announced, Intake Three is planned for Spring 2006.
Action: AMO will keep municipalities informed of developments. Municipalities should begin
planning for COMRIF Intake Two applications.
Additional information about COMRIF is available at www.comrif.ca.
This information is available in the Policy Issues section of the AMO website at www.amo.on.ca
For more information, contact: Brian Rosborough, AMO Senior Policy Advisor at 416-971-9856 extension 318
Member Communication
Lm~'
~. Association of
~ / Municip<;1lities
I., \'" .../ 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
June 16, 2005 - Alert 05/053
COMRIF Intake Two launched
Issue:
The Government of Canada and the Government of Ontario today launched Intake Two of the
Canada-Ontario Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund (COMRIF) program.
Background:
The Heads of Council of all municipalities eligible for COMRIF were sent a letter today
launching COMRIF Intake Two. The letter signed by the Honourable Joe Comuzzi, Minister of
State (Federal Economic Development Initiative in Northern Ontario), and the Honourable John
Gerretsen, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, provides comprehensive information and
material related to the Intake Two application process.
The priorities for Intake Two are the same as for Intake One: local bridges and roads, solid
waste management, water and wastewater. Projects must also be supportive of federal and
provincial policy directions such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions, sustainable water and
sewage systems, economic development and increased waste diversion.
As a result of feedback from municipalities, a series of improvements are being made to the
COMRIF on-line application process. Additional time is also being provided to complete Intake
Two applications.
The deadline for applications for Intake Two is September 30, 2005.
Canada and Ontario also issued a news release today on the Intake Two launch which is
available along with other information about COMRIF Intake Two on the COMRIF website at
www.comrif.ca.
The COMRIF Joint Secretariat received over 350 applications when Intake One closed on
January 10, 2005. On April 25, 2005, the governments of Canada and Ontario announced
investments of up to $249 million in 120 communities under COMRIF Intake One.
As previously announced, Intake Three is planned for Spring 2006.
Action: For your information.
This information is available in the Policy Issues section of the AMO website at www.amo.on.ca
For more information, contact: Brian Rosborough, AMO Senior Policy Advisor at 416-971-9856 extension 318
Member Communication
1m'
r..... . m" Association of
\,' Municipalities
"m/ 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
June 17, 2005 - Alert 05/054
AMO Secures $ 2.2 Billion Gas Tax Deal for Ontario Municipalities
Issue:
AMO President Roger Anderson today signed agreements with Canada, Ontario and City of Toronto
that will result in $2.2 billion in municipal infrastructure funding for Ontario municipalities over the next
five years.
Highlights of Today's Announcement:
As an important step in Canada's New Deal for municipalities, two Federal gas tax agreements were
signed in Ontario today subject to the passage of the Budget Bills and the approval of appropriations of
the funds by the Parliament of Canada.
The first agreement covers the distribution of the five-cents a litre gas tax revenue for environmentally
sustainable municipal infrastructure announced in the February 2005 Federal Budget. This agreement
will result in a New Deal investment over five years of nearly $1.9 billion. Approximately $224 million will
be provided to municipalities in 2005.
These funds will be allocated to all 445 Ontario municipalities on a per capita basis. The allocation will
be shared 50:50 between upper-tier municipalities and lower-tier municipalities where two tiers of
municipal government exist. The agreement stipulates that the per capita allocation is based on 2001
National Census data from Statistics Canada - the most reliable data source, and the one used to
determine the national allocation among Canada's provinces and territories.
As announced in the Federal Budget Speech, the agreement sets out eligible infrastructure categories
which include water, wastewater, waste management, community energy, capacity building, and transit.
In Ontario, roads and bridges are also eligible for municipalities of less than 500,000 population. Project
areas, eligible costs and the other terms and cqnditions that municipalities must agree to in order to
receive funding are specified in the agreement.
AMO has agreed to administer the distribution of funding and funding agreements for Ontario's
municipal governments, with the exception of the City of Toronto, which will work directly with the
Federal Government. Attached is a summary of the anticipated allocation to each municipality that will
receive funding through AMO.
A second agreement is an agreement in principle on the distribution of the additional 1-cent a litre gas
tax revenue for 2005/06 and 2006/07 for municipal transit. This additional funding of approximately $310
million over two years stems from the Martin-Layton budget amendment. A preliminary allocation to
municipalities providing transit services, based on transit ridership, is contained in the agreement in
principle. A final agreement will be required before this funding can be distributed.
Next Steps:
AMO will continue to work with the Government of Canada towards the goal of flowing gas tax funding
to municipalities and to put the related operational structure in place. AMO will keep members informed
of all developments.
For additional information, including today's news release from the Government of Canada, go to
www.amo.on.ca
For more information, contact: Pat Vanini, AMO Executive Director 416-971-9856 extension 316, or
Brian Rosborough, AMO Senior Policy Advisor at 416-971-9856 extension 318
AMO Allocation of Federal New Deal Gas Tax Revenues For Environmentally Sustainable
Municipal Infrastructure (5 cents/litre by 2009-10)
6/16/2005
$16,469,145.76 $41,175,Q11;48
C $4,518,202.99 $11,296,112.98
LT Pickering C $849,577.58 $849,577.58 $1,132,643.63 $1,415,709.67 $2,831,419.34 $7,078,927.80
LT Ajax T $719,068.33 $719,068.33 $958,650.72 $1,198,233.11 $2,396,466.23 $5,991,486.73
LT Clarington M $680,859.33 $680,859.33 $907,711.07 $1,134,562.81 $2,269,125.63 $5,673,118.16
LT Whitby T $852,248.99 $852,248.99 $1,136,205.11 $1,420,161.23 $2,840,322,46 $7,101,186.79
LT Brock Tp $118,068.65 $118,068.65 $157,407.30 $196,745.94 $393,491.87 $983,782.41
LT Scugog Tp $196,680.34 $196,680.34 $262,211.18 $327,742.01 $655,484.02 $1,638,797.90
LT $282,316.61 $564,633.22 $1,411,658.71
$1,977,109;82 $3,9t;4,21~.64 $9,886,079.01
$1,420,859.83 $2,841,719.66 $7,104,679,!19
9.6,183.38 $12,1\12,366;76 $30,482,55G.ll4
$2,450,567.30 $4,901,134.60 $12,253,493.30
14 LT Halton Hills T 48,184 $469,778.70 $469,778.70 $626,301.66 $782,824.62 $1,565,649.24 $3,914,332.93
15 LT MiltonT 31,471 $306,832.26 $306,832.26 $409,064.00 $511,295.73 $1,022,591,47 $2,556,615.71
16 LT Oakville T 144,738 $1,411,149.54 $1,411,149.54 $1,881,322.63 $2,351,495.73 $4,702,991,45 $11,758,108.90
17 STHamiltonC 490,268 $9,559,9H65 $9,559,914.65 $12,745,129.62 $15,930,344.59 $31,860,689.17 $79,65~'~~~;E;!
18 pr:;NiagaraR 41Q,$7<l $4,oQ2,96~!13: $4,OO2;9~~.13 $5,336,692'22 $6;~10;41a.32 $13,340,836.64 $33;353;8711:44
19 LT Niagara Falls C 78,815 $768,421.22 $768,421.22 $1,024,447.23 $1,280,473.24 $2,560,946,48 $6,402,709.40
20 LT Port Colbome C 18,450 $179,881.64 $179,881.64 $239,815,41 $299,749.18 $599,498.35 $1,498,826.22
21 LT SI. Catharines C 129,170 $1,259,366,48 $1,259,366,48 $1,678,967.82 $2,098,569.16 $4,197,138.32 $10,493,408.27
22 LT Weiland C 48,402 $471,904.13 $471,904.13 $629,135.25 $786,366.37 $1,572,732.75 $3,932,042.64
23 LT Thorold C 18,048 $175,962.27 $175,962.27 $234,590.16 $293,218.06 $586,436.11 $1,466,168.87
24 LT Fort Erie T 28,143 $274,385.31 $274,385.31 $365,806.24 $457,227.16 $914,454.31 $2,286,258.33
25 LT Grimsby T 21,297 $207,638.99 $207,638.99 $276,821.07 $346,003.15 $692,006.31 $1,730,108.51
26 LT Uncaln T 20,612 $200,960.46 $200,960.46 $267,917.36 $334,874.26 $669,748.51 $1,674,461.03
27 LT Niagara-on-the-Lake T 13,839 $134,925.86 $134,925.86 $179,881.05 $224,836.25 $449,672.50 $1,124,241.52
28 LT Pelham T 15,272 $148,897.15 $148,897.15 $198,507.37 $248,117.58 $496,235.17 $1,240,654.42
29 LT Wainfleet Tp 6,258 $61,013.51 $61,013.51 $81,342.27 $101,671.02 $203,342.04 $508,382.36
30 Tp $398,625.79 $996,617.89
31 $125,766,873.55
$80;339,359.94
$26,436,857.38
34 612,925 $5,975,824.13 $5,975,824.13 $7,966,875.84 $9,957,927.56 $19,915,855.11 $49,792,306.77
35 $493,285.18 $493,285.18 $657,640.14 $821,995.10 $1,643,990.19 $4,110,195.80
36 $4,035,111.97 $5,043,552.01 $10,087, .02 $25,219,111,85
37 872;84. $7.124,363.67 $ 34 $35,623,727.87
38 L T Cambridge C $1,076,091 ;95 $1,076,091.95 $1,434,629.07 $1,793,166.18 $3,586,332.36 $8,966,311.51
39 LT Kitchener C 190,399 $1,856,329.79 $1,856,329.79 $2,474,830.03 $3,093,330.26 $6,186,660.52 $15,467,480.39
40 LT Waterloo C 86,543 $643,766.77 $643,766.77 $1,124,896.74 $1,406,026.72 $2,812,053.43 $7,030,510.43
41 LT North Dumfries Tp 8,769 $85,494.97 $85,494.97 $113,980.56 $142,466.15 $284,932.31 $712,368.95
42 LT Wellesley Tp 9,365 $91,305.78 $91 ,305.78 $121,727.44 $152,149.11 $304,298.21 $760,786.32
43 LT Wilmot Tp 14,866 $144,938.78 $144,938.78 $193,230.13 $241,521.48 $483,042.95 $1,207,672.12
47 LT Aurora T 40,167 $391,615.50 $391,615.50 $522,095.69 $652,575.89 $1,305,151.78 $3,263,054.35
48 LT Markham T 208,615 $2,033,930.01 $2,033,930.01 $2,711,603.87 $3,389,277.74 $6,778,555.48 $16,947,297.10
49 LT Newmarket T 65,788 $641,412.11 $641,412.11 $855,120.66 $1,068,829.20 $2,137,658.40 $5,344,432.48
50 LT Richmond Hill T 132,030 $1,287,250.58 $1,287,250.58 $1,716,142.46 $2,145,034.34 $4,290,068.69 $10,725,746.65
51 LT Whitchurch - Stouffville T 22,008 $214,571.01 $214,571.01 $286,062.74 $357,554.46 $715,108.93 $1,787,868.15
52 LT East Gwillimbury T 20,555 $200,404.72 $200,404.72 $267,176.46 $333,948.20 $667,896.40 $1,669,830.51
53 LT Georgina T 39,263 $382,801.78 $382,801.78 $510,345.39 $637,888.99 $1,275,777.98 $3,189,615.92
54 LT King Tp 18,533 $180,690.87 $180,690.87 $240,894.25 $301,097.64 $602,195.28 $1,505,568.91
55 lJr:MLJskQkaO 52;921 $515.$62;95 $515;S62;95 $687.873.78 $859,784.61 $1;719,569,23 $4,299,153.51
56 LT Bracebridge T 13,751 $134,067.88 $134,067.88 $178,737.22 $223,406.55 $446,813.11 $1,117,092.65
57 LT Gravenhurst T 10,899 $106,261.79 $106,261.79 $141,666.57 $177,071.34 $354,142.68 $885,404.17
58 LT Huntsville T 17,338 $169,039.99 $169,039.99 $225,361.49 $281,682.99 $563,365.98 $1,408,490.46
59 LT Georgian Bay Tp 1,991 $19,411.62 $19,411.62 $25,879.27 $32,346.92 $64,693.83 $161,743.25
60 LT Lake of Bays Tp 2,900 $28,274.08 $28,274.08 $37,694.56 $47,115.05 $94,230.09 $235,587.86
61 $58,907.58 $58,907.58 $78,534.67 $98,161.76 $196,323.53 $490,835.12
$967,850.98 $967,8$0.98 $1 ,290,323,88 $1,612;796.78 $3,225;593,57 $a.o64,416:19
63 $322,334.25 $322,334.25 $429,731.01 $537,127.78 $1,074,255.55 $2,685,782.85
64 LT Ingersoll T 10,977 $107,022.26 $107,022.26 $142,680.42 $178,338.57 $356,677.15 $891,740.67
65 LT Tillsonburg T 14,052 $137,002.54 $137,002.54 $182,649.65 $228,296.77 $456,593.54 $1,141,545.04
66 LT Blandford - Blenheim Tp 7,630 $74,390.08 $74,390.08 $99,175.69 $123,961.31 $247,922.62 $619,839.79
67 LT East Zorra - Tavistock Tp 7,238 $70,568.20 $70,568.20 $94,080.43 $117,592.66 $235,185.32 $587,994.81
68 LT Norwich Tp 10,478 $102,157.17 $102,157.17 $136,194.36 $170,231.54 $340,463.07 $851,203.31
69 LT South-West Oxford Tp 7,782 $75,872.03 $75,872.03 $101,151.41 $126,430.79 $252,861.58 $632,187.84
70 LT Zorra T p 8,052 $78,504.44 $78,504.44 $104,660.90 $130,817.36 $261,634.73 $654,121.88
71 ST Brantford C 86,417 $1,685,076.62 $1,685,076.62 $2,246,517.96 $2,807,959.30 $5,615,918.59 $14,040,549.08
72 ST . Brant CQunlyC 31,669 $617,525.39 $617,525.39 $823,275.25 $1,029,025.11 $2,058,050.22 $5,145,401.36
73 PTBrllceCb 62,628 $610.1>03.11 $610,603.11 $814,046c58 $1,017,490.05 . $2,034,980009 $5,087,722.95
74 LT The South Bruce Peninsula T 8,090 $78,874.93 $78,874.93 $105,154.83 $131,434.73 $262,869.47 $657,208.89
75 LT Saugeen Shores T 11,388 $111,029.38 $111,029.38 $148,022.65 $185,015.91 $370,031.83 $925,129.16
76 LT Arran-Elderslie M 6,577 $64,123.66 $64,123.66 $85,488.67 $106,853.68 $213,707.35 $534,297.02
NOTE - 1) Figures are not final and are subject to change.
2) Figures reflect 99% of total AMO allocation pending determination of administration costs Page 1 of 6
158 ST Chatham-Kent M 107,341 $2,093,081. .3 $2,093,081.33 $2,790,463.50 $3,487,845.66 $6,975,691.33 .1
159 UTLambtonCo 123,611 $1 ,205,168.00 $1,205:168.00 $1.606,711.24 $2,008,254.49 $4:016,508.98 $1M41;81 11.71
160 LT Samia C 70,876 $691,018.49 $691,018.49 $921,255.12 $1,151,491.74 $2,302,983.48 $5,757,767.32
161 LT Lambton Shores M 10,571 $103,063.89 $103,063.89 $137,403.18 $171,742.47 $343,484.94 $858,758.37
162 LT Petrolia T 4,849 $47,276.21 $47,276.21 $63,027.91 $78,779.61 $157,559.21 $393,919.15
163 LT Piympton-Wyoming T 7,359 $71,747.91 $71,747.91 $95,653.20 $119,558.49 $239,116.98 $597,824.51
164 LT Oil Springs V 758 $7,390.26 $7,390.26 $9,852.58 $12,314.90 $24,629.80 $61,577.79
165 LT Point Edward V 2,101 $20,484.08 $20,484.08 $27,309.06 $34,134.04 $68,268.08 $170,679.34
166 LT Enniskillen Tp 3,259 $31,774.22 $31,774.22 $42,360.89 $52,947.56 $105,895.13 $264,752.01
167 LT Dawn-Euphemia Tp 2,369 $23,097.00 $23,097.00 $30,792.56 $38,488.12 $76,976.24 $192,450.91
168 LT Warwick Tp 4,025 $39,242.47 $39,242.47 $52,317.45 $65,392.44 $130,784.87 $326,979.70
169 LT Brooke-Alvinston M 2,785 $27,152.87 $27,152.87 $36,199.78 $45,246.69 $90,493.38 $226,245,58
$190,539.52 $238,158.44 $476,316.87 $1,190,856.02
$296,987.26 015.90
$118,061.97 $147,567.58 $295,135.15 $737,877.43
Perth T 6,003 $58,527.34 $78,027.75 $97,528.15 $195,056.29 $487,666.87
Mississippi Mills T 11,647 $113,554.55 $151.389.16 $189,223.77 $378,447.55 $946,169.59
Beckwith Tp 6,046 $58,946.58 $78,586.66 $98,226.75 $196,453.50 $491,160.07
Montague Tp 3,671 $35,791.08 $47,716.12 $59,641.15 $119,282.30 $298,221.74
Lanark Highlands Tp 4,795 $46,749.73 $62,326.01 $77,902.29 $155,804.59 $389,532.34
Drummond-North Elmsley Tp 6,670 $65,030.38 $86,697.49 $108,364.61 $216,729.21 $541,852.08
$53,038.27 $70,709.80 $88381.33 $176,762.66 $441,930.33
'9'7'
$416,798.93 .85 $694,54 $P89,081.$5 $$;47
$100 $100,753.22 $J34;322.63 $167,~92,.p3 $339,784.06 $83
$82, $82,443.31 $JP9,~J2;15 $137,380.98 $274;761[95 $686,
185 LT Westport V $6,308.04 $6,308.04 $8,409.79 $10,511.53 $21,023.06 $52,560.46
186 LT Merrickville-Wolford V 2,812 $27,416.11 $27,416.11 $36,550.73 $45,685.35 $91,370.70 $228,438.99
187 LT Augusta Tp 7,635 $74,438.83 $74,438.83 $99,240.69 $124,042.55 $248,085.09 $620,245.97
188 LT Front of Yonge Tp 2,639 $25,729.41 $25,729.41 $34,302.05 $42,874.69 $85,749.38 $214,384.95
189 LT North Grenville Tp 13,581 $132,410.44 $132,410.44 $176,527.54 $220,644.64 $441,289.27 $1,103,282.32
190 LT Rideau Lakes Tp 9,687 $94,445.17 $94,445.17 $125,912.84 $157,380.50 $314,761.00 $786,944.69
191 LT Athens Tp 3,053 $29,765.78 $29,765.78 $39,683.28 $49,600.77 $99,201.54 $248,017.15
192 LT EdwardsburghlCardinal Tp 6,674 $65,069.38 $65,069.38 $86,749.49 $108,429.59 $216,859.19 $542,177.03
193 LT Leeds and the Thousand Islands 1 9,069 $88,419.87 $88,419.87 $117,880.00 $147,340.12 $294,680.25 $736,740.11
194 L T Elizabethtown-Kitley Tp 10,039 $97,877.06 $97,877.06 $130,488.18 $163,099.29 $326,198.59 $815,540.18
195 I.jt.'Lll"no*'ahd'",d4irlgtb9Cb 39,461 $3~4',m:2? $384,7321:12 $51:1,919102 $$41,i051~i .'. $1,282,211'62 $~,2115i7t)1l;119
196 LT Greater Napanee T 15,132 $147,532.20 $147,532.20 $196,687.63 $245,843.06 $491,686.13 $1,229,281.21
197 LT Addington Highlands Tp 2,402 $23,418.74 $23,418.74 $31,221.50 $39,024.26 $78,048.51 $195,131.74
198 LT Loyalist Tp 14,590 $142,247.87 $142,247.87 $189,642.65 $237,037.42 $474,074.85 $1,185,250.65
199 LT Stone 7,337 $71,533.42 $119,201.07 $238,402.14 $596,037.29
.n51 .. ;$'5~414;1~319$
201 4.70 $54,678.!l67.66
202 LT Newbury V 422 $4,114.37 $13,712.10 $34,282.10
203 LT Middlesex Centre Tp 14,242 $138,854.98 $138,854.98 $185,119.30 $462,767.24 $1,156,980.11
204 LT Lucan Biddulph Tp 4,201 $40,958.42 $40,958.42 $54,605.12 $136,503.66 $341,277.45
205 LT Adelaide-Metcalfe Tp 3,149 $30,701.75 $30,701.75 $40,931.10 $102,320.88 $255,815.92
206 LT North Middlesex M 6,901 $67,282.56 $67,282.56 $89,700.06 $224,235.13 $560,617.87
207 LT Southwest Middlesex M 6,144 $59,902.05 $59,902.05 $79,860.48 $199,637.82 $499,121.32
208 LT Strathroy-Caradoc Tp 19,114 $186,355.43 $186,355.43 $248,446.16 $621,073.79 $1,552,767.71
209 LT M
Cobourg
LT Brighton M 9,449 $92,124.75 $122,819.28 $153,513.82 $307,027.64 $767,610.24
LT Trent Hills M 12,569 $122,543.76 $163,373.43 $204,203.11 $408,406.22 $1,021,070.28
LT Port Hope and Hope T 15,605 $152,143.79 $202,835.74 $253,527.69 $507,055.38 $1,267,706.40
LT Hamilton Tp 10,785 $105,150.33 $140,184.78 $175,219.23 $350,438.47 $876,143.13
LT Alnwick-Haldimand Tp 5,846 $56,996.64 $75,987.04 $94,977.44 $189,954.87 $474,912.63
LT $55,699.94 $74,258.29 $92,816.64 $185,633.28 $464,108.09
$387,621':53 $4~O,107;31.... ;08 "$1,225,186.17 $3;063;12~;61
$578,663.15 $771,464.72 .29 $1.928,532.58 $4,821,589.90
.50 $122,709.50 $163,$94.40 $204,479.30 $408,958.60 $1,022,451.32
221 North Perth T 12,055 $117,532.42 $117,532.42 $156,692.40 $195,852.37 $391,704.75 $979,314.37
222 LT Perth East Tp 12,218 $119,121.62 $119,121.62 $158,811.09 $198,500.57 $397,001.13 $992,556.03
223 LT Perth South Tp 4,304 $41,962.63 $41,962.63 $55,943.93 $69,925.23 $139,850.46 $349,644.88
224 LT West Perth M 9,129 $89,004.85 $89,004.85 $118,659.88 $148,314.92 $296,629.83 $741,614.34
225 I,.ITPet~rboroughCo 53,168 $518;371':12 $518,371.12 $691,084.32 $863,797.52 $1,727,595.03 $4,319,219.10
226 SF P~terborough C 71.446 $1,393,151.63 $1,393,151.63 $1,857,328.10 $2,321,504.56 $4,643,009.13 $11,608,145.04
227 LT Asphodel-Norwood Tp 3,985 $38,852.48 $38,852.48 $51,797.53 $64,742.57 $129,485.15 $323,730.22
228 LT North Kawartha T p 2,144 $20,903.32 $20,903.32 $27,867.98 $34,832.64 $69,665.28 $174,172.54
229 LT Cavan-Millbrook-North Monaghan 8,453 $82,414.07 $82,414.07 $109,873.15 $137,332.24 $274,664.47 $686,698.00
230 LT Douro-Dummer Tp 6,652 $64,854.89 $64,854.89 $86,463.53 $108,072.17 $216,144.34 $540,389.81
231 LT Galway-Cavendish and Harvey T~ 4,372 $42,625.61 $42,625.61 $56,827.80 $71,029.99 $142,059.99 $355,169.01
232 LT Havelock-Belmont-Methuen Tp 4,479 $43,668.83 $43,668.83 $58,218.60 $72,768.38 $145,536.75 $363,861.39
233 LT Otonabee-South Monaghan Tp 6,669 $65,020.63 $65,020.63 $86,684.50 $108,348.36 $216,696.72 $541,770.84
234 L T Smith-Ennismore-Lakefield Tp 16,414 $160,031.29 $160,031.29 $213,351.23 $266,671.16 $533,342.33 $1,333,427.29
235 I,.IF Prescottand Russelll,.lCo 76,446 $745,324;23 $745,324.23 $993,6.54.67 $1.241,985.12 $2,483,970.24 $8,210,258.49
236 LT Clarence-Rockland C 19,612 $191,210.77 $191,210.77 $254,919.23 $318,627.69 $637,255.37 $1,593,223.84
237 LT Hawkesbury T 10,314 $100,558.22 $100,558.22 $134,062.66 $167,567.10 $335,134.20 $837,880.41
238 LT Casselman V 2,910 $28,371.58 $28,371.58 $37,824.54 $47,277.51 $94,555.02 $236,400.23
NOTE - 1) Figures are not final and are subject to change.
2) Figures reflect 99% of total AMO allocation pending determination of administration costs Page 3 of 6
LT East Hawkesbury Tp 3,415 $33,295.17 $33,295.17 $44,388.60 $55,482.03 $110,964.06 $277,425.02
LT Russell Tp 12,412 $121,013.06 $121,013.06 $161,332.73 $201,652.40 $403,304.80 $1,008,316.04
L T Alfred and Plantagenet Tp 8,593 $83,779.02 $83,779.02 $111,692.89 $139,606.76 $279,213.51 $698,071.20
L T Champlain Tp 8,591 $83,759.52 $83,759.52 $111,666.89 $139,574.26 $279,148.53 $697,908.73
L T The Nation M 10,599 $103,336.88 $103,336.88 $137,767.13 $172,197.37 $344,394.74 $861,033.01
24,901 $485,553,69 $485,553.69 ,332.63 $809,111.57 $1,618,223.14 $4,045,774.71
81,205 $791,722.96 $791;722.96 ;512.75 $1;319,302.54 $2,638;605.07 $6,596;866.29
em ro e 13,490 $263,046.43 $263,046.43 350,689.42 $438,332.40 $876,664.80 $2,191,779.48
L T Arnprior T 7,192 $70,119.72 $70,119.72 $93,482.52 $116,845.32 $233,690.63 $584,257.89
LT Deep River T 4,135 $40,314.94 $40,314.94 $53,747.25 $67,179.56 $134,359.12 $335,915.79
LT Renfrew T 7,942 $77,431.98 $77,431.98 $103,231.11 $129,030.24 $258,060.48 $645,185.79
LT Petawawa T 14,398 $140,375.93 $140,375.93 $187,147.01 $233,918.08 $467,836.17 $1,169,653.11
LT Laurentian Hills T 2,750 $26,811.63 $26,811.63 $35,744.84 $44,678.06 $89,356.12 $223,402.28
LT Head, Clara and Maria Tp 228 $2,222.93 $2,222.93 $2,963.57 $3,704.22 $7,408.43 $18,522.08
LT Horton Tp 2,567 $25,027.43 $25,027.43 $33,366.19 $41,704.94 $83,409.88 $208,535.88
LT McNab-Braeside Tp 6,843 $66,717.08 $66,717.08 $88,946.17 $111,175.26 $222,350.53 $555,906.11
LT Brudenell, Lynoch and Raglan Tp 1,565 $15,258.25 $15,258.25 $20,342.07 $25,425.88 $50,851.76 $127,136.21
LT North Algona-Wilberforce Tp 2,729 $26,606.88 $26,606.88 $35,471.88 $44,336.88 $88,673.77 $221,696.30
L T Admaston/Bromley Tp 2,824 $27,533.10 $27,533.10 $36,706.71 $45,880.31 $91,760.61 $229,413.83
LT Laurentian Valley Tp 8,733 $85,143.98 $85,143.98 $113,512.63 $141,881.28 $283,762.55 $709,444.41
LT Killaloe, Hagarty and Richards Tp 2,492 $24,296.21 $24,296.21 $32,391.33 $40,486.45 $80,972.89 $202,443.09
LT Madawaska Valley Tp 4,406 $42,957.10 $42,957.10 $57,269.74 $71,582.38 $143,164.76 $357,931.07
LT Bonnechere Valley Tp 3,591 $35,011.11 $35,011.11 $46,676.27 $58,341.42 $116,682.85 $291,722.76
L T Whitewater Region Tp 6,520 $63,567.93 $63,567.93 $84,747.78 $105,927.62 $211,855.24 $529,666.50
LT Greater Madawaska Tp $22,326.77 $74,409.28
268 LT Midland T 16,214 $158,081.35 $158,081.35 $210,751.60 $263,421.85 $526,843.70 $1,317,179.85
269 LT Penetanguishene T 8,316 $81,078.36 $81,078.36 $108,092.41 $135,106.46 $270,212.92 $675,568.50
270 LT Wasaga Beach T 12,419 $121,081.31 $121,081.31 $161,423.72 $201,766.13 $403,532.25 $1,008,884.70
271 LT InnisfilT 28,666 $279,484.40 $279,484.40 $372,604.25 $465,724.11 $931,448.22 $2,328,745.39
272 LT Bradford-West Gwillimbury T 22,228 $216,715.94 $216,715.94 $288,922.33 $361,128.71 $722,257.42 $1,805,740.33
273 LT New T ecumseth T 26,141 $254,866.45 $254,866.45 $339,783.99 $424,701.53 $849,403.06 $2,123,621.47
274 LT Essa Tp 16,808 $163,872.66 $163,872.66 $218,472.49 $273,072.31 $546,144.62 $1,365,434.75
275 LT Tiny Tp 9,035 $88,088.38 $88,088.38 $117,438.06 $146,787.74 $293,575.48 $733,978.04
276 LT Adjala-Tosorontio Tp 10,082 $98,296.30 $98,296.30 $131,047.10 $163,797.90 $327,595.79 $819,033.38
277 LT Clearview Tp 13,796 $134,506.62 $134,506.62 $179,322.13 $224,137.65 $448,275.30 $1,120,748.32
278 LT Oro.Medonte Tp 18,315 $178,565.43 $178,565.43 $238,060.66 $297,555.89 $595,111.78 $1,487,859.20
279 LT Ramara Tp 8,615 $83,993.51 $83,993.51 $111,978.85 $139,964.18 $279,928.36 $699,858.42
280 LT Severn Tp 11,135 $108,562.71 $108,562.71 $144,734.12 $180,905.53 $361,811.06 $904,576,15
281 LT Springwater Tp 16,104 $157,008.89 $157,008.89 $209,321.81 $261,634.73 $523,269.46 $1,308,243.76
282 LT TayTp 9,162 $89,326.59 $89,326.59 $119,088.82 $148,851.05 $297,702.11 $744,295.17
283 lir...$torinoftt,'J:)llndasa.lJd..GI.~ng"trY.1 113i882 $622,829;22 $1l22;82!);22 .$83(1,346;2$ $1.037,863.24 $2,075,726049 $5;1811,5$4,39
284 ST.Cornwall C 45.M0 $889,951.02 $889,9$1,02 $1,186,468.86 $1,482,986.71 $2,965,973.41 $7,415,331.01
285 LT North Dundas Tp 11,014 $107,383.00 $107,383.00 $143,161.35 $178,939.70 $357,879.40 $894,746.45
286 LT South Dundas Tp 10,783 $105,130.83 $105,130.83 $140,158.78 $175,186.74 $350,373.48 $875,980.66
287 LT North Glengarry Tp 10,589 $103,239.39 $103,239.39 $137,637.15 $172,034.91 $344,069.81 $860,220.64
288 LT South Glengarry Tp 12,700 $123,820.97 $123,820.97 $165,076.19 $206,331.41 $412,662.82 $1,031,712.36
289 LT North Stormont Tp 6,855 $66,834.07 $66,834.07 $89,102.15 $111,370.22 $222,740.44 $556,880.96
290 11,941 $116,420.96 $116,420.96 $155,210.61 $194,000.27 $388,000.53 $970,053.33
291 $1,348;946.$7 $1'348,~4e.s7 $j,798;394;6 $2;247,842.62 $ $11,2 61
292 $791i11~.4~' .. $1, 95.25
293 ST $2,070,247.58 $2,070,247.58 $2,760,021 $:3,419,796.20 .41 $17,24 , 5.65
294 LT Erin 11,052 $107,753.49 $107,753.49 $143,655.28 $179,557.07 $359,114.13 $897,833.46
295 LT MintoT 8,164 $79,596.41 $79,596.41 $106,116.69 $132,636.98 $265,273.96 $663,220.45
296 LT Puslinch Tp 5,885 $57,376.88 $57,376.88 $76,493.97 $95,611.05 $191,222.10 $478,080.88
297 LT Centre Wellington Tp 24,260 $236,527.30 $236,527.30 $315,334.52 $394,141.73 $788,283.47 $1,970,814,31
298 LT Guelph/Eramosa Tp 11,174 $108,942.95 $108,942.95 $145,241.05 $181,539.15 $363,078.30 $907,744.40
299 LT Mapleton Tp 9,303 $90,701.30 $90,701.30 $120,921.56 $151,141.82 $302,283.64 $755,749.61
300 L T Wellington North Tp 11,305 $110,220.16 $110,220.16 $146,943.80 $183,667.45 $367,334.90 $918,386.47
301 ST SaultSte.MarieC 74,566 $1,453,989.65 $1.453,989.65 $1,938,436.40 $2,422,883.15 $4,845,766.29 $12,115,065.13
302 ST Elliot Lake C 11,956 $233,134.41 $233,134.41 $310,811.17 $388,487.93 $776,975.86 $j,942,543.77
303 ST. Blind RiverT 3,969 $77,392.98 $77,392.98 $103,179.12 $128,965.26 $257,930.51 $644,860.84
304 STBruce MinesT $12,226.1 0 $12,226.10 $16,299.65 $20,373.20 $40,746.39 $101,871.44
305 ST Thassalon T $27,026'12 $27,026.12 $3e.D30.80 $45,035.49 $90,070.97 $225,189.50
306 ST Hilton Beach V $3,392.89 $3,392.89 $4,523.35 $5,653.81 $11,307.61 $28,270.54
307 5T . HiltonTp $5,030.84 $5,030J84 $6,707.03 $8,38323 $16,766,4f'i $41,918.39
308 ST. Jocelyn Tp $5,810.81 $5,810,81 $7,746.88 $9,682.95 $19,365.91 $48,417.37
309 STJohnsbnTp $12,830.58 $12,830.58 $17,105.53 $21,380.48 $42,760.97 $106,908.15
310 ST LairdTp $19,908.85 $19,908.85 $26,542.17 $33,175.49 $66,350.98 $165,886.35
311 5T Macdon@ld MerEldith et al Tp $28,313.08 $28,313.08 $37,746.56 $47,180.03 $94,360.07 $235,912.81
312 STMichipicot'm Tp 3,668 $71,523.f'i7 $71,523.67 $95,354.25 $119,184.82 $238,369.64 $595,956.05
313 STPlummerAdditional Tp 671 $13,084.07 $13,084.07 $17.4'13.48 $21,802.89 $43,605,79 $109,020.31
314 ST PrinceTp 1,010 $19,694.36 $19,694.36 $26,256.21 $32,818.07 $65,636.13 $164,099.13
315 ST SI. Joseph Tp 1,201 $23,418.74 $23,418.74 $31,221.50 $39,024.26 $78,048.51 $195,131.74
316 ST Tarbutt and Tarbutt Additional Tp 466 $9,086.70 $9,086.70 $12,114.25 $15,141.80 $30,283.60 $75,713.06
317 ST Hornepayne Tp 1,362 $26,558.14 $26,556.14 $35,406.89 $44,255.65 $88,511.30 $221,290.11
318 ST The North Shore Tp 544 $10,607.65 $10,607.65 $14,141.96 $17,676.27 $35,352.53 $88,386.07
319 ST. White River Tp 993 $19,362.87 $19,362.87 $25,814.28 $32,265.68 $64,531.37 $161,337.07
NOTE -1) Figures are not final and are subject to change.
2) Figures reflect 99% of total AMO allocation pending determination of administration costs Page 4 of 6
320 Shedden Tp 816 $15,911.48 $15,911.48 $21,212.94 $26,514.40 $53, .0 $132,579.10
321 ST Dubreuilville Tp 967 $18,855.89 $18,855.89 $25,138.37 $31,420.86 $62,841.72 $157,112.73
322 ST Huron Shores M 1,794 $34,981.86 $34,981.86 $46,637.27 $58,292.69 $116,585.37 $291,479.05
323 ST Timmins C 43,686 $851,849.26 $851,849.26 $1,135,672.19 $1,419,495.12 $2,838,990.24 $7,097,856.06
324 ST Hearst T 5,825 $113,583.80 $113,583.80 $151,428.16 $189,272.51 $378,545.03 $946,413.30
325 ST Iroquois Falls T 5,217 $101,728.19 $101,728.19 $135,622.44 $169,516.69 $339,033.38 $847,628.88
326 ST Kapuskasing T 9,238 $180,135.13 $180,135.13 $240,153.36 $300,171.59 $600,343.17 $1,500,938.39
327 ST Smooth Rock Falls T 1,830 $35,683.84 $35,683.84 $47,573.14 $59,462.44 $118,924.88 $297,328.13
328 ST Cochrane T 5,690 $110,951.39 $110,951.39 $147,918.66 $184,885.94 $369,711.88 $924,479.26
329 ST Moosonee T 936 $18,251.41 $18,251.41 $24,332.49 $30,413.57 $60,827.15 $152,076.03
330 ST Black River - Matheson Tp 2,912 $56,782.15 $56,782.15 $75,701.08 $94,620.01 $189,240.02 $473,125.41
331 ST Moonbeam Tp 1,201 $23,418.74 $23,418.74 $31,221.50 $39,024.26 $78,048.51 $195,131.74
332 ST Fauquier-Strickland Tp 678 $13,220.57 $13,220.57 $17,625.46 $22,030.35 $44,060.69 $110,157.63
333 ST Val Rita-Harty Tp 1,022 $19,928.35 $19,928.35 $26,568.17 $33,207.98 $66,415.97 $166,048.82
334 ST Mattice - Val Cote Tp 891 $17,373.93 $17,373.93 $23,162.66 $28,951.38 $57,902.71 $144,764.68
335 ST Opasatika Tp 325 $6,337.29 $6,337.29 $8,448.78 $10,560.27 $21,120.54 $52,804.18
336 ST Dryden C 8,198 $159,855.79 $159,855.79 $213,117.26 $266,378.73 $532,757.45 $1,331,965.02
337 ST Kenora C 15,838 $308,830.94 $308,830.94 $411,728.61 $514,626.28 $1,029,252.56 $2,573,269.34
338 ST Sioux Lookout T 5,336 $104,048.61 $104,048.61 $138,715.99 37 $346,766.74 $866,963.33
339 ST Red Lake M 4,233 $82,540.81 $82,540.81 $110,042.13 $275,086.89 $687,754.08
340 ST Ignace Tp 1,709 $33,324.41 . $33,324.41 $44,427.59 $111,061.54 $277,668.73
341 ST Machin Tp 1,143 $22,287.71 $22,287.77 $29,713.71 $74,279.31 $185,708.22
342 ST Ear Falls Tp 1,150 $22,424.27 $22,424.27 $29,895.69 $74,734.21 $186,845.54
343 ST Pick 399 $7,780.25 $7,780.25 $10,372.50 $25,929.52 $64,827.28
344 ST Sio 571 $11,251.13 .13 $14,999.84 $37,497.08 $93,747.72
345 S 898 $17,510.43 .43 $23,344.63 ,357.67 $145,902.00
346 2,531 $49,352.89 2.89 $65,796.51 ,480.25 $411,222.67
347 931 $18,1 .91 $18,153.91 $24,202.51 ,502.22 $151,263.65
348 50 $974.97 $1,299.81 ,249.31 $8,123.72
349 551 $10,744.15 $14,323.93 4 $89,523.39
350 362 $7,058.71 $9,410.64 3 $58,815.73
351 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
352 473 23.20 $9,223.20 $12,296.23 $30,738.51 $76,850.38
353 367 56.27 $7,156.27 $9,540.62 $23,849.96 $59,628.10
354 S 1,907 85.29 $37, $49,574.85 $123,928.82 $309,838.66
355 ST 52,711 $1,029,000.99 $1,029, $1,371,848.12 $3,429,390.51 $8,573,935.87
356 ST 2,270 $44,263.56 $59,011.49 $147,518.84 $368,816.86
357 ST Temagami M 893 $17,412.93 $23,214.65 $58,032.74 $1 63
358 ST West Nipissing M 13,114 $255,714.67 $340,914.83 $852,229.96 $2,1 .11
359 ST South Algonquin Tp 1,278 $24,920.19 .19 $33,223.21 $83,052.45 $2 .27
360 ST Bonfield Tp 2,064 $40,246.69 .69 $53,656.26 $134,131.66 $3 7.13
361 ST Calvin Tp 603 $11,758.12 ,758.12 $15,675.74 $39,186.72 $97,972.06
362 ST Chisholm Tp , 1,230 '$23,984.22 . $23,984.22 $31,975.39 $79,933.11 $199;843.50
363 ST East Ferris Tp 4,291 $83,671.77 $83,671.71 $111,549.91 $278.856.09 $697,177.59
364 ST p 114 $2,222.93 $2,222.93 $2,963.57 $7,408.43 $18,522.08
365 ST ameron Tp 997 $19,440.87 $19,440.87 $25,918.26 $64,791.31 $161,986.96
366 ST earney 773 $15,073.01 $15,073.01 $20,095.10 .19 $50,234.39 $125,592.70
367 ST Parry Sound T 6,124 $119,414.11 $119,414.11 $159,201.04 $198,987.96 $397,975.92 $994,993.14
368 ST Powassan M 3,252 $63,411.93 $63,411.93 $84,539.81 $105,667.68 $211,335.35 $528,366.71
369 ST Burk's Falls V 940 $18,329.40 $18,329.40 $24,436.48 $30,543.55 $61,087.09 $152,725.92
370 ST South River V 1,040 $20,279.34 .34 $27,036.10 $33,792.86 $67,585.72 $168,973.36
371 ST Sundridge V 983 $19,167.88 .88 $25,554.31 $31,940.75 $63,881.50 712.32
372 ST Armour Tp 1,326 $25,856.16 .16 $34,471.03 $43,085.90 $86,171.80 441.04
373 ST Carling Tp 1,063 $20,727.82 82 $27,634.01 $34,540.20 $69,080.41 710.27
374 ST Whitestone M 853 $16,632.96 96 $22,174.80 $27,716.64 $55,433.29 590.65
375 ST Callander M 3,171 $61,949.48 .48 $82,590.09 $103,230.69 $206,461. 181.13
376 ST Joly Tp 290 $5,654.82 .82 $7,538.91 $9,423.01 $18,846.02 117.57
377 ST Machar Tp 849 $16,554.96 .96 $22,070.82 $27,586.67 $55,173.34 $137,940.75
378 ST McDougall Tp 2,608 $50,854.34 $50,854.34 $67,798.22 $84,742.10 $169,484.20 $423,733.20
379 ST McKellar Tp 933 $18,192.91 $18,192.91 $24,254.50 $30,316.10 $60,632.19 $151,588.60
380 ST McMurrich-Monteith Tp 766 $14,936.51 $14,936.51 $19,913.13 $24,889.74 $49,779.48 $124,455.38
381 ST Nipissing Tp 1,553 $30,282.51 $30,282.51 $40,372.18 $50,461.84 $100,923.68 $252,322.72
382 ST Perry Tp 2,252 $43,912.57 $43,912.57 $58,543.56 $73,174.54 $146,349.08 $365,892.32
383 ST Ryerson Tp 632 $12,323.60 $12,323.60 $16,429.63 $20,535.66 $41,071.32 $102,683.81
384 ST Strong Tp 1,369 $26,694.63 $26,694.63 $35,588.87 $44,483.10 $88,966.21 $222,427.44
385 ST The Archipelago Tp 505 $9,847.18 $9,847.18 $13,128.11 $16,409.03 $32,818.07 $82,049.57
386 ST Magnetawan M 1,342 $26,168.15 $26,168.15 $34,886.97 $43,605.79 $87,211.58 $218,040.63
387 ST Seguin Tp 3,698 $72,108.65 $72,108.65 $96,134.13 $120,159.62 $240,319.23 $600,830.28
388 ST Fort Frances T 8,315 $162,137.22 $162,137.22 $216,158.82 $270,180.42 $540,360.84 $1,350,974.53
389 ST Rainy River T 981 $19,128.88 $19,128.88 $25,502.32 $31,875.71 $63,751.53 $159,387.37
390 ST Alberton Tp 956 $18,641.39 $18,641.39 $24,852.42 $31,063.44 $62,126.88 $155,325.51
391 ST Atikokan Tp 3,632 $70,821.69 $70,821.69 $94,418.38 $118,015.07 $236,030.14 $590,106.97
392 ST Chapple Tp 910 $17,744.42 $17,744.42 $23,656.59 $29,568.75 $59,137.51 $147,851.69
393 ST Emo Tp 1,331 $25,953.65 $25,953.65 $34,601.01 $43,248.36 $86,496.73 $216,253.41
394 ST La Vallee Tp 1,073 $20,922.82 $20,922.82 $27,893.98 $34,865.13 $69,730.27 $174,335.02
395 ST Morley Tp 447 $8,716.22 $8,716.22 $11,620.32 $14,524.43 $29,048.86 $72,626.05
396 ST Dawson Tp 613 $11,953.11 $11,953.11 $15,935.70 $19,918.29 $39,836.58 $99,596.80
397 ST Lake ofThe Woods Tp 330 $6,434.79 $6,434.79 $8,578.76 $10,722.73 $21,445.47 $53,616.55
398 ST Espanola T 5,449 $106,252.04 $106,252.04 $141,653.57 $177,055.10 $354,110.19 $885,322.93
399 ST French River M 2,810 $54,793.22 $54,793.22 $73,049.46 $91,305.71 $182,611.42 $456,553.03
400 ST Killarney M 428 $8,345.73 $8,345.73 $11,126.40 $13,907.06 $27,814.12 $69,539.04
NOTE -1) Figures are not final and are subject to change.
2) Figures reflect 99% of total AMO allocation pending determination of administration costs Page 5 of 6
401 ST Markslay-Warren M $51,224.83 $51,224.83 $68,292.15 $85,359.47 $170,718.93 $426,820,21
402 ST St.-Charles M 1,245 $24,276.71 $24,276.71 $32,365.33 $40,453.95 $80,907.91 $202,280.61
403 ST Baldwin Tp 624 $12,167.60 $12,167.60 $16,221.66 $20,275.72 $40,551.43 $101,384.02
404 ST Chapleau Tp 2,832 $55,222.20 $55,222.20 $73,621.38 $92,020.56 $184,041.12 $460,127.46
405 ST Nairn and Hyman Tp 420 $8,189.73 $8,189.73 $10,918.43 $13,647.12 $27,294.23 $68,239.24
406 ST Sables-Spanish Rivers Tp 3,245 $63,275.44 $63,275.44 $84,357.83 $105,440.22 $210,880.45 $527,229,39
407 ST Thunder Bay C 109,016 $2,125,742.77 $2,125,742.77 $2,834,007.22 $3,542,271.67 $7,084,543.33 $17,712,307.75
408 ST Marathon T 4,416 $86,109.20 $86,109.20 $114,799.44 $143,489.69 $286,979.37 $717,486.89
409 ST Greenstone M 5,662 $110,405.40 $110,405.40 $147,190.77 $183.976.13 $367,952.27 $919,929.98
410 ST Conmee Tp 748 $14,585.52 $14,585.52 $19,445.20 $24,304.87 $48,609.73 $121,530.84
411 ST Dorion Tp 442 $8,618.72 $8,618.72 $11,490.34 $14,361.97 $28,723.93 $71,813.68
412 ST Gillies Tp 522 $10,178.67 $10,178.67 $13,570.04 $16,961.42 $33,922.83 $84,811.63
413 ST Neebing M 2,049 $39,954.20 $39,954.20 $53,266.32 $66,578.43 $133,156.87 $332,910.02
414 ST Nipigon Tp 1,964 $38,296.75 $38.296.75 $51,056.84 $63,816.52 $127,633.04 $319,099.70
415 ST O'Connor Tp 724 $14,117.54 $14,117.54 $18,821.29 $23,525.03 $47,050.06 $117 .46
416 ST Schreiber Tp 1,448 $28,235.08 $28,235.08 $37,642.57 $47,050.06 $94,100.12 $235 91
417 ST Shuniah Tp 2,466 $48,085.43 $48,085.43 $64, $80,128.07 $160,256.14 $
418 ST Terrace Bay Tp 1,950 $38,023.76 $38,023.76 $50, $63,361.61 $126,723.23 $316,825. 5
419 ST Manitouwadge Tp 2,949 $57,503.63 $57,503.63 $76, $95,822.26 $191,644.51 $479,136.97
420 ST Red Rock Tp 1,233 $24,042.72 $24,042.72 $32, $40,064.04 $80,128.07 $200,330.92
421 ST Oliver Paipoonge M 5,862 $114,305.28 $114,305.28 $152,390.02 $190,474.76 $380,949.52 $952,424.86
422 ST Temiskaming Shores C 10,630 $207, $207,278.25 $276,340.14 2.03 6 $1,727,102.73
423 ST Cobait T 1,229 $23, $23,964.72 $31,949.39 .06 681.02
424 ST Englehart T 1,595 $31,101.49 $31,101.49 $41,464.02 65
425 ST Kirkland Lake T 8,616 $168,006.53 $168,006.53 $223,983.69 32
426 ST Latchford T 363 $7,078.27 $7,078.27 $9,436.64 20
427 ST Thornloe V 120 $2,339.92 $2,339.92 5
428 ST Armstrong Tp 1,223 $23,847.72 $23,847.72 1
429 ST P 157 $3,061.40 $3,061.40 1
430 ST 421 $8,209.23 $8,209.23
431 ST 348 ,785.78 $6,785.78
432 ST 550 ,724.65 $10,724.65
433 ST 506 $9,866.68 $9,866.68
434 ST Tp 557 $10,861.15 $10,861.15
435 ST Harris Tp 518 $10,100.67 $10,100.67
436 ST Hilliard Tp 241 $4,699.35 $4,699.35
437 ST Hudson Tp 490 $9,554.69 $9,554.69
438 ST James Tp 467 $9,106.20 $9,106.20
439 ST Kerns Tp 360 $7,019.77 $7,019.77
440 ST Larder 790 $15,404.50 $15,404.50
441 787 $15,346.00 $15,346.00
442 128 $2,495.92 $2,495.92
443 308 '$6;005.80 . $6,005.80
444 702 $13,688.55 $13,688.55
$172,586,636.64 $172,586,636.64 $230,089,821.39 $287,593,006.14 $575,186,012.28 $1,438,042,113.09
$19.50 $26.00 $32.49 $64.99
f Yearl' Gas Tax Revenues (approximate)
NOTE - 1) Figures are not final and are subject to change.
2) Figures reflect 99% of total AMO allocation pending determination of administration costs
Page 6 of 6
ISSUE DATE:
JUNE 1, 2005
\ !
IIIIIlIlIa. .AIIlIll1ID
. ~-~
Ontario
Ontario Municipal Board
Commission des affaires municipales de l'Ontario
Clare Maloney has appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board under subsection 53(19) of the
Planning Act, RS.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended, from a decision of the County of Elgin Land
Division Committee which dismissed an application numbered B-40/04 for consent to convey
part of the lands composed of Part Lot 14, Concession 7, in the Township of Malahide
OMS File No. C040156
O.M.B. Case No: PL040511
DECISION/ORDER NO:
1392
PL040511
Clare Maloney has brought a motion before the Ontario Municipal Board under Section 97 of the
Ontario Municipal Board Act, RS.O. 1990, c. 0.28 for costs against the Corporation of the
County of Elgin
. APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Clare Maloney
Tara Oudekerk
The Corporation of the County of Elgin
Stephen H. Gibson
DECISION DELIVERED BY F.G. FARRELL ON A MOTION FOR COSTS
AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
This motion is for costs from a Board's Decision/Order No. 1874 issued October
5, 2004, which allowed the appeal of Maloney under Section 53(19) of the Planning Act,
RS.O. 1990, c. P.13 as amended, from a decision of the County of Elgin Land Division
Committee which dismissed Clare Maloney's application numbered B-40/04 for consent
to convey part of the lands composed of Part Lot 14, Concession 7, Township of
Malahide.
The Board allowed the appeal and a provisional consent was granted. The
Board made a finding that the applicable criteria under Section 51(24) of the Planning
Act, was satisfied.
Clare Maloney seeks costs from the County of Elgin as follows:
Costs incidental to the OMB hearing dated October 5, 2004, namely:
(i) legal account $1,605.00;
-2-
PL040511
(ii) filing fee for Notice of Appeal $125.00;
(iii) Maloney's loss of wages for hearing and motion attendance $336.00; and
(iv) professional account of Planner $2,494.00;
2. Costs incidental to this Motion Le., preparation and attendance $1,070.00.
3. Post judgement interest on all costs.
Total costs claimed by the applicant are in the amount of $5,630.00.
Counsel Oudekerk submits that the conduct of the County of Elgin Land Division
Committee hereinafter referred to as the County, was clearly unreasonable, frivolous,
vexatious. or in bad faith throughout the entire process. Counsel submits that the
County opposed the appellant's application for consent without supporting it with any
valid planning reason and failed to defend its decision before. or at the appeal hearing
itself. Counsel argued that the County did not attend the appeal hearing to support its
position with any planning evidence resulting in a loss of time both for the Board and the
appellant thereby resulting in the necessity of a full hearing.
Counsel argued that by reason of the County's conduct and lack of co-operation,
its conduct was clearly unreasonable.
Counsel stated that the County's conduct was both unprofessional and
unreasonable in not attempting to resolve or settle this matter prior to the appeal
hearing and its failure to attend at the appeal hearing.
'In support of her argument, Counsel referred the Board to the affidavit of Clare
Maloney, her Motion Record, Factum and Book of Authorities.
Counsel for Clare Maloney requested that the motion for costs be granted.
Counsel for the County, Mr. Gibson, argued against the motion.
He stated that the County's conduct (Land Division Committee) as a decision
maker, in respect of the original severance application, was not of a nature to attract a
cost award based on the principles governing such relief before the Ontario Municipal
- 3 -
PL040511
Board. In the alternative, he argued that the amount of costs requested, are
exaggerated and the costs awarded should be minimal.
Counsel explained that the Corporation of the County of Elgin is an upper tier
municipality and the Township of Malahide is a related lower tier municipality. Planning
.and land use instruments are established and planning and land use issues are
administered by the lower tier municipalities such as the Township of Malahide. The
County e.stablished and maintains pursuant to the Planning Act, a Land Division
Committee to hear and determine consent applications. He stated that Maloney's
application was received, processed and heard by the LandDivisionCommittee for the
County of Elgin.
Counsel stated that after the appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board, the
Committee received a report from a planning consultant retained by the appellant
advising that the application conformed to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law and
sought a settlement of the appeal. Counsel stated that. the Committee considered
further submissions from the appellant in support of the original application on
September 23, 2004. However, based upon the Committee's understanding of its
jurisdiction. and authority once the appeal process had commenced, it decided against
any revisions of its original decision. Counsel argued that the original decision maker
was the Land Division Committee and the County had not been directly involved. He.
acknowledged that neither the County nor the Land Division Committee appeared at the
appeal hearing.
Counsel argued that cost awards by the Ontario Municipal Board do not
necessarily follow the cause, as in court proceedings, but rather are discretionary and
on rare occasions that the Board feels obliged to address patent and justice where
behaviour has been clearly unreasonable, vexatious or frivolous. Moreover, Counsel
asserted that costs should be awarded against a municipality only in exceptional
circumstances where there is evidence that the municipality has acted irresponsibly or
abused its powers and authority.
Counsel argued that the conduct of the County was not clearly unreasonable,
frivolous, vexatious, nor did it act irresponsibly or abuse its power or authority.
-4-
PL040511
In support of his argument, Counsel referred the Board to the affidavit of Mark
MacDonald, Chief Administration Officer of the Corporation of the County of Elgin, his
Factum, Motion Record and Book of Authorities.
In determining whether an award for costs is appropriate, the Board. must
examine the County's conduct in this matter and make a determination as to whether its
conduct was clearly unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious or in bad faith. The parameters
of this conduct are not strictly limited to the conduct at the hearing itself but includes the
conduct leading up to the hearing. However, the Board has no jurisdiction to make an
award of costs fOf.the conduct of a Land Division Committee/Committee of Adjustment
or for that matter any individual at the committee hearing. It is conduct during the appeal
process that is the conduct which can be the subject of an award of costs if it satisfies
certain criteria hereinafter set forth.
The Board is governed. by its own Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Ontario
Municipal Board Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.28 and the relevant case authorities. While
prior case authorities are not binding on the Board, since each case is determined on its
own merits, the Board does have regard for them and the principles for which they
stand as illustrations of conduct that may attract an award of costs. Costs are an award
. of a sum of money to be paid by one party to another to cover that party's expenses
incurred for the preparation and attendance at an appeal hearing.
The amount of costs may include such things as:
(a) preparation and hearing time of counsel;
(b) consultants; and
(c) witness fees.
It does not include business or personal financial loses.
An award of costs is not common but very rare.
At an Ontario Municipal Board hearing, recovery of costs does not follow the
event as in the case of court proceedings. In other words, just because the party
succeeds at a hearing, does not automatically trigger an entitlement to costs.
... 5-
PL040511
In determining whether an award of costs is appropriate, the Board must
examine the conduct to determine whether or not it was clearly unreasonable, frivolous,
vexatious or in bad faith.
The tests for "clearly unreasonable conduct" is conduct which has been
described as follows:
'Would a reasonable person having looked at all the circumstances of the case,
the conduct or course of conduct of a party proven at the hearing and the extent
of his familiarity with the Board's Practice and Procedure exclaim "that's not right,
that's not fair, that person ought to be aware in some way for that kind of
conduct" .
The expression "frivolous or vexatious" has come to mean the actions instituted
. are without reason or the party has been acting for duplicitous motives. An appeal is
frivolous if it is not serious or if it is for the purpose of delay. An appeal is vexatious if it .
is for the purpose of causing "trouble or annoyance".
As previously stated while prior case authorities are not binding on the Board
since each case is determined on its own merits, the Board must have regard for them
and the principals for which they stand as illustrations of conduct that may attract costs.
A few examples are worthy of our consideration.
In Premium Properties Ltd. v. Toronto City [2002] O.M.B.D. No. 143 Paragraph 9,
"however, costs do not follow the event in OMB proceedings as they do in the courts.
Rather, the Board prefers a higher test as set out in Practice Direction 11-unreasonable,
frivolous or vexatious conduct".
In this case, Trilea Centres Inc. v. Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, 31
O.M.B.R. 10; the Board observed, "an award of costs against a municipal government is
a serious step. Municipal governments function under severe stresses and carry heavy
and sometimes seemingly conflicting responsibilities to different interest groups. In the
final analysis, the ultimate responsibility is to the public interest. However, identification
of the public interest or even how it may be best protected is often difficult. A council,
faced with clearly and diametrically opposed aspirations.. ..must from time to time make
decisions in the public interest which meet less than perfect acceptance by those
affected...However, municipal councils are clearly not exempt..."[T]he Board may
- 6 -
PL040511
award costs against a municipality whose conduct or course of conduct has been
clearly unreasonable, frivolous or vexatious...and awards have been made where the
board found that council clearly acted in an irresponsible manner"~
Smith v. Goldman Group [1998] 37 O.M.B.R. 197 at Page 200, "the award of
costs is a discretionary power of the Board, exercised with more than the usual amount
of prudence and care. Unlike the practice before the courts (as I understand it), the
authority to award costs has never been a power that is normal or in any way routine,
but is available for those rare and extraordinary occasions where the Board feels
obliged to address a patent injustice which diverts from the normal practices before it, or
to deal with behaviour that is clearly unreasonable, vexatious or frivolous".
Having reviewed the Board's Rules of Practice and. Procedure, the above
decisions and other decisions contained in the respective books of authorities of both
parties filed at the hearing; the Board will now examine the conduct of the Land Division
Committee, (the County's Delegatee) within the Board's jurisdiction to make a
determination as to whether or not its conduct was clearly unreasonable.
The Board has no jurisdiction to make an award of costs for the Committee's
conduct at itsbWh hearing. The Board is restricted to cOhsidering the conduct of the
Committee during the appeal process leading up to the appeal hearing and the hearing .
itself.
Having said this, does the conduct of the Committee (for which the County is
responsible), amount to conduct that is "clearly unreasonable"?
While the conduct of a municipality being a statutory planning authority generates
a greater onus to conduct itself in a reasonable fashion, the Board must keep in mind
that municipalities do function under severe stress at times in the performance of their
duties in an effort to maintain and promote the public interest.
While their conduct can be criticized for not being more "citizen friendly" an
appeal hearing before the Board still had to be conducted. The hearing was scheduled
for one day and was concluded within that timeframe. Failure of the County to attend at
. the appeal hearing is not a ground for an award of costs since there is no obligation to
attend. The Board finds that the conduct of the County, leading up to the hearing and
- 7-
PL040511
the hearing itself, did not rise to the level of "clearly unreasonable" triggering an award
of costs.
Having said this, the Board also appreciates that the onus is on the appellant at
the hearing before the Land Division Committee to present his case with the best
possible evidence to support the application. By this statement, the Board is not being
critical of Mr. Maloney but wishes to bring this onus to his attention.
As previously stated, costs do not follow the result in an OMB hearing but are
reserved for those rare and extraordinary occasions when the Board feels obliged to
address a patent injustice or to deal with behaviour that is. clearly unreasonable,
vexatious or frivolous. The Board finds for the reasons stated that the County's conduct
did not rise to the level of "clearly unreasonable" for which the Board would exercise its
discretion and order an award of costs.
The Board therefore denies the motion for costs both for the hearing and this
motion.
The Board so orders.
"F. G. Farrell"
F. G. FARRELL
MEMBER
Ontario
Municipal
Board
Office of the Chair
655 Bay St Suite 1500
Toronto, ON M5G 1 E5
Tel (416)326-6800
Fax (416) 326-5370
Commission des
affaires municipales
de l'Ontario
Bureau du President
655 rue Bay Bureau 1500
Toronto, ON M5G 1 E5
Tel (416) 326-6800
Telec (416) 326-5370
Ontario
June 13, 2005
JUN 1 5 2005
Ole lei ff'~i[""
- r '~Vi~t~~
t~DM'NiSTRA liVE SERViCtS
To OMB Stakeholders:
Please be advised that the 2003-2004 Ontario Municipal Board and Board of
Negotiation Annual Report has been released.
I encourage you to visit the Board's website www.omb.Qov.on.catoreviewthereport.lt
is available on the site in two different formats and electronic copies can be
downloaded.
Hard copies can be ordered through Publications Ontario by calling (416)
326-5300 or online at www.Dublications.Qov.on.ca.
Sincerely,
(,kiYA {~
Y- Marie Hubbard
Chair
~
~,..
Ontario
Ministry of Finance
Office of the Minister
Ministere des Finances
Bureau du ministre
June 3, 2005
7th Floor, Frost Building South
7 Queen's Park Crescent
Toronto ON M7A 1Y7
Telephone: 416 325-0400
Facsimile: 416325-0374
7e etage, Edifice Frost sud
7, Queen's Park Crescent
Toronto ON M7 A 1 Y7
Telephone: 416 325-0400
Telecopieur: 416325-0374
E",E
JUN , 3 20{\S
- . '" t,.,?", O\;W;;~ r;,,1~~
ron' "fI"" ,~ ,g"bli,j..
'YvlJ'i~ I I "," .~tf>f':'-'
'.U!: ~W;:R'~\~;'c")
",..~~: 'I1{;>JJ.''''
~~\JW~~
Mrs. Sandra J. Heffren
Manager of Administrative Services
County of Elgin
450 Sunset Drive
St. Thomas ON N5R 5Vl
Dear Mrs. Heffren:
Thank you very much for your letter regarding the Community Reinvestment Fund (CRF) and
provincial gas tax fund allocations. I apologize for the delay in responding.
As you are aware, the Province recently announced the Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund
(OMPF); a fairer, more transparent funding model to replace the CRF for 2005 and beyond.
The OMPF goes a long way towards addressing the major irritants and inequities in the complex
and outdated CRF model. The discussion of municipal concerns through the Strong
Communities initiative assisted the government in the design of the OMPF.
Despite the Province's fiscal challenges, the government has listened to municipalities and will
provide $656 million in 2005 for the OMPF, an increase of 6.1 per cent over the 2004 CRF. This
funding will flow through four components:
· Social Programs Grant: $179 M
· Equalization Grant: $170 M
· Northern and Rural Communities Grant: $249 M
· Police Services Grant: $58 M
While responding to differences in municipalities' fiscal capacities, the OMPF will also provide
a more equitable and transparent distribution of funding to support municipalities' social
program costs, police costs and the challenges faced by rural and northern communities.
In recognition that some municipalities may experience funding changes under the new OMPF,
the province is providing municipalities with $98 million in one-time transition assistance. This
includes a stable funding guarantee, announced in 2005, that will give the County of Elgin
$5,841,000 to ensure a manageable pace of change in the move to the new OMPF.
.../2
- 2-
In addition, the Province is providing municipalities with $135 million in one-time funding to
meet its reconciliation obligations in 2003 and 2004 under the old CRF model. These one-time
reconciliation payments will be the final close-out adjustments under the old Community
Reinvestment Fund. In 2005, the County of Elgin will receive $581,000 for 2003 and $778,000
for 2004 in one-time reconciliation payments for 2003 and 2004.
I note your support for the resolution from the Township of Wellington North regarding the gas
tax fund allocation. As you are aware, the formula for provincial gas tax funding is based on a
ratio of 70 per cent lidership and 30 per cent population. This was decided after consulting with
municipalities, transit agencies and stakeholders on how best to distribute gas tax funds. For
this reason, we believe that the current formula strikes a fair balance between the needs of large
established transit systems and smaller communities.
In addition, all small and urban municipalities in Ontario can apply immediately to the Ontario
Strategic Infrastructure Financing Authority (OSIFA) and Canada-Ontario Municipal Rural
Infrastructure Fund (COMRIF) to improve their public infrastructure. I encourage your
municipality to explore both of these options as a possible means to build and restore its key
public infrastructure assets.
I would like to point out that 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.
Thank you again for writing.
.I
Ron Eddy
County of Brant
Mark Kraemer
County of Bruce
Diane Gagner
Chatham-Kent
John Oosterhof
County of Dufferin
James Mcintyre
County of Elgin
Michael Raymond
County of Essex
Dave Fawcett
County of Grey
Marie Trainer
Haldimand County
Doug Layton
County of Huron
Patricia Davidson
County of Lambton
Tom McLaughlin
County of Middlesex
Donald S. WoolcoU
County of Oxford
Ed Hollinger
County of Perth
Dennis Roughley
County of Simcoe
Brad Whitcombe
County of Wellington
WESTERN ONTARIO WARDENS' CAUCUS
Warden Michael Raymond, Chair (2005)
~
R. ......~.-! ,t~... ~ .~... . .: ~~:~... ~~Sl
. ". . ',.., ,..J
;iii !:.,..;; ,....t ..... .-
-...."'-....."....-..--..-
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
MAY 3 02005
f/,
'''-~~~'.T'1.)
Prime Minister The Rt. Hon. Paul Martin
Langevin Block
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, ON
K 1A OA2
Dear Honourable Sir:
On behalf of the constituent municipalities of the Western Ontario Wardens'
Caucus, I would like to extend congratulations to you and your government
following the recent historic voteoh the Budget in the House of Commons.
Hopefully with the passage of the Budget, Parliament can put the events of
the past few weeks behind it and move forward by implementing the
programs introduced in the Budget. From a municipal perspective, we very
much anticipate implementation of the child care agreement signed with
Ontario and, more importantly, the provision of a share of the Gas Tax to
municipalities. Mr. Prime Minister, as you are V\(ell aware, municipaiities face
significant infrastructure deficits at present. I appeal to your government to .
proceed with flowing Gas Tax funding to municipalities as quicklyas possible,
. to furnish municipalities with the sustainable and predictable source of
revenue that we so urgently require.
Congratulations again 9nd please be advised that municipalities across
Canada very much anticipate the opportunity to foster the emerging
relationship with the Federal Government. . .
Yours truly,
MiCha~1 s. Raym::! ~.~
Chair
Western Ontario Wardens' Caucus
~
360 Fairview Avenue West
Essex, ON N8M 1 Y6
Tel: (519) 776-6441
Tel. (519) 776-4455
COUNTY OF ESSEX
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
AffaiJ'es municipales
et du Logement
For Il1unediate Release
June 9, 2005
GOVERNMENT SlJPPORTS GROWTH OF LOCAL BUSINESS
Invests In Business Retention And Expansion Project
A'i'Ll'vIER - The Ontario govemment is supporting the growth of local business in the Aylmer area by
investing in a local business retention and expansion project, IVIinister of Agriculture and Food Steve
Peters amlounced today on behalf of John Gerretsen, JVIinister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
"As a local resident and l\iCPP for Elgin-lVfiddlesex-London, I know firsthand that there is considerable
potential for sustained economic prosperity in this area," said PetelK "This announcement supports our
government's rural plan and will help improve the quality of life for residents here."
The Ontario govelnment will contIibute $8,000 to the Aylmer and Area Chanrber of Commerce Business
Retention and Expansion project to help improve the business climate;:, develop tools and resources for
local businesses and promote rural economic development in Aylmer, Malahide and Bayham.
"Tlus funding ",ill help us identity strengths that area businesses have and will help in addressing
challenges that our businesses are facing," said Chris Button, chairperson, Busin!::ss Retention and
Expansion Conmlittee.
"This project ",ill ensure our town remains the vibrant market community that it is today and ",ill help us
meet our town's key economic goal- encouraging and facilitating enterprise in our existing businesses,"
said :Mayor of Aylmer Paul Baldwin.
"EcononUc development for our region means communities working toward social, econonUc and
enviromnental growth. This project will definitely contribute to our commUluties' economic renewal,"
said Lynn Acre, mayor of the Municipality of Bay ham.
<<The strategic partnerships shuck between our respective municipalities are key to making our
communities viable and sustainable," added Jolm 'Wilson, mayor of Township of~,falahide.
Today's investInent was made through Ontmio's Rural EcononUc Development (RED) program, which
invests in projects that support sustainable rural economies and community partnerships. RED is a key
component of Ontario's rural plan, designed to make rural Ontmio strong, healthy and prosperous.
- 30-
Contacts:
Patti MUllce
Minister's Office
(416) 585-6333
Brian Cardy
Rural Investments Branch
(519) 826-3787
Disponible enfrmu;ais
www.mah.gov.on.ca
~y~.~y,!;.,<~.IJ,H~.9.n!.!1ri.~~.,.~.!1
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 Logement
For Immediate Release
June 16,2005
MCGUINTY GOVERNMENT ENHANCES GREENBELT LEGACY
New Greenbelt Foundation To Fund Research, Public Education
TORONTO - Ontario's new Greenbelt Foundation will help preserve the natural
heritage, protect prime agricultural land and support the many recreational opportunities
in the Greater Golden Horseshoe, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing John
Gerretsen announced today.
"Ontario's Greenbelt is a living legacy, " said Gerretsen. "The Greenbelt Foundation will
help foster this legacy by nurturing and supporting activities that preserve the
environmental and agricultural integrity of the Greenbelt."
The Greenbelt Foundation, which will operate independent from government, would
coordinate and fund activities such as the promotion of agriculture and viniculture,
research, public education, land stewardship and land acquisition across the Greenbelt.
The foundation was given a one-time $25-million provincial grant to help cover the start-
up and on-going costs to operate it.
The foundation's five-member interim board is responsible for the strategic and
administrative set up of the foundation, which includes developing a strategic plan,
investment strategy and criteria for grants.
The foundation's interim board, which is chaired by Sandy Houston, will be replaced by a
nine-member permanent board in March 2006.
"Ontario's environmental and agricultural lands are part of what makes this province
great," said Houston. "It's an honour to have the opportunity to work with the foundation
to permanently protect our Greenbelt."
The McGuinty government's Greenbelt Act, 2005 and Greenbelt Plan permanently
protect 1.8 million acres around the greater Golden Horseshoe. The Greenbelt:
. Protects thousands of acres of prime agricultural lands and tender fruit lands so
farmers can continue to grow the foods we eat closer to home
. Preserves our watersheds, rivers and forests to protect the water we drink and the
air we breathe
. Promotes recreation, sports and tourism by encouraging the development of a trail
system, open spaces and parklands
. Curbs sprawl by setting strict limits on where urban growth can expand.
2
"Our permanent Greenbelt will improve the lives of millions of Ontarians by curbing urban
sprawl and preserving the environment and will create a permanent legacy for future
generations," said Gerretsen. "It helps improve our quality of life and ensures Ontario is
the place to be for years to come."
- 30-
Contacts:
Patti Munce
Minister's Office
(416) 585-6333
Audrey Bennett
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
(416) 585-6014
Disponible en franfais
www.[::1reenbelt.ontario.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 Logement
For Immediate Release
June 16,2005
ONTARIO GOVERNMENT STRENGTHENS PROSPERITY IN 'VEST NIPISSING
Investment Supports Business Retention And Expansion Project
WEST NIPISSING - The Ontario government is supporting economic development in the
Municipality of West Nipissillg by investing in a local business retention and expansion project,
Minister of Natural Resources David Ramsay announced today on behalf of John Gerretsen,
Minister of Municipal Atlairs and Housing.
"The McGuinty govemment is committed to working with rural Ontario to provide the right tools
that enable our rural communities to thrive," said Ramsay, MPP for Timiskaming-Cochrane.
"This announcement supports our goal to build stronger rural communities that offer their citizens
economic opportunities and a higher quality oflife."
The Ontario govemment w111 contribute $20,000 to the Municipality of West Nipissing and its
partners to help provide community support for local businesses and establish an action plan for
local economic development.
"The Business Retention and Expansion Program \vill help us create the building blocks necessary
to ensure economic prosperity in our community," said Mayor of West Nipissing Joanne Savage.
<'We thank the Ontario government for its support."
Today's investment was made through Ontario's Rural Economic Development (RED) program,
'which invests in projects that support sustainable rural economies and community partnerships.
Through the RED program, the provincial government and its partners are making rural Ontario
strong, healthy and prosperous.
-30-
Contacts:
Patti Munce
Minister's Office
(-116) 585-6333
Brian Cardy
Rural Investments Branch
(519) 826-3787
Disponible enfi'am;ais
\Vlv\v.mah .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
Ministare des
Affaires municipales
et du Logement
For Immediate Release
June 16, 2005
ONTARIO STRENGTHENS PROSPERITY IN TIMMINS
Investment Supports Virtual Town Square For Northeastern Ontario
TIMMINS - Th~ Ontario gov~rnm~nt is str~ngth~ning northt:rn communiti~s by inv~sti:ng in th~
development of a virtual town square that will provide community services to rural Northeastern Ontario,
Minist~. of Natural R~sources David Ramsay announc~d today on behalf of John Gerr~tst:n, Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Housing.
"The strength of Ontario depends on the strength of our iUral communities," said Ramsay, Regional
Minister for Northern Ontario. "This announcement supports the l'vfcGuinty government's commitment to
meet the top priorities for rural Ontario - strong people and strong economies, better health, and success
for students."
The Ontario government will contribute $311,981 to the project led by the City of Timmins, the towns of
Iroquois Falls, Larder Lake, and Moosom:e with business partners NEOnet Inc. and Bell Canada. The
project will allow NOltheastem Ontario residents and businesses to access municipal, health and
educational services electronically. These services will be readily available to residents and businesses,
helping to stimulate economic growth and skills development in the region.
"Crt:ating a vittual town squart: will crt:ate exciting new opportunities for our bUSlllt:SSt:S and rt:sidents,"
said Victor Powers, Mayor of Timmins. "With the government's funding, the City of Timmins will be
further strengthened as a vibrant centre to attract future investment and jobs."
"The investment is excellent news for Northeastern Ontario," said Ken Graham, Mayor ofIroquois Falls.
"We an: plt:ast:d to have tht: provincial government's SUPPOlt to expand the region's lllfolmation
technology capability."
Today's investment was made through Ontario's Rural Economic Development (RED) program, which
lllvests in projects that support sustaitlable rural t:conomies and community partm:rships. Tlu'ough the RED
program, the provincial government and its paltners are making iUra I Ontario strong, healthy and
prosperous.
-30-
Contacts:
Patti Munce
Minister's Office
(-116) 585-6333
Brian Cardy
Rural Investnlents Branch
(519) 826-3787
Disponihle enfram;ais
ww\v.mah. 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
Ministere des
Affaires municipales
et du Logement
For Immediate Release
June 16, 2005
ONTARIO INVESTS IN BUILDING STRONGER COl\IMUNITIES IN INGERSOLL
Supports Community Revitalization, SleWs Enhancement And Health Care Services Projects
INGERSOLL - The Ontario government is building stronger communities by investing in community
rt:vitalization, skills enhanct:mt:nt and ht:alth cart: selvict:s projects in tht: Town ofIngt:rsoll, Ministt:r of
Agriculture and Food Steve Peters announced today on behalf of John Gerretsen, Minister ofl\Junicipal
Affairs and Housing.
"The government has a plan for Ontario's rural communities that involves giving them the tools they need
to thrive and prosper," said Steve Peters, MPP for Elgin-l\1iddIesex-London. "We are confident that this
projt:ct will offer more oPPOltunitit:s for tht: rt:Sidents ofIngersoll and provide a hight:r quality of lift:."
The Ontario government will contribute $547,500 to the project conducted by the Corporation of the Town
ofIngersoll and its partners to help the continued growth and health of the community by revitalizing the
downtown, SUPPOlting heritage, culture and tourism, and improving access to health care selvices.
"The Ontario government's support will help us meet our community's goal to invigorate the downtown
core and enhance our recreational and health and welhless offerings," said Paul Holbrough, mayor of
Ingersoll. "We thank the government for fUnding such a ,vorthy project."
"Our partnership with tht: community's local govt:lTI111t:nt, health and busint:ss st:ctors was kt:y to securing
funding for this project," said Gordon Lesser, president, Town ofIngersoll Business Improvement Area.
"This money will ensure that Ingersoll remain the small town ,vith the big spirit."
Today's investment was made through Ontario's Rural Economic Development (RED) program, which
invests in projects that support sustainable rural economies and community partnerships. Through the RED
program, tht: provincial gOVt:l'lUllent and its partnt:rs art: making rural Ontario strong, ht:altllY and
prosperous.
- 30-
Contacts:
Patti Munce
Minister's Office
(416) 585-6333
Brian Cardy
Rural Investments Branch
(519) 826-3787
Dispomble enfranr;ais
www.mah.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
Ministere des
Affaires municipales
et du Logement
For Immediate Release
June 16,2005
GOVERNMENT STRENGTHENS PROSPERITY IN HEARST
Funds Foreign Investment Attraction Strategy
HEARST - The Ontario government is supporting community revitalization in the Town of Hearst by
funding a foreign investment attraction strategy, Minister of Natural Resources David Ramsay announced
today on behalf John Gerretsen, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
"The McGuinty government is committed to meeting the top priorities for rural Ontario," said Ramsay,
Regional Minister for Northern Ontario. "This announcement supports our goal of helping rural
communities like Hearst achieve more prosperity and a better quality of life for its residents."
The Ontario government will contribute $42,050 to the project conducted by the Hearst and Area
Economic Development Corporation and Hearst-Mattice-Val Cote Chamber of Commerce. The project
will identifY the town's most promising investment opportunities and investigate key marketing tools to
promote the district.
"In order to diversifY the local economy, the Corporation of the Town of Hearst completed a strategic plan
entitled Perspective 20/20 Insight in March 2003," said the Mayor of Hearst Roger Sigouin. "The strategic
plan underlies the town's economic goals and objectives: to increase jobs by offering a wider choice of
employment opportunities. This funding will help us achieve our goals."
"This strategy represents the next step in our plans to diversifY our local economy and provide economic
opportunities to our community," said Mario Barrette, President of the Hearst and Area Economic
Development Corporation. "We thank the government for its support."
"Our partnership with the Hearst and Area Economic Development Corporation was key in the
development of the project and will be key in the successful completion of the project," said Pierre Delage,
President of the Hearst Mattice-Val Cote Chamber of Commerce.
Today's investment was made through Ontario's Rural Economic Development (RED) program, which
invests in projects that support sustainable rural economies and community partnerships. Through the RED
program, the provincial government and its partners are making rural Ontario strong, healthy and
prosperous.
- 30-
Contacts:
Patti Munce
Minister's Office
(416) 585-6333
Brian Cardy
Rural Investments Branch
(519) 826-3787
Disponible enfram;ais
\v\vw.mah.gov.on.ca
Ja'1..
"","1
-_~ 1_-
- "'I..~ ..
~
The City of London
is pleased to present
London
CANADA
"Sneak Preview Tours"
Our community partners are welcome to tour
the New Dearness Home on
Wednesday, July 6 from 1 :00 to 3:00 p.m.
We hope you can make it!
The Dearness Home is still located at 710 Southdale Road East, London, Ontario
Please use the parking lot off of Wellington Road to access the entrance to our New Home
Please circulate to: Mark G. McDonald
Niaqara Falls Rehab Road Show -
"Infrastructure Management and Renewal77
Brock Plaza, Niagara Falls
On June 21-23 the Centre for the Advancement of Trenchless Technologies (CATT) and Benjamin Media,
Inc. will be hosting the Niagara Falls Rehab Road Show -"Infrastructure Management and Renewal" . at
the Brock Plaza Hotel, City of Niagara Falls, Canada.
The two-day seminar and trade show features over 40 exhibiting companies, live outdoor field
demonstrations and educational seminar sessions.
Here are some reasons way we believe you will not want to miss this event:
1) North America's buried infrastructure experts will discuss state of the art tools for the management,
construction and rehabilitation of buried infrastructure networks. Program details are available at
y,1J!Jf.W.CATT .C6 under the Rehab Road Show link
2) Meet the experts and leaders in municipal infrastructure management, construction and renewal.
3) Learn about new construction and management methods that can generate substantial costs
savings for your municipality
4) Cost effective training for your engineers and technical staff:
a. $125 per technical session..... for ONLY $250 per day you can attend two technical
sessions, visit the exhibit hall with 40 exhibitors, participate in the product and services
field demonstrations, and enjoy a bountiful lunch.
b. Pressed for time or short on funds - for a $35 investment you can visit the exhibit hall,
participate in the field demonstrations, and enjoy lunch.
c. The above options are an amazing value. Typical conferences fees are $800 or higher
plus travel and accommodations.
5) Great way for inspection staff to learn about trenchless methods and QAlQC for trenchless
projects. This alone can result in significant cost savings for your organization.
6) Low travel cost -low airfare, inexpensive hotels and a drivable location for most attendees.
7) Why wait until 2007 for the next scheduled show... Do It NOW!
8) Help support CATT activities and the training of the next generation of municipal leaders
9) Celebrate CATT's 10th anniversary
10) Come golfing on Tuesday June 21 and help support the University of Waterloo North American
Society for Trenchless Technology (NASTT) Student Chapter.
To save waiting in line on site pre-register today by registering online at \rv.:tI.YY..:.Q'r,~tLQg or fax in your
registration form.
After Monday June 20th you will have to register on site.
Fact Sheet
Feuille d'information
@ Ontario
Ministry of
Municipal Affairs
and Housing
Ministere des
Affaires municipales
et du Logement
For Immediate Release
June 16,2005
GREENBELT FOUNDATION BOARD MEMBERS
Sandy Houston, Chair
Sandy Houston is executive director of the George Cedric Metcalf Charitable Foundation.
The foundation focuses on three areas: sustaining the vibrancy of the professional
performing arts, ensuring the ecological integrity of our natural, and working lands and
improving the quality of life and opportunity for low-income communities. Prior to joining
the Metcalf Foundation, Sandy was a partner at Stitt Feld Handy Houston, where he
practised alternative dispute resolution and civil litigation.
Sandy maintains a part-time mediation practice and is currently a roster mediator for the
Ontario Mandatory Mediation Program. He has designed and taught courses in
negotiation, mediation and alternative dispute resolution across Canada and
internationally. Sandy earned a LL. B from Queen's University and holds degrees in
English and history from the University of Toronto, and in psychology from York
University.
He also serves as a director of The Walrus magazine, Pro Bono Law Ontario,
Philanthropic Foundations of Canada, The Creative Trust, the Ruthven Park Foundation,
Lewa Canada, and a number of privately held companies.
Gail Beggs
A native of Ontario and graduate of the University of Toronto (BSc, MSc), Gail Beggs
joined the Ontario public service in 1980. She has held positions with the Ontario
Ministries of Environment, Labour and Natural Resources.
From 1991 to 1996 Gail served as commissioner on the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission and was chair from 1995 to 1996. In the Ministry of Natural Resources, Gail
has been assistant deputy minister of both policy and planning, and field services, with
responsibility for program delivery. During this time she was seconded to serve as
president and CEO of the Ontario Clean Water Agency and assistant deputy minister
SARS Response Coordination in Cabinet Office.
In February 2004, Gail was appointed deputy minister of the Ministry of Natural
Resources. The ministry oversees the sustainable use and protection of Ontario's
natural resources.
John L. Riley
John Riley has been a conservation leader in Ontario for many years, and travels and
works across Canada as chief science officer of the Nature Conservancy of Canada
(NCC). John studied botany and geology at the Universities of Toronto and Waterloo,
and was staff botanist at the Royal Ontario Museum for eight years and peatland
specialist with the Ontario Geological Survey for five years. He joined the Ministry of
Natural Resources in 1986 as an ecologist working on natural-heritage policies and
programs across southern Ontario. John also helped set up the Natural Heritage
Information Centre and has written a variety of environmental articles.
At NCe, his work focuses on creating science-based conservation blueprints for the
Canadian eco-regions at greatest biodiversity risk.
In 2001, John served on the Oak Ridges Moraine advisory panel, and was a founding
director of the Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation. He was appointed by the Province to
the Niagara Escarpment Commission in 2003. He makes his home in Richmond Hill and
in Relessey.
Rick Smith, Ph.D
Dr. Rick Smith has been the executive director of Environmental Defence since June
2003. Environmental Defence is the coordinating organization for the Ontario Greenbelt
Alliance, a coalition of over 80 diverse organizations that are united in their support for a
world-class Greenbelt in the Golden Horseshoe.
Between 1996 and 2002 he was Canadian director of the International Fund for Animal
Welfare (IFAW) and served as acting United Kingdom director for IFAW in 2001.
Dr. Smith received his Ph.D in zoology from the University of Guelph in 1999 for his
study of a unique and endangered subspecies of freshwater harbour seal in northern
Quebec, which he completed in cooperation with a nearby community of Cree hunters.
He has authored numerous articles in environmental and animal welfare issues.
Dr. Smith spent his teenage years in Richmond Hill as a life guard at largest kettle lake in
the Oak Ridges Moraine, Lake Wilcox. He now lives in Toronto with his wife and son.
Jan Whitelaw
Jan Whitelaw is the vice president of justenvironment, an environmental public affairs
consultancy. She is a member of the steering committee of Friends of Rural
Communities and the Environment (FORCE).
An active participant in the environmental public policy field for 20 years, Jan has been
vice president - environment for the consulting firm Strategic Services, manager of
environment and government affairs for Pepsi-Cola Canada Limited, and senior policy
advisor to the premier of Ontario. She holds a masters degree from the Institute of
Environmental Studies at the University of Toronto. She is married with three children
and lives in rural Campbellville, in the Greenbelt.
2
- 30-
Contacts:
Patti Munce
Minister's Office
(416) 585-6333
Audrey Bennett
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
(416) 585-6014
Disponible en fram;ais
www.oreenbelt.ontario.ca
3
Fax Server
6/17/2005 5:06
PAGE 0011001
Fax Server
Federation of
Canadian Municipalities
Federation canadienne
des municipalitfs
June 17, 2005
MEMBERS' ADVISORY
Conaratulations to Ontario's Municipalities
The New Deal for cities and communities continues to roll out across the country
with two agreements concluded today in Ontario. The first distributes $1.87 billion
in federal gas tax revenue in Ontario, which joins British Columbia, Alberta and
Yukon. The second commits up to $310 million over the next two years for public
transit in Ontario.
On behalf of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM), I want to
congratulate the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) , led by President
Roger Anderson, and Mayor David Miller of Toronto, who signed the agreements
today with the Government of Canada, represented by Prime Minister Paul
Martin and Minister of State for Infrastructure and Communities John Godfrey,
and the Province of Ontario, represented by Municipal Affairs and Housing
Minister John Gerretsen.
With three provinces and one territory on board, the New Deal for which FCM
has fought long and hard is becoming a reality. We look forward to similar
agreements being signed by the remaining provinces and territories, just as we
look forward to the budget bills being passed soon by Parliament, allowing the
funds to flow quickly where they are needed.
Today's announcement reflects the hard work and negotiations between the
Government of Canada and the provincial and territorial governments and
muniCipal associations. We applaud the spirit of cooperation and pragmatism that
is guiding these negotiations and look forward to more agreements being signed
in the near future.
With this substantial progress on the revenue side, we must now turn our
attention to forging a working partnership with the Government of Canada. FCM
has long said that the heart of the New Deal is partnership and that cities and
communities have important contributions to make to the national agenda. We
look forward to continuing to work out the details of this partnership with the
Government of Canada.
Michael Coleman, President
CLIENT UPDATE
June 10, 2005
The Overhaul of OMERS
On June 1,2005, the Ontario Government
introduced Bill 206, An Act to revise the Ontario
Municipal Retirement System Act. Bill206
represents a commitment made by Premier
McGuinty in 2002 when he was leader of the
Official Opposition to move OMERS towards an
autonomous governance model. The Government
will hold legislative committee hearings to obtain
stakeholder input into revisions to the Bill, and
aims to have the legislation in place by early 2006.
The Bill includes changes to the governance
structure of OMERS to allow for greater employer
and member control, permits the creation of
supplemental plans to provide optional enhanced
benefits, and makes consequential amendments
to other statutes, including the Municipal Act,
2001.
Governance
Currently, the Government of Ontario is the plan
sponsor, though it makes no direct contributions
to OMERS. It appoints employer and employee
members to the OMERS Board from the various
sectors covered by OMERS, including
municipalities, school boards, police and fire, to
have fiduciary oversight of plan administration.
The Government has final approval on benefit
changes.
The governance changes will separate the roles of
sponsor and fiduciary by establishing a Sponsors
Corporation and an Administration Corporation.
The Sponsors Corporation will be responsible for
making decisions concerning the benefits to be
provided by the plan and will have the power to
set contribution rates. The Administration
Corporation is to be the trustee and administrator
of OMERS.
Once the legislation is proclaimed, appointments
to the Sponsors Corporation in the first year will
JUN 1 4 2005
COUNTY OF ELGIN
HUMAN RESOURCES
be determined by the Lieutenant Governor and
appointments to the Administration Corporation
will be primarily from the OMERS Board, with an
additional two (2) members appointed by the
Lieutenant Governor. Afterwards and until the
Corporations implement by-laws concerning their
composition, appointments will be on a
representative basis, with equal appointments
drawn from participating employers and
employees. The transitional provisions also
provide for the establishment of two advisory
committees to the Sponsors Corporation: one
committee reflecting the police and fire sectors;
and one reflecting other sectors.
Also of note in the transitional provisions are the
mandatory mediation and arbitration mechanisms
that would apply, pending the Sponsor
Corporation's creation of its own by-laws, if it
cannot reach a decision on changes to benefits,
contribution rates, or the contribution rate reserve
level. We anticipate that this will prompt the need
for the employer community to work closely
together to identify its common interests,
including those related to the establishment of the
supplemental plans contemplated by the
legislation.
Supplemental Plans
Bill 206 restructures OMERS into a system that will
be comprised of a primary plan and supplemental
plans. Unlike the old "supplemental plans", these
plans will be standalone pension plans that are
operated under the OMERS umbrella in
conjunction with the primary plan. The current
provisions will operate as the "primary plan". The
Sponsors Corporation will have the power to
implement the supplemental plans, which would
provide for optional additional pension benefits,
such as benefits that reflect the increased benefit
accrual rate of2.33% now perm itted under the
Income Tax Act for fire fighters and proposed in the
Page 2 of 2
2005 Federal Budget for emergency workers, such
as police and paramedics. Notably, Bill 206
specifically directs the Sponsors Corporation to
consider providing supplemental plan benefits to
police and fire fighters.
Optional benefits provided under a supplemental
plan cannot enhance past service and must be on
a going-forward basis only.
Employer Implications
If the Sponsors Corporation implements a
supplemental plan, it will then be up to the
individual OMERS employers to agree to have their
members covered under any supplemental plans
that are implemented by the Sponsors
Corporation. As a result, OMERS employers can
expect to experience pressure from members,
particularly the police, fire fighter, and paramedic
bargaining units, to agree to provide the enhanced
benefits. Since both members and OMERS
employers will be required to make additional
contributions to provide supplemental plan
benefits, it will be important that OMERS
employers carefully consider the cost of the
enhanced benefits before making any
commitments.
In addition, the Sponsors Corporation may impose
a fee on employers and members, to cover any of
its expenses that are not payable from the pension
fund, which would further increase the costs of
OMERS to employers.
Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie LLP
www.hicksmorley.com
TORONTO
Toronto-Dominion Tower
30th Floor
Box 371, T-D Centre
Toronto, ON M5K lK8
Tel: 416-362-1011
Fax: 416-362-9680
LONDON
148 Fullarton St.
Suite 1608
London, ON
N6A 5P3
Tel: 519.433-7515
Fax: 519.433-8827
WATERLOO
100 Regina St. South
Suite 200
Waterloo, ON
N2j 4P9
Tel: 519-746-0411
Fax: 519-746-4037
For more information, please contact any member
of our Pension and Benefits Group:
Elizabeth M. Brown
em b@hicksmorley.com 416-864-7210
Lisa J. Mills
ljm@hicksmorley.com 613-234-0386
Stephanie J. Kalinowski
sjk@hicksmorley.com 416-864-7263
Sheldon M. Wayne
smw@hicksmorley.com 416-864-7238
Jordan N. Fremont
jnf@hicksmorley.com 416-864-7228
Jean-Pierre Laporte
jpl@hicksmorley.com 416-864-7239
Rachel M. Arbour
rma@hicksmorley.com 416-864-7314
Bonnie Roy-Choudhury
brc@hicksmorley.com 416-864 -7290
KINGSTON
366 King St. East
Suite 200
Kingston, ON
K7K 6Y3
Tel: 613-549-6353
Fax: 613-549-4068
The articles in the Client Update
provide general information and
should not be relied on as legal
advice or opinion.
This publication is copyrighted by
Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart
Storie LLP and may not be
reproduced in any form, in whole
or in part, without the express
permission of Hicks Morley
Hamilton Stewart Storie LLP (Q
OTTAWA
150 rue Metcalfe St.
Suite 2000
Ottawa, ON
K2P 1Pl
Tel/Tel: 613-234-0386
Fax/Telec: 613-234-0418
Member Communication
L,
("0 Association of
,"~fo .i " Municipalities
JtJlw ',,/' 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
June 22, 2005 - Alert 05/056
MOE Releases Proposed Amendments to Regulation 170
Issue: The Ministry of the Environment has posted proposed amendments to Regulation 170 and
Regulation 169 on the Environmental Bill of Rights registry for 90 days for public comment.
Background:
Since Reg. 170 was implemented in June 2003, the testing and treatment requirements for small and rural
systems have been severely and widely criticized as being too stringent and financially onerous.
Amending Reg. 170 is part of a Provincial plan to improve the regulation of drinking water systems
announced in April 2004. In May 2005, the government announced its intention to make public health
units responsible for ensuring facilities such as churches, community halls, bed and breakfasts and tourist
outfitters have safe drinking water. On June 3, 2005, systems serving non-residential and seasonal
residential uses became subject to Regulation 252/05.
The Ministry has stated that the "proposed amendments to Reg. 170 are risk-based and are designed to
safeguard the quality of Ontario's drinking water, while making the regulation more workable and
affordable for operators of residential drinking water systems and systems serving designated facilities."
The Ministry is seeking input on amendments that apply: (1) to all systems under Reg. 170, (2) only to
non-municipal year-round residential systems, (3) to point of entry treatment, (4) to parameter standards
in Reg. 169. The proposed regulations and background material can be found on the EBR website as well
as directions on how to submit comments before September 20, 2005.
The following are offered as some highlights of the proposed amendments:
· Less frequent testing for chlorine residual and microbiological testing requirements.
· Added clarity on testing frequency intervals, alarm response requirements, adverse conditions and
corrective action between tests.
. Elimination of Engineer's report for municipal residential systems (former Schedule 20).
. Mandatory system registration.
· Additional flexibility regarding persons allowed to perform operational checks at designated
facilities.
· Non-municipal year-round residential drinking-water systems are exempted from treatment for
groundwater systems, provided certain conditions are satisfied.
· Restrictions on use of point of entry treatment.
. Accessibility to private residences by various persons for purposes of inspection, maintenance of
equipment and response to alarms or adverse conditions for systems using point of entry
treatment.
· The fecal coliforms, HPC, total coliform membrane filter standards are removed from Schedule 1 of
O. Reg. 169103.
Action:
AMO's Regulation 170 Task Force will review and provide comments to the Ministry. We will share with
members so that they may consider them in their own submission.
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