The URL can be used to link to this page

April 24, 2007 Agenda ORDERS OF THE DA Y FOR TUESDA Y. APRIL 24. 2007 - 9:00 A.M. PAGE # ORDER Meeting Called to Order Adoption of Minutes - for the meeting of April 1 0, 2007 Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof Presenting Petitions, Presentations and Delegations Motion to Move Into "Committee Of The Whole Council" Reports of Council, Outside Boards and Staff Council Correspondence - see attached 1) Items for Consideration 2) Items for Information (Consent Agenda) OTHER BUSINESS 1) Statements/Inquiries by Members 2) Notice of Motion 3) Matters of Urgency 9th I n-Camera Items 10th Recess 11 th Motion to Rise and Report 12th Motion to Adopt Recommendations from the Committee Of The Whole 13th Consideration of By-Laws 14th ADJOURNMENT 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 2-41 6th 7th 42-69 70-80 8th I LUNCH WILL NOT BE PROVIDED I REPORTS OF COUNCIL AND STAFF APRIL 24. 2007 Staff Reports - (ATTACHED) 3 Director of Engineering Services - Land Purchase Policy Review - For Road Widening 11 Director of Engineering Services - One-Year Contract Position - Building Sciences Technologist Director of Engineering Services - King George Lift Bridge (to be FAXED out Friday) 14 Secretary-Treasurer, Land Division - Tariff of Fees for Land Division Consent Applications 17 Construction Technologist, Purchasing Co-Ordinator - Capital Project - Talbot Line Rehabilitation, Contract #6200-06-03 19 Building Sciences Technologist, Manager of Corporate Facilities, Purchasing Co-Ordinator - Capital Project - New Sidewalk Construction - Elgin Manor 21 Director of Financial Services - Capping Options - 2007 25 Director of Financial Services - Formal Grant Policy 32 Director of Financial Services - 2006 Operations and Capital Surplus 35 Financial Analyst - Progress of 60/40 Split 36 Director of Information Technology - ElginConnects Portal Management and Operation Concerns 40 Director of Cultural Services - Ontario Ministry of Culture - Library Contribution - April 2007 2 REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Clayton Watters, Director of Engineering Services DATE: February 8, 2007 SUBJECT: Land Purchase Policy Review - For Road Widening CORPORATE GOALS: To build and maintain an efficient, affordable, effective and safe transportation network that accommodates the diverse needs of our communities and is able to support economic development and sustainable growth. INTRODUCTION: The County of Elgin completed a review of acquisition rates for land purchase in 2003. Due to the increase in land prices in recent year's staff have completed another review so that the compensation rates the County pays are a reasonable measure of current prices. DISCUSSION: In the fall of 2006, Moir Luft Real Estate Appraisal Services Limited, provided current information on market values for vacant land in Elgin County. The sales in the report were analyzed on "sold" prices per unit of comparison. The sold prices were then used to calculate the mean (is the average of all the sales in the group), median (is situated in the middle of the group) and mode (is the range that holds the most number of sales). All the present categories are divided into three areas: West Elgin and DuttonjDunwich; Southwold and Central Elgin and Malahide and Bayham. Appendix 'A' lists the current categories for land acquisition: agricultural, rural residential building lot (0.50 to 3 Ha), residential building lot in developed area (0.10 to 1 Ha), rural industrial and commercial lot and urban industrial and commercial building lots. Appendix 'B' lists the land values of the statistical compilation for the 2006 fall report. The categories are: vacant agricultural land, vacant residential lots (small and large lots) and commercial j industrial lots. The two categories are sub divided into additional categories: Vacant agricultural - total acreage and workable acreage; Vacant residential lots - small lots (0.004 to 0.405 Ha) and large lots (over 0.405 Ha). For vacant agricultural land prices staff is proposing that all agricultural land be classified as workable land. This is due to the fact that most agricultural land is or was workable and consolidating all agricultural land together would make the identification simple. The vacant lot categories are divided into two groups: small lots (0.004 Ha to 0.405 Ha) and large lots (over 0.405 Ha). It was felt that the cut off point be 0.405 Ha (1 Acre) due to rural land sizes being 0.405 Ha. These lands can accommodate services such as wells and septic systems. Smaller lots sizes (0.004 Ha to 0.405 Ha) are predominately in developed areas which usually have municipal services, with corresponding higher land values. The categories listed are divided into median, mean and mode. Staff is proposing that the mode be utilized due to the larger amount of information and the quality of statistical information that it produces. Staff is also recommending the highest price on the mode (range that holds the most number of sales) so that these rates could be used for several years. In order that the land purchase prices remain current, staff is recommending that the prices be increased by the January CPI of each year. Additionally, to ensure fair market prices are maintained staff will obtain the services of a certified land appraiser to complete a review every four years. A report will be presented to County Council with adjusted appraised values every 4 years. CONCLUSION: Staff has retained the services of a certified appraiser to update the 2003 appraisal land prices. The significant information provided in the Moir Luft report is included within the body of this report. In the last decade the County purchasing policy for road widening, originated from a rate per acre plus a fence allowance (whether the land was in an urban or rural area), to a rate per acre (whether the land was in a urban or rural area), to the latest prices per four categories (vacant agricultural, vacant residential lots (0.004 to 0.405 Ha), vacant residential lots (0.406 Ha and greater) and commercial/industrial sites. Due to the latest appraisal, staff is recommending an increase to land purchase prices that were adopted on March 11, 2003. In order for the land purchase prices to remain current, staff is recommending that the prices be increased by the January CPI each year and also that the prices be reviewed by a certified land appraiser every four years. RECOMMENDATION: 1) That the County of Elgin purchase property, for road widening at the rates described below: Land Category: Rates: Agricultural $ per Ha Munici ali West EI in and DuttonjDunwich Southwold and Central EI in Malahide and Sa ham Land Category: Rates: Vacant Residential Lots (0.004 to 0.405 Ha) $ per square meter Munici ali West EI in and DuttonjDunwich Southwold and Central EI in Malahide and Sa ham 2007 Rates 9.00 36.00 20.50 Land Category: Rates: Vacant Residential Lots (0.406 Ha and greater) $ per square meter 2007 Rates 2.50 $7.50 2.00 Land Category: Rates: Industrial and Commercial Sites $ per square meter 2003 rates $6,600 6800 7000 2003 rates $10.00 $14.00 12.00 2003 rates 15.00 25.00 20.00 2) That the prices be increased each year by the January CPI; and, 3) That a certified land appraiser complete a comprehensive review every four years and report to Council on those findings. Respectfully Submitted (j)vJ~ ilt~. Clayton Watters Director, Engineering Services Mark G. Chief Administrative Officer Appendix A Approved by County Council on March 11, 2003 Land Type - Agricultural Area West EI in & DuttonfDunwich Southwold & Central EI in Malahide & Ba ham Unit Ha Ha Ha Land Type - Rural Residential Building Lot (0.50 Ha to 3.0 Ha) in Price $10 $14 12 Unit S uare meter S uare meter S uare meter Land Type - Residential Building Lot in Developed Area (0.10 Ha to 1 Ha) Area West EI in & DuttonfDunwich Southwold & Central EI Malahide & Ba ham Price $15 $25 20 Land Type - Rural Industrial and Commercial Building Sites I Area All l Price $20 I Unit Square meter Land Type - Urban Industrial and Commercial Building Sites Area All raisal Appendix B Prices as per report from Moir Luft Real Estate Appraisal Services Limited Oct 2006 Municipality Land Type Notes: 9 sales over 2-year period (2 in West Elgin and 7 in DuttonjDunwich) Sales range form 20 to 40 Ha of total land and 12 to 40 workable Ha, West Elgin & DuttonjDunwich Vacant Agricultural Land, Total Ha Calculation T e Mean Median Mode # of Sales 7of9 Workable Ha Calculation T e Mean Median Mode # of Sales 4of9 Municipality Land Type Notes: 9 sales over 3-year period (6 in Southwold and 3 in Central Elgin) Sales range form 17 to 42 Ha of total land and 10 to 41 workable Ha, Southwold & Central Elgin Vacant Agricultural Land, Total Ha Calculation T e Mean Median Mode 5 of 9 7/413 # of Sales Workable Ha Calculation Type # of Sales Price per Ha Mean $12/684 Median $10 193 Mode 4of9 $4/492 - $7/413 Appendix B Prices as per report from Moir Luft Real Estate Appraisal Services Limited Oct 2006 Municipality Land Type Notes: 8 sales over 2-year period (7 Malahide and 1 in Bayham) Sales range form 18 to 45 Ha of total land and 0 to 40 workable Ha, Malahide and Bayham Vacant Agricultural Land Total Ha Calculation T e Mean Median Mode # of Sales 12 355 5 of 8 Workable Ha Calculation T e Mean Median Mode # of Sales 12 355 4of8 Municipality Land Type Notes: 11 sales over 2-year period 7 sales in range from 0.004 to 0.405 Ha 4 sales in range from 0.406 Ha and greater West Elgin and Dutton/Dunwich Vacant Residential Lots Small Lots (0.004 to 0.405 Ha) Calculation Type # of Sales Price per square meter Mean 18.08 Median 16.79 Mode 3of7 7.86 - $8.83 2of4 Appendix B Prices as per report from Moir Luft Real Estate Appraisal Services Limited Oct 2006 Municipality Southwold & Central Elgin Land Type Vacant Residential Lots Notes: 19 sales over 3-year period 13 sales in range from 0.004 to 0.405 Ha 6 sales in range from 0.406 Ha and greater Small Lots 0.004 to 0.405 Ha Calculation T e # of Sales Mean Median Mode 8 of 13 3of6 Price er s uare meter $13.02 11.73 4.95 - $7.64 Municipality Malahide and Bayham Land Type Vacant Residential Lots Notes: 41 sales over 2-year period 33 sales in range from 0.004 to 0.405 Ha 8 sales in range from 0.406 Ha and greater Small Lots 0.004 to 0.405 Ha Calculation T e # of Sales Mean Median Mode 13 of 33 20.67 Lar e Lots 0.406 Ha and lar er Calculation T e # of Sales Mean Median M~e 3~8 Price er s uare meter $4.31 $4.20 $0.97 - 2.05 Appendix B Prices as per report from Moir Luft Real Estate Appraisal Services Limited Oct 2006 Municipality Land Type Notes: 3 sales over 5-year period (Aylmer - $70.37 per square meter, Straffordville - $9.79 per square meter and Port Stanley - $43.26) All Commercial & Industrial Lots All sales form urban area Calculation T e Mean Median Mode # of Sales Insufficient sam Ie size REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Clayton Watters, Director of Engineering Services DATE: AprilS, 2007 SUBJECT: One Year Contract Position - Building Sciences Technologist CORPORATE GOALCS) REFERENCED: To be recognized as a desired employer To recognize and seize opportunities for improvement INTRODUCTION: The County of Elgin hired a Building Science Technologist for one year as adopted by County Council at the March 28, 2006. The following is the recommendation that was adopted; "That the County of Elgin hire a full - time permanent employee in the Engineering Services Department to assist our building sciences group; and also, That this employee start on or about July 1, 2006 for a one year contract that will be reviewed after nine months of service; and also, That the 2006 Budget for the Administration Building Department be increased by $63,000 representing the costs for a Building Technologist." DISCUSSION: The County of Elgin Engineering Services Department has evolved to create operational efficiencies and has two distinct segments; roads and buildings. Presently the Manager of Corporate Facilities (MCP) supervises the maintenance employees, act as the constructor for capital projects and also assist technically in major building projects such as the new ambulance building in Aylmer. The Building Sciences Technologist (BST) has assisted the MCF since last summer. The employment of the BST was to reduce the workload of the MCF to a manageable level and to increase the co-ordination and communication of the maintenance and capital projects within our buildings. The MCF is the main contact for all projects that occur at every County facility during the workday or weekend. Now, this workload has been split between the MCF and the BST so as to alleviate the workload of the MCF. The Directors for the Homes are the second contact on most call in lists. Having only the MCF performs these duties is an unreasonable expectation for one person. One cost saving measure this department utilizes when completing capital projects is that staff performs the contract administration duties and acts as the general contractor on some projects. By completing contract administration savings can be realized on capital projects. By acting as the general contractor - that is to say, by hiring and co- ordinating various trades to complete a larger project - the County has previously realized savings as great as 45% on projects. The BST has acted in these capacities and in turn the County has realized direct savings. Recent examples of savings are the new laundry facility improvements at Bobier Villa, that a contractor provided a tender price of more than $90,000, yet staff for the County co-ordinated the same project for $48,000 (55% of the contractor cost). A similar result occurred when the Administration Building was renovated for a tenant requiring more than 10,000 square feet, the project was tendered and the lowest price was $273,000. The project was completed under the direction of the Manager of Corporate Facilities with the final project cost of $222,000 (81% of the contractor cost). Due to the use of the PM Works, a preventative maintenance software for building infrastructure, the County is now able to ensure that preventative maintenance duties on the equipment is completed in a timely and efficient manner to keep the costly infrastructure maintained as per the manufacturer recommendations. The County's facilities are worth approximately $100 million and preventative maintenance activities are the most cost effective use of funds to prolong the life of these assets. The BST is continually updating this data so that the best operating and capital investment decisions are made. Since the BST is proficient at the use of AutoCAD software and knowledge of the building code, the BST has designed several projects so as to reduce the dependence on architects and lowers project costs in the process. The major job tasks for this new position will include assisting with the following: . Obtaining bids and quotes for maintenance and capital projects . Updates and co-ordinates the PM Works . Operates the CAD software and creates drawings to assist in projects . Inspects contractors work as requested . Investigates issues requiring action by either maintenance employee(s) or contractors . Improves communication between different departments during maintenance and capital projects . Performs the duties of the Land Division Secretary Treasurer in the absence of the Land Division Secretary Treasurer . Assists Manager of Corporate Facilities in his daily duties and acts in his absence. Performance appraisal have been completed an all has been satisfactory. CONCLUSION: The Manager of Corporate Facilities workload has been reduced to a manageable level due to the employment of the Building Services Technologist these last nine months. The engineering department has demonstrated that completing projects as the general contractor saves a substantial amount of money for the County of Elgin ratepayers. This is due to contractor overhead costs being excluded from the price of some projects. With additional employee resources, the County has more control over the execution of capital projects, can reduce costs and can better manage maintenance operations in our facilities which are valued at about $100 million. Therefore, staff suggests adding a Building Technologist to the Engineering Services as a fulltime employee to the Department complement to assist the Manager of Corporate Facilities. RECOMMENDATION: That the current full-time contract position, known as the Building Sciences Technologist be made permanent effective immediately. Respectfully Submitted Mark Id Chief Administrative Officer (]{JWfillM Clayton Watters Director, Engineering Services REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Susan Galloway, Secretary Treasurer Land Division DATE: April 2/ 2007 SUBJECT: Tariff of Fees for Land Division Consent Applications Corporate Goals: To provide innovative and collaborative quality service. Introduction: Over-expenditures in the 2006 budget, decreases in the number of Land Division Severance Applications for 2006 and increases in operational costs have prompted staff to conduct a survey with consent-granting authorities to determine if the fees charged by the County are comparable to what other municipalities are charging. Discussion: The County's current fees are $700 ($500 for the application and $200 for deed stamping) and have been in force since October 2001. Appendix A lists selected municipalities from a provincial survey on committee of adjustments and land division committees. The survey indicates that the fees the County of Elgin charges are much lower than the surrounding municipalities. The deficit for the Land Division services for 2006 is related to a number of factors: a decrease in the number of applications in 2006 compared to recent years; salaries and office expenditures for the department have risen over the past 6 years; increased remuneration to members of the Land Division Committee for attending a duly called meeting of the Committee; increased investigation fees for each application that the member investigates and the provision to obtain a Solicitor and/or Professional Planner for consent appeals at Ontario Municipal Board hearings have caused additional expenses to the County. These increases are not new to this year, however, with the decrease in applications for 2006 resulting in over-expenditures a careful review of the fee structure is necessary. Appendix B lists the surplus or deficit for the last fives years and also lists the number of applications. Not included in the land divisions costs are the following: room leases for secretary-treasurer ($2/500)/ committee room meeting costs ($500)/ postage ($4/000)/ photocopying ($3/000). Conclusion: The fees charged for consents are on a user-pay basis, so that the applicants pay for expenditures of the Land Division function. Fees have not increased since October of 2001 while the number of applications has decreased and operating costs have increased. The services that are provided are to cover all costs but there are additional costs that have never been included (i.e. office, postage, photocopying). Land Division revenue is directly tied to the number of severance applications received annually. The deficit experienced in 2006 was due to a lower number of applications as compared to previous years. Staff has also surveyed other jurisdictions and has found that Elgin County charges lower fees comparably. Therefore, staff will continue to monitor application volume trends and fees and suggests that fees be reviewed every term of Council so that a true cost recovery model is in place. Recommendation: That staff continue to monitor the trends and finances of the Land Division; and also, That this report be received and filed. Respectfully Submitted Approved for Submission ~(rny Susan Galloway Secretary-Treasurer {foJJ~~ Mark G. Chief Administrative Officer Appendix A Survey of Area Committee of Adjustment and Land Division Committee Committee of Adjustment Fees Municipality Population Fees Comments Haldimand County 44,000 $600 Minor $1,000 Maior $100 Additional fee Norfolk County 61,000 $848 $640 plus $208 (health fee) $50 Certificate City of St. Thomas 33,000 $300 Under review Municipality of 6,200 $1,500 Southwest Oxford Municipality of $1,000 Thames Centre $200 Per additional application Township of 15,000 $1,000 Middlesex Centre Land Division Committee Fees Po ulation 105,000 Fees $915 Comments Appendix B Annual Surplus or Deficit Year Surplus or (Deficit) Number of Applications 2002 $34,924 123 2003 $24,421 148 2004 $33,537 151 2005 $15,603 123 2006 ($1,773) 107 REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Meredith Goodwin, Construction Technologist Sonia Beavers, Purchasing Co-Ordinator DATE: April 16, 2007 SUBJECT: Capital Project - Talbot Line Rehabilitation, Contract # 6200-06-03 Coroorate Goal Referenced To build and maintain an efficient, affordable, effective and safe transportation network that accommodates the diverse needs of our communities and is able to support economic development and sustainable growth. Introduction As part of the Capital Budget, Requests for Tenders were issued as per the County's Purchasing Policy and sealed bids were received until Wednesday, April 11, 2007 for the supply of all labour, equipment and materials for the Rehabilitation of Talbot Line, County Road # 3. The work is located on Talbot Line (also known as Elgin County Road # 3) from lona Road (also known as County Road # 14) to Dunborough Road. The length of the project is 16.3 km and on Currie Road for about 350 meters north of Talbot Line. Discussion / Conclusion Formal Tenders were retained and bids were received as follows: Com an Birnam Excavatin Limited Hen He ink Construction Limited Birnam Excavating Limited submitted the lowest bid for the rehabilitation of Talbot Line, County Road # 3, at a total price of $ 1,694,557.46 (including taxes). The Bid includes labour, material and equipment required to complete the project as specified in the Tender Document. This project forms part of the Talbot Line Rehabilitation project scheduled over a four year period and to be completed in 2010. A reserve has been established utilizing the Move Ontario Provincial Grant and Federal Gas Tax Revenue to fund this project. The lowest bid is within the budget estimates. Recommendation THAT Birnam Excavating Limited be selected for the supply of all labour, material and equipment required for the Rehabilitation of Talbot Line for at the quoted price of $ 1,694,557.46 (including taxes); and THAT the Warden and Chief Administrative Officer be directed and authorized to enter into an agreement with Birnam Excavating Limited to complete the Rehabilitation of Talbot Line, County Road # 3, Contract # 6200-06-03. ubmitted, ( Approved B~1 ., / -fJ/J1fi fjL 1t1ftl, Clayton Watters Director, Meredith Goodwin Construction Technologist ~_ ~CV.rl^-- Sonia Beavers Purchasing Co-Ordinator Mark McDona d Chief Administrative Officer REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Cole Aicken, Building Sciences Technologist Jim Carter, Manager, Corporate Facilities Sonia Beavers, Purchasing Co-Ordinator DATE: April 16, 2007 SUBJECT: Capital Project - New Sidewalk Construction - Elgin Manor Coroorate Goal Referenced To recognize and seize opportunities for improvement. Introduction As part of the Capital Budget, Requests for Tenders were issued as per the County's Purchasing Policy and sealed bids were received until Wednesday, April 11, 2007 for the supply of all labour, equipment and materials required for the construction of a sidewalk at Elgin Manor, Long Term Care Facility. Discussion / Conclusion Formal tenders were retained and bids were received as follows: Bid $ D.P.A. Contracting Limited submitted the lowest bid for the construction of a sidewalk at Elgin Manor at a total price of $ 41,264.10 (including taxes). The Bid includes labour, material and equipment required to complete the project as specified in the Tender Document. A total of $80,000 has been allocated for this project, therefore the lowest tender received for the Construction of a Sidewalk in the amount of $ 41,264.10 is within the capital budget allocation. Recommendation THAT D.P.A. Contracting Limited be selected for the supply of all labour, material and equipment required for the Construction of a Sidewalk at Elgin Manor, Long Term Care Facility at their quoted price of $ 41,264.10. Respectfully Submitted, ~<7~ Cole Aicken Building Sciences Technologist Ji~ Manager, Corporate Facilities Approved By, NJN(A~ Clayton Watters Director, En ineering Services Mark McDona Chief Administrative Officer --- ~~ rL- ~~'A....l..V' Soma Beavers Purchasing Co-Ordinator REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Linda B. Veger, Director of Financial Services DATE: March 27, 2007 SUBJECT: Capping Options - 2007 CORPORATE GOAL(S) REFERENCED: To ensure fiscal responsibility and accountability. INTRODUCTION: Each year Council has the opportunity to review its current tax policy. The current policy includes: . Tax ratios as determined by the Province with the introduction of current value assessment (CV A). . Selection of the optional class, large industrial. . Tax reductions of 30% and 35% for vacant/excess lands within commercial and industrial classes. . Lower limit of 90% for new construction (2007 limit). . Tax relief for low income seniors and low income persons with disabilities. . Default capping options as allowed by the Province. The Province introduced some new options relating to capping for the 2006 taxation year. After a meeting with the lower tier treasurers a report was presented recommending no change to the policy for the 2006 taxation year. DISCUSSION: When the Province introduced current value assessment, many properties in the multi- residential, commercial, and industrial classes would have experienced very large increases to their tax bills. The Province then introduced a capping program whereby decreasing properties would not receive their total decrease and increasing properties would not receive their total increase. In short, decreasing properties fund a portion of the taxes on increasing properties. The default in the program allows the municipalities to increase capped properties by 5% plus the normal increase to levies (with certain restrictions ). This program does not consider thresholds therefore some properties have very small increases each year compared to the amount of taxes they should be paying. Examples of properties are: 2006 Taxes Capping 2007 Tax # Taxes Should be Adjustment Taxes Adjustment 1 $135 $4,090 $7 $142 $3,949 2 $1 ,202 $6,932 $60 $1 ,262 $5,670 3 $172,991 $153,371 $0 $172,991 $19,620 4 $19,476 $18,415 $0 $19,476 $1,061 Under the current policy, property number 1 will take over 500 years before it reaches full CV A taxes and property number 2 will take close to 100 years. Properties numbered 3 and 4 will not receive their reduction in taxes until properties 1 and 2 have reached full CV A taxes - the system is definitely unfair to decreasing properties. In 2007, introducing the options provided by the Province would have property numbers 1 and 2 up to CV A taxes in less than 20 years. See the attached chart that highlights some of the advantages and disadvantages to the capping options. In a two-tier system the decreasing properties across the County help to fund the increasers. As example, an industrial property with decreasing taxes in one municipality may help fund industrial increasers in all other municipalities. The County acts as the banker, invoicing some municipalities and crediting others. The net affect should be zero, however shortfalls are being experienced in the multi-residential and industrial classes. These shortfalls must be included in budgets and paid for by all taxpayers. Without a change to tax policy in 2007, shortfalls will occur at both the upper and lower tier levels. Even with a change in policy, there is no guarantee that shortfalls will not occur in the future. The options to capping introduced in 2006 allow municipalities to increase property taxes by up to an additional 10% over and above the default of 5%. Also, up to a maximum $250 threshold can be put in place to bring those properties within $250 of their CVA tax level directly to their full tax liability. Municipalities may use a threshold for increasing properties, decreasing properties, or both. CONCLUSION: The Treasurers met on March 30 to discuss the options. The recommendation to Council is to utilize the options to bring both increasing and decreasing properties closer to their CV A taxes. RECOMMENDATION: THAT County tax policy be amended to set the annualized tax limit increase at 10%, the prior years current value assessment (CVA) tax limit increase at 5%, and the CVA threshold for protected (increasing) properties at $250; and, THAT the County tax policy be reviewed for the 2008 taxation year. Respectfully Submitted Approved for Submission YflinalJ Chief Administrative Officer ~~ Linda B. Veger Director of Financial Services ---... en CI) C) ..... CU c- C I: I: ('II ~ '''0 C)enCU jjj I: .~ ....00 0:;::; >. c. "0 _01: I: CU ::l C) en o .5 CI) Oc.C) c.CU CU- o ~ > ~ Q) .t: - Ol I: en >- '-"0 - Ctl ~ 2 ~ E ~~~~l!? u_~-Ctl Q)o.o~Q) en ;: a I .t: >- CI) Ctl Q) 3: .Q> >< C).t: N ~.t: Ctl CU-"Ou - - en .- _ Q) Q) 1:1:.20;;::; CUCtl::JQ)__ >Q)ooroo.2 'gE 0""'$ I: .~ $ ~ 1ii ~ ;; o~::J~uCtl U .~ Ol Ol t Ol e :.c .~ ,g .~ 0 Q) ~ 00 ~~;;CtlOl Ctl=_UI: U 3: Ctl Ol'o.. E 00 00 I: 0. ::J .~ .~ 'c ~ E 1:: 1:: 'co _ .- Q) Q) e 0 >< 0. 0.._ ~ Ctl e e Ctl 00 :2: 0. 0.:2: 'C .:. .:. ~ro +-' s.... ........ (],) 00.8 UOl Q) Q) Ctl ;;C:~ Be .~ Q) - ::J Ctl "0 ~~ ~~ Q) 0.0 Q) Ctl ~~"O :e~ .~ Q) I: Q) Ctl "0 Ctl 0._ Q) 0"0 0_ .oEQ) ag .~ .~ 0. E 00 .t: 0. 0 Q) __00 _ Ctl ..... 0 .....u -"0 :O~55 5>- ~I:Q) ~e ~::Ji; co5 '0$ Q) ~o ""'55.0 l!?Q) <D ~ E ~ ~.;:: ;; E- I: ~ro~ ::J~.!9 Q) Ol~ 00 I: 'O.~ - Q) U 5 ECtl"O~I:Ctl:;:J Q)::J Ol-"Oro-9 0. ~E.~~2:;:J3:0 Q) .- 0. - U Q)I: Ctl Q) .....><c.CtlQ)_U.t: .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .8 15 .:. .:. Q) .t: ~ ~ Q) 00 Ctl ::c 15 ~ 'en U U 00 Q) .~ E l!? 0 00 .0 E::J Q) 0. .- l!?Q) Q) ::J .5 10' ~ e ~ en >- Ol E .~ 0."0 2 0 CI) ~ I: .- E >< Q) >< ..... C)c..Ctl>< .!9OOQ)1: cu><.t:CtlQ)_::J_o - Ctl U E ..... 0 Ctl 00 .- 1:__ Q).8 c.u2u cu ..... 0 > Q) ::J I: Ctl ::J > 0 I: .- ..... 0 0 Q) "0 "0 - - Q) Q) ..... .- ..... Q) <( Ol= U.t: Olro Ol..... .~3:~-:-:'oo><Q)~ 00 I: - .- Ctl .t: U .2 0 ~ .~ ;; - - Ctl 5 ~ :e ~ E .~ .8 ~ u"S ~>< ege Ctl ~~e~';;;~Eu"O ~Uc.5e"'5ooE~ ~ .~"[ ~ % ~ ~ .~ ]g >- .... 0. - E .- 00 >< .~ Ctlc.Ctlo ECtlCtlCtl :2: ~o a8:.:J~:2: E .:. .:. :!: .5 .. -00 o Q) ~:e - Q) .00. ~ e 50.. >"0 Ctl Q) -0. - 0. 00 Ctl 00 :2: = "#. I.() I 00 o Q) ::J 00 am 00 u .a .~ .!9 I: (j) 0 .:. .:. 00 Q) Q) > :e~Ctl I:Q)Ctl.t: :8 g. 00 1U' ~.....Q).t: ::J 0. 00 - U "0 Ctl I: roQ)~Ctl U 0. U ;; "0 c..~ Q) Q) Ctl I: _ ~uQ)~ <:sE.t: =03:~ c...::: I: .... E.t:o~ 8~:g~.8 Q)3220"O 5 ~ e E E E.oc.Ctlo Ctl.....~ro1ii .~ ~ ..Q .~ i3 $ :;:J .~ "0 ~ "S55 ~I: OO_OCtlQ) Q)0~.t:Q) 0:: 0.. ;> 0..0 .:. .:. Ol I: \f- -a. '0 o c...... 00 Ctl Q) 0lQ)- U .0 I:roo ;; E '0.. :: g .~ ::J c.Q)= "0 I: Q) ~3::9 Q)-gQ) U 1:..Q~E::Jge>"O I: >< .- 0 0 Q) 00 Ctl ~ Q) '> .!9 I: - 0. - .~ .t: Ctl U e .Q .~ Q) Q)..... Q) I: ::J 0.. <(>u 00;;_.0 Q) 5"0 ::JQ) ..... .........-Q) Q) o - 00 0 'S: ~ >-.............. JB .t: "0 Ctl Q) .t:;> U := I: - .8 ~ en .t: 00 00 .!a I: ........ Q) "0 - "0 I: .~ Q) = :!:: ~ "0 E I: 55 '0.. ~ .~ ;; :0 ::J Ctl I: Q) 5 E Ctl - E .1:_ >< 00 0. Ctl .= ~ ..... 1:.- _Ctl Q)..... 00 -::J '" Q) ....."000 1:<( 0"'"0 >0 ~o.a"O=.....Q) Q) ~> Q) Q) I:Ctl:>.t:_o.....u E E .~ Ctl t iD -:-:. "0 - ~ ~ 00 Ctl.t: - 0 _ 00 I: Ctl .- .0 Q)..... U~.t: >.e Ctl ooro E - :.c"oo=Q)>-......t:; ~ .8 3: co 0l.!Q E :!: ~ 00 Q) Q) ~ _.0 I: e - .~ Ctl 'c ~ Q) ;> $ 3: .~ 2 ~ a. g-'E ~ 8 0 00 Ctl 0 .~ E _ .- <( ;;:c 8 U ~ 0.. -g 'en ~ -g 5 .:. .:. .:. .:. 00 "'5 o _ I- >< OlCtl 1:1- '0.. ~ c.Ctl 8m -- 005 Q)~-- en 0 "0 ::)~ffi X "0 Ctl "'5 I- .t: ~ ~ o .t: -.....1- 0-20 "#.-g~ I.()Ctl~ o - .8u Q) Q) ::cB ~ ~ -~ ::Joo~ ~ .~ ~ $1::.0 -Q)3: 00 00. Ctl 0....._ :2: 0.. =U REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Linda B. Veger, Director of Financial Services DATE: April 16, 2007 SUBJECT: Formal Grant Policy CORPORATE GOAL(S) REFERENCED: To ensure fiscal responsibility and accountability. INTRODUCTION/DISCUSSION: During budget deliberations, Council expressed interest in reviewing a formal grant policy. The attached report was presented to Council in 2005, however Council decided, at that time, to defeat the recommendation. Council may wish to reconsider the report. Also attached is a worksheet showing the effect this policy may have had on the 2007 grants. CONCLUSION: The attached policy is presented for Council's review and input. RECOMMENDATION: As determined by Council. Respectfully Submitted ~~~ Director of Financial Services Approved for Submission REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Linda B. Veger, Director of Financial Services DATE: January 17, 2005 SUBJECT: Formal Grant Policy Introduction: Staff have been instructed to review the County grant procedure and provide Council with a formal policy to consider. See previous staff report and background from C.A.O., attached. Discussion: The County of Elgin is a mostly rural area with strong ties to agriculture and all activities related to agriculture. The towns and villages within the County also have strong rural ties. When considering a grant request, Council must consider how a grant will benefit the residents of the County and whether or not the benefit reaches a considerable number of the residents. Neighbouring counties and cities were contacted and returned the following responses: County Formal Polic County of Wellington no County of Perth no Count of Middlesex es Cou nty of Oxford no Cit of St. Thomas no City of London yes and no How grant request requests are dealt with. Historically funded agricultural societies and social service organizations. Will consider grants after the bud et is a roved. Trend is to reducing the number of organizations and focusing on strategic ventures such as tourism and economic develo ment. No rants. Grants are considered along with the budget. Will consider grant requests after the budget has been a roved. Grants are considered alon with the bud et. London has formal policies for it Community Arts Investment Program (CAIP) and Commumity Services Innovation Fund (CSIF). It does not have a formal policy for its "core" programs such as Learning Disabilities Association, Youth Action Centre. An organization wishing to receive a "core" grant would make a application to a standin committee. A suggestion to Council may be to continue funding grant requests that are agricultural in nature such as the agricultural societies and the 4H. Also, to continue to support those requests that are a "social" in nature. However, it may be very difficult to determine whether or not a request is of a social nature or not. As an example, is the YWCA request for capital funding a social service type of request or not? The YWCA provides housing for those in need. Council could also decide to support only those requests that are agricultural in nature. The attached schedule shows how this may affect the 2005 grant requests. As indicated in the schedule, either change will have a negative effect on organizations that the County has traditionally funded. The Tourist Association has not been included on the list. Council determined a number of years ago to review the Tourist Association apart from grant requests. There are also the requests that come in after the budget has been approved. Council currently sets aside $5,000 each year as unspecified grants to have funds available for these requests. Some of the requests are for "disaster relief'. Would these be considered social in nature or would they not fit within our new criteria? Would we continue to fund requests from medical organizations such as the St. Thomas Elgin General Hospital? A simple solution would be to follow the County of Middlesex's lead and simply have a "no grant" policy. Conclusion: There are many grey areas in determining whether or not a grant request may fall into a category set out in a formal grant policy especially in the social area. Considering that the County of Elgin is mostly rural, it would seem appropriate to consider continuing to fund requests that are agricultural in nature. Requests that are of a social service nature are difficult to categorize in a formal policy. Does the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals fit into a social category? In order to be fair and consistent the following policy is presented for consideration. Draft Policy . there are four categories; . 1) agricultural, . 2) disaster relief, . 3) medical facility capital grant, and . 4) excluded as not falling into categories 1, 2, or 3. . requests that are agricultural in nature will be considered although not automatically approved. This includes the agricultural societies and the 4H. . all requests that are social in nature and do not fit the agricultural or disaster relief category will not be considered. . all requests that fall within a disaster relief category will be considered individually. . all requests received after the budget has been approved and fall within the disaster relief category will be considered on an individual basis with the funds coming from the "non-specific" grant line. All other requests received after the budget has been approved will not be considered. . all capital grant requests from a medical or hospital organization, such as the St. Thomas Elgin General Hospital, will be considered on an individual basis. . an organization that disagrees with its exclusion from the grant process, on the basis of the category it falls into (agricultural, disaster relief, medical facility capital grant, excluded), may approach the Warden. The Warden, at his or her discretion, may request a decision from Council as to whether or not to consider the grant request. . all grant requests must be received by December 31. For 2005, in order to allow organizations that regularly receive grants time to adjust to the change, County Council will consider grants on an individual basis as in previous years. However, all recipients will be advised of the policy change coming into effect on January 1, 2006. Recommendation: THAT the revised County of Elgin grants policy be approved for implementation on January 1, 2006; and, THAT all recipients of 2004 grants be informed of the new policy as soon as possible. Respectfully Submitted Approved for Submission Linda B. Veger Director of Financial Services Mark G. McDonald Chief Administrative Officer REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Mark G. McDonald, C.A.O. DATE: November 16,2004 SUBJECT: Mid-year Grant Requests and Solicitations for Sponsorship Introduction: As Council is aware, grant requests are considered once a year, usually in February, as part of the annual budget approval process. A copy of the County's grant policy is attached. However, throughout the year requests for grants in the form of sponsorships or advertisements are directed to the Warden for consideration. The attached solicitation from the Law Enforcement Torch Run is one example of such appeals for financial assistance. The purpose of this report is to determine Council's interest, if any, in considering requests of this nature after budgets have been set or in launching a complete review of its grant policy. Discussion: From time to time, the County receives solicitations from local organizations seeking financial sponsorship during the year and after grants have been approved. These requests may be of a nominal value and may take the form of placing a congratulatory note or letter from the Warden on the event with a small fee for the print space. Other requests may be more substantive. Council usually earmarks some funds for "unspecified grants" ($5000 in 2004) during budget deliberations. Traditionally, allocations from that fund require full Council approval. At other times, funds are allocated from the Warden's budget to cover costs for nominal requests. For the sake of consistency, Council should decide whether or not it wants to accept requests of this nature after budget approval and if so, does Council wish to delegate the authority for such expenditures to the Warden at his/her discretion? As with all grant requests, it is difficult to know where to "draw the line". For example, would Council consider sponsoring a "Right to Life" campaign or a "Pro Choice" initiative to name a couple of legitimate and worthy causes given that these programs have no direct affiliation with the County? Given the specter of controversy that can accompany some emotionally charged endeavours it may be advisable to review the current grant policy with a view to clearly delineating the type of requests that Council would consider. For example, Council may wish to entertain requests for financial assistance from local organizations of a specific nature each having a "significant" impact on County residents. The initiatives of the St. Thomas-Elgin General Hospital, the Seniors' picnic and agricultural societies come to mind as their programs provide benefits across the County. - 2 - Conclusion: In an effort to clarify Council's position on grant requests, both mid-year and at budget time, it may be advisable to review the County's grant policy in its entirety. Recommendation: THAT staff be directed to survey other municipalities and review policies on grants to outside organizations and report back to Council on a recommended policy for Elgin County, prior to budget deliberations. All of which is respectfully submitted, Mark G. McDonald, Chief Administrative Officer. COUNTY OF ELGIN GRANTS 2007 Budget 1 Shedden Agricultural Society 2 Wallacetown Agricultural Society 3 Rodney-Aldborough Agricultural Society 4 Aylmer & East Elgin Agricultural Society 5 Elgin 4-H Association 6 Tillsonburg & District Multi-Service Centre 7 Quad County Support Services 8 Seniors Picnic 9 St. Thomas - Elgin Art Gallery 10 Non-specific 11 Town Crier 12 Second Stage Housing 13 YWCA of St. Thomas 14 Elgin Community Nutrition Partnership 15 Elgin County Plowmen's Assocation 16 Ontario Conservation Officers Association 17 Med Quest Pilot Porject 18 St. Thomas Elgin General Hosp. Foundation 19 Thames Valley Children's Centre 20 Canadian Cancer Society 21 Heart & Stroke Foundation 22 Plowmen's Association Total 2007 Grants 4,500 agricultural - considered 4,500 agricultural - considered 4,500 agricultural - considered 7,500 agricultural - considered 2,000 agricultural - considered 4,500 not considered 2,000 not considered 2,500 not considered 10,000 not considered 5,000 disaster relief only 2,000 annual honourarium 5,000 not considered 10,000 not considered 5,000 not considered 5,000 not considered 25,000 medical capital grant - considered on an individual basis 10,000 not considered not considered not considered 33,000 agricultural - considered 142,000 REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Linda B. Veger, Director of Financial Services DATE: April 16, 2007 SUBJECT: 2006 Operations and Capital Surplus CORPORATE GOAL(S) REFERENCED: To ensure fiscal responsibility and accountability. INTRODUCTION: The 2006 surpluses, as previously reported to Council, are as follows: Operations $ 660,975 Capital $ 541,850 Total 1$1,202,8251 DISCUSSION: Staff presents the attached list of projects to utilize the surplus funds. The following projects, included in the list, have been approved by Council in previous meetings to come from the 2006 surplus: Emergency generator control points GST payment Museum fuel spill clean up Nurse call system - ElM $30,000 $25,000 $15,000 $20,000 CONCLUSION: The surplus total from 2006 is $1,202,825. Staff have prepared a list of projects totalling $1,202,000 for Council's consideration. RECOMMENDATION: THAT the 2006 surplus funds be utilized for projects as indicated in the report titled 2006 Operations and Capital Surplus dated April 16, 2007. cf(~~ Linda B. Veger Director of Financial Services Respectfully Submitted ~ eo E E ::J en en ::J 0- s.... ::J en en +-I u Q) .~ o s.... a.. eo +-I .- 0- eo o I"- o o N I/) ~ I- o :r: .... o r:: o ;; C. "i: (J I/) (1) c ... I/) o () "C (1) ... ctI E ;; I/) w ~ :!:: CO c. :~ r:: :::l :i: r:: o ;; ctI (J o ...J (1) E ctI z ... (J (1) '0' l- e.. '<""" ":;: O"C I ""'" CO I >- o 0 Ol CO +-' L. s.... "'C C .- 0 Ol 02 ....> ::::u... ....0 ~ "- U >< o Ol Ol .- ..c E '[ E 0>0 0.."0 5:: coO "- Ol .... U ..c:;= '0.. c :: 0 co .- Ol- 0:5 ~.8 "0:5 .... ..c Ol .- OOu >:;= .~ ':;: e c co c 0.2 ::2: ~ 0. ~ OlO COo > - >- .... CO C ~ 0 a.. .8 0 "0 .~ "5 cD '> ~.....: ::2:0"O~..cCO o..c ~ o.t-a I~O>OOen :;= 0>.... C CO "0 "-c"OOlOl C Ol'- "0 U COC~COco.o -to='t::;= ~&u~~g .. . o o o Lri" co '<""" f;F7 _..c c.~ o :;= ::::c ~ ~ 00 C cOl"O .- Ol C '<""" ""1; coo ~OlC""'" "-.00>- U5cQ5~ c.8..l<::..c .- .... CO 0> CO ~..c ._ ::2:000 I "00> CO C 0'- o:::~ Ol't: .- ~ t: en ~ Ol 00::: .... Ol en C ~ 00 E e .... .... U ~ "0 .... o CO c.. ..c >. ~ .0 CO -;; "0 ..c . ~ 0. 0 en en Ol Ol CO '-' U o 0 "O,,-~ OlO'..... uC"O >-oc ~:;:::; CO "- ~ "0 0>= Ol c.o - 'N CO ~ =..cu :;:::;OlOl ::::l0:::0::: . . o o o LO C\I f;F7 "0 ~ ..c .... ~ o 00 Ol x C 0 C "- :;=~ .8 CO u.ienE . Ol..l<:: 0:;='<""" "0 o o C ..c I- Ol>- C CO .- "- ....JOl CO > to CO >< 0..- 00::2: "0 Ol CO Ol en Ol .0 0> .~ 0 -..... CO Ol Ol U en C ..l<::CO U C ~ Ol U.... C Ol'- ....CO Ol E o.Ol E > 0:;:::; U CO .... o C ....Ol ....> U Ol Ol "- '0' 0. "- en 0. CO CO en cD ~"Ou o.co::::. COOG u"-Ol O>~~ C C :;:::;~16 .!Q 0 0 >< 0 "- Ol en Ol O~..c ....0.... O>'C "0 C CO C .- > Ol "0 .... "Oc>< <(OOl .... en ~ E CO 'C Ol .... CO E . o o o o LO f;F7 en Ol 'C CO > en Ol 'C CO > 0> C CO Ol 00 ..l<:: U CO "- o .... CO ..c 0. en <( Ol en CO U :;= o ..c en ~ .80 "E~ CO Ol 0"0 .0 CO >-"- co.... o.-g .!Q CO "0 en Ol C 10 .Q aU 2-5 0"" U en ~ co 0 C'C o co 'en > en.... Ol co o~ "- C o.~ co 0 OlO .... co C ~:Ql Ow . o o o LO C\I f;F7 >- co 0. en is Ol .... ~ 0"0 0."- "- co o 0 OOJ .....: C co 0>= C 0. "OE.....: -OC ~ U ~ .0>-0 o~8 "- :0 co co .- Ol en co "-en.... Ol .;::; 108m E co U OlOl~ en .0 := en>- 0 :9 .... en en en en 0.;1:: Ol E .: 8 ~ 'co co 0>13 g C .- .- -........ ....Olen .!Q Ol 'x >< ..c Ol Ol :;= 0 ~C\I"" 0-"0 E co Ol ...."0 Olen"O O:::..=:<( . . . o o o o C\I '<""" f;F7 C 0> W ~ .... C Ol o C o :;:::; co "- .... en 0> .- C C._ .- "0 E= "O~ <(OJ en Ol "C co "- en 0>;1:: 0.'- ::::l....J "- >-.- ....co = ..c .- U .0 _ .- Ol en Ol en..c 8~ <(I o .... 0> C "0 ~ '5 Q5 OJ ~o. 6 .... E :;:::; .~ 0 co ..c U J:; :!:::CIJ .!Q :;= .- C OlO E 16'~ ~u)EB. ccOlen .- Ol .0 :.c enEc.... EOlco= 0.: U c O~en~ 1: o"c ~ en ~ Ol c' COOlE:a :;= "0 Ol = .~ 00 ~ ~ .0 "- ~ o>o.c o..~ .s g C')"O,,-CO Ol '5 ~ -t5 16 OJ t 'c "-.... ~.- 0> Ol .... E o.Olo"O ::::lEz<( . . o o o o C') '<""" f;F7 C 0> W ~ .... C Ol o C o :;:::; CO "- .... en 0> .- C C._ .- "0 E= "O~ <(OJ en C E.Q 0.... o CO "- U ..c~ en "0 CO 0 ~::2: ~ U C Ol .8~ en Ol "OE Ol Ol ~c "- CO ~g O'C o.~ Ol"O .~ 0. :CE .g B. o.Ol 0.: .... .... E2 Ol CO ...."0 en 0 ~E -E ~ 0 :58 U co ~o Ol.... 0>"- c.8 'C CO ':;: CD I C ~~ . o o o o C') f;F7 C 0> W co "- .... C Ol o C o :;:::; ~ .... en 0> .- C C._ .- "0 E= "O~ <(OJ "- o .... co "- Ol C Ol en (9.... >-.~ U 0 co.. Ol- e>e Ol.... E 6 wO en Ol en CO Ol E o "- .... Ol ~ "0 2 C Ol E >- co 0. I- 00 (9 . o o o LO C\I f;F7 C 0> W CO "- .... C Ol o C o :;:::; co "- .... .!Q g C._ .- "0 E= "O~ <(OJ .... C Ol E >- CO a.. I- 00 (9 I'- o - ""'" o - CD '<""" C\I .... o '<""" Ol 0> co a.. ~ eo E E :::J C/) en :::J 0- s.... :::J C/) en +-' u Q) .~ o s.... C- eo +-' .- 0- eo o I'- o o C'\I Ul ..lil:: I- o 3: .... o s::: o :;::; C. "i: CJ Ul Q) C - Ul o () "C Q) 10 E :;::; Ul W :>. :!:: ltI C. "u s::: ::s :E s::: o :;::; ltI CJ o ...J Q) E ltI Z - CJ Q) .0' l- n. "0 0) ..... ~ 0) ..... Ul 1: o 0. 0) ..... 0) Ul 0) ..s::: ...... Ul Ctl g s::: .~ ...... 0) "0 '5 e 0. o ...... ...... s::: Ctl ::: ::J Ul s::: o U s::: 'ffi ...... 0) 0:: 0) ~ o 0. E 0) 0) "0 '5 o ..... 0.. . . o o o C\I LO f:F7 o o o LO C\I f:F7 0> ,~ C '~ f- 0) ...... ~ o 0. ..... o o C ~ o 0) +:::0 '5 ~ 0) 0) 0:: C C C ::J 0 E'c~ O):J Ctl o::,Ul C C =00) gz ~ 5"0 0 offio 0) ::J ..... 0) U Ctl C ..... .2 E o ~ '0 Ul "0 0) ...... Ctl C E Ctl ...... C o U 0) ..... o ...... Ul 0) ..... "0 C Ctl 0) > o E= O)'q.. o::Ul . o o o LO ..- f:F7 Ul Ctl E o ..s::: f- ....: U) ...... 0) 0) ..... en ...... o .c co f- C\I (") 'i5.. U) 0) ::J LL E:3" ::J C 0) Ctl Ul 0) ::J_ :;EO Ul "0 0) .c ..... o ...... C 0) E 0) U Ctl 0. 0) 0:: . o o o LO f'.. f:F7 -....s::: c.2 o ~ :t::c ::J ::J 00 Ctl :> ..... 0) :.0 o III Ul "0 0) III 0) Ul Ctl ..s::: U ..... ::J 0.. ..: o c Ctl :;E c....: .- C O>::J W 0 "OU C U ::J Ctl 0- .....,S Ctl 'r:; =(0 Ctl U ~g Ctl+:::o ~ .~ 0) >< "0 0) 'w .9 0>"0 .~ 0) "0 "0 "0 "0 ~~ . . o o o o """ f:F7 "0 ~ ..s::: ...... ::J o U) ..... o c Ctl :;E C 0> W c o +:::0 Ctl Ctl ...... Ul C ~ Ctl $: 0) "0 en "0 ~ o ..... 0. 0. Ctl >- en ::J o '5 ~ 0. Ul Ctl ...... C ::J o U U Ctl Ctl ...... 'i5.. Ctl 0) U Co> Ctl C 0..+:::0 O)'~ ..... >< . i.i:0)= O).9g u"O::J Ctl 0) 0 0."00 0) "0 "'-- o::~E . . o o o o C\I f:F7 "0 ~ ..s::: ...... ::J o U) ..... o c Ctl :;E C 0> W E 0) ...... Ul >- U) Ctl o 0) Ul ..... ::J Z ...... c 0) ..... ..... ::J U ...... 0) 0) E o ...... E 0) ~ Ul E ..... Ctl co 0) ..... l;::: 0> C +:::0 Ul 'x . 0) Ul 0)"0 U ..... Ctl Ctl _"0 o.c 0) Ctl 0::1i5 . o o o LO ex> f:F7 0) 32 ..s::: Ctl Ctl :;E 0) 0> "0 o ...J 0) ..... U 0) ~ E .....- ~~ 0) c Ctl 0.. E ..... Ctl ~ 0) ..... i.i: ~ 0) z ~ e 0. .5 o ...... 0) 0> "0 o ...J 0) ~ U Ctl ~ U ..... ...... 0) C f-O) ......32 Ctl en ..... 0) o ..... ......"0 ~ C 0) Ctl O)Z' "O~ C Ctl o en U ~ 0) en en s::: Ctl.Q ...... Ctl ~ ......0) en 0. C 0 . o o o o LO C\I f:F7 0) "0 :2 Ctl co :;E 0) 0> "0 o ...J 0) ..... U 0) ~ E .....- ~~ ..... o ...... Ctl > 0) W ~ 0) z Ctl ...... en C en 0) "0 Ctl ..... 0> 0. ::J "0 C Ctl C o +:::0 Ctl ...... en 0> C 'w ..... ::J C ..... 0) 0. 0. ::J 0) ..s::: ...... '0 0) Ctl N 0) 'w Co 0) C :5 .Q 0)...... en ~ ~~ t; Ctl C 0 -...... . o o o o (") f:F7 0) 32 ..s::: Ctl co :;E cD 0> "0 o ...J 0) ..... U 0) ~ E .....- ~~ en 0) 5 en.- ........... ::J Ctl z.g -..:0 s::: 0 .Q :;E ~E .- 0 ......0 ~o:: e - C o U en ::J o ~ 0) ..... C ~ e 0. E o ...... Ctl ~ Ctl ~ ~ 0) en o ...... en 0) "0 Ctl ..... 0> 0. :J f'.. o -.. """ o -.. CD ..- . o o o o C\I f:F7 0) 32 ..s::: Ctl Ctl :;E 0) 0> "0 o ...J 0) ..... U 0) ~ E ~~ C\I ..... o C\I 0) 0> Ctl 0.. en ...... C 0) E E o 0) o > o::e g>~ 'c- i5~ .~ 2: Ctl 0) :;EU) REPORT TO COUNCIL FROM: Lisa Terrio Financial Analyst DATE: April 16, 2007 SUBJECT: Progress of 60/40 Split CORPORATE GOALS REFERENCED: To ensure fiscal responsibility and accountability. INTRODUCTION: To update Council on the Homes continuing progress in achieving the 60/40 split between preferred and basic admissions. DISCUSSION: In 2006 a progress report was presented to County Council outlining the Homes achievements to June 30, 2006. The Homes have continued to work toward this goal. From January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2006 the Homes have generated a total of $357,450 of extra revenue from preferred admissions. In 2007 additional revenues of $327,888 should be generated when compared to December 31 , 2003 revenues. The County is approximately 80% of the way towards achieving the goal of a 60/40 split. CONCLUSION: In an effort to raise revenues to help defray the cost of providing services at County Homes, Council directed, as a matter of policy, that a 60/40 split in accommodation rates be achieved. This report outlines the progress made to date. RECOMMENDATION: That the report titled Progress of 60/40 Split be received and filed. Respectfully Submitted Respectfully Submitted ~, ?L" T" 0 . Isa erno Financial Services ~~ Linda Vege~ Director of Finance Approved for Submission "'1fii ~ Mark G. McDonald Chief Administrative Officer REPORT TO COUNCIL FROM: Allan Reitsma Director of Information Technology DATE: April 24, 2007 SUBJECT: ElginConnects Portal Management and Operation Concerns CORPORATE GOAL(S) REFERENCED: 1. To ensure fiscal responsibility and accountability 2. To promote Elgin as "The Place to Live" 3. To forge community partnerships 4. To provide innovative and collaborative quality service 5. To recognize and seize opportunities for improvement INTRODUCTION: On March 27, 2007 County of Elgin Council passed the following motion: "THAT the report on the management and operation of the ElginConnects Portal be deferred and staff be directed to explore with Elgin Community Futures Development Corporation and the City of St. Thomas ways and means of addressing the identified concerns and report back to Council at a later date with a view to continuing a portal presence in the Elgin catchment area." This report will examine the options for the concerns and risks raised by the County of Elgin senior management team with regards to accepting ownership and management of the ElginConnects portal. The report will not debate the merits for the portal. DISCUSSION: The March 27, 2007 report to council, "ElginConnects Portal Management", raised several concerns and risks to operating the ElginConnects Portal. These included: · The liability to the County of illegal or libellous content and impact to the County's image · The liability to the County with regard to portal uptime · The cost of replacing the current, expensive and hard to use, Vignette platform used for content management · On-going funding · Insuring currency of content o Removing out-of-date listings o Adding/contacting new organizations and businesses · Guidelines for allowing organizations to join the portal · Promotion of the portal. · There may be perception that the County of Elgin is taking business away from local entrepreneurs. The Liability to the County of Illegal or Libellous Content and Impact to the County's Image The Liability to the County With Regard To Portal Uptime County staff has reviewed "Terms of Use" and disclaimers developed by: . WellingtonGuelph Community Portal, . Windsor-Essex Community Portal and . Chatham-Kent Community Portal. In essence, the terms or use and/or disclaimers state that the municipality is not responsible for the content of the portal and makes no claims about the accuracy of the information contained in the portal. The terms of use will include a clause indicating that the County of Elgin reserves the right to remove content without notice at its sole discretion. Furthermore the County will not guarantee that the portal will be available at any time. Staff will prepare a "terms of use" for review by legal council. It is interesting to note that the City of Waterloo was not concerned with liability mainly because they review and approve every piece of content on their site. However, due to the potential impact on workload and staffing requirements, this option is not recommended. The Cost of Replacing the Current, Expensive and Hard To Use, Vignette Platform Used For Content Management Elgin Community Futures Development Corporation has committed to funding the replacement platform for Vignette and the cost of migrating content to the new platform. On-Going Funding, Sources of Income After the new platform is implemented and content migrated, County Information Technology related activities should be limited to: 1. Setting up new "sites" at an estimated cost of $750 per site (2 days setup, 1 day training). 2. Developing and implementing new municipal web based applications. Funding for this will come from the existing Information Technology consulting budget ($77,500 annually) Sites within the portal will be charged an annual fee comparable to market rates as follows: Site Size <5Mb 5Mb<10Mb 10Mb + Monthlv Annual Monthly Annual Monthlv Annual 20.00 240.00 40.00 480.00 80.00 960.00 The majority of sites currently within the portal fall into the <5 Mb category with the exception of St. Thomas. The 11 sites currently in the portal would generate $3,400. All sites with the exception of the municipalities will be expected to pay an annual fee. Staff also considered the option of charging businesses currently listed in the business directory of the portal a nominal annual fee. However, the philosophy behind the business directory was to be all inclusive. Other business directories currently exist but these are membership based and not all inclusive. The portal business directory is meant to provide the residents of Elgin a complete directory of businesses. Charging a fee for a listing in the directory may mean that a portion of the businesses will drop out, defeating the purpose of the directory. Staff is proposing that businesses be charged a fee for an enhanced listing in the directory. The enhanced listing will include a link to a map showing the location of the business and an option to have a one page advertisement. Staff estimates the on-going costs: $ 4,000.00 $46,000.00 $ 5,000.00 Total $55,000.00 * For the first year of the operation of the portal 2 nd line support, consulting and training will be provided by consultants. First line support will be provided by County staff. After the first year the cost wi II be reviewed to determine if consulting is the optimal method for providing these functions or if County staff could provide these services more effectively. The City of St. Thomas will be approached about splitting the funding between the County and the City at 60/40. The City's response is unknown at this time. If the City declines is County Council willing to fund the endeavour? Insuring Currency of Content One of the key success factors for any web site is up-to-date content. A visitor to a site that continually displays a message asking visitors to "check back soon" or indicating that the "site is under construction" will soon stop checking the site. Even worse is content that is months or years out of date. The current reason given for out-of-date or non-existent content is the complicated content platform or lack of time. The change in portal platform will address the concerns with regard to the difficulty in making updates. Guidelines for Allowing Organizations to Join the Portal Elgin Community Futures Development Corporation currently allows any non-profit community organization or service group based in Elgin County to become a member of the portal. Staff recommends that this policy be maintained. Promotion of the Portal Elgin Community Futures Development Corporation has committed to developing a marketing plan for the portal to be completed no later than June 4' 2007. Since the portal plays a key role in economic develop, it is hoped that the marketing plan can be incorporated into the economic development plan. Additional local web developers will be contacted and asked to promote the portal. Promotion by local web developers provides additional potential business for the developer and potential revenue for the County. There May Be a Perception That the County Of Elgin Is Taking Business Away From Local Entrepreneurs The opposite is true. The County will not be developing content for non-County web pages. Those municipalities and organizations that do not have the capacity to develop content will be free to choose a service provider capable of developing the desired content. County staff involvement in content will be limited to setting up each "site" within the portal and creating or modifying the necessary navigation. CONCLUSION: Staff has been able to mitigate or resolve concerns with regard to the operation of the ElginConnects portal. In order for the portal to be successful requires the full support of each municipality. Not only will the portal assist the Economic Development Department in attracting new business is should be seen as a way of retaining current business and residents. More and more residents are looking to then internet to be able to access services provided by the municipalities. The portal can be the means that provides those services. Municipalities must work together to deliver these common services via the portal. RECOMMENDATION: THAT the County of Elgin takes ownership of the Elgin-St. Thomas Connects portal as soon as practical. ;;:f Approved for Submission &ald;:L Chief Administrative Officer Respectfully Submitted Allan Reitsma Director of Information Technology REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Cathy Bishop Director of Cultural Services DATE: April 11, 2007 SUBJECT: Ontario Ministry of Culture - Library Contribution - April 2007 CORPORATE GOAL(S) REFERENCED: To recognize and seize opportunities for improvement; To promote cultural services. INTRODUCTION: On March 23,2007, the Elgin County Library system received $108,000.00 in funding from the Ministry of Culture to enhance the quality of life for the people of Ontario. DISCUSSION: The Ministry of Culture has provided the Elgin County Library with a one-time grant of $108,000.00 to assist the Elgin County Library Board in continuing to serve the people of Ontario and the County of Elgin. CONCLUSION: The Elgin County Library has received $108,000.00 in funding from the Ministry of Culture. Staff recommends that this funding be accepted. Expenditures will be reported to Council at a later date. RECOMMENDATION: THAT the one-time grant of $108,000.00 from the Ministry of Culture be accepted and; THAT expenditures for the Ministry of Culture funds be determined by staff; and THAT expenditures be reported to Council at a later date. AND THAT a letter of appreciation be sent to the Honourable Caroline Di Cocco, Minister of Culture, to acknowledge the funding. Respectfully Submitted C ca~ Director of Cultural Services Approved for Submission ~Q~I) Chief Administrative Officer CORRESPONDENCE - APRIL 24. 2007 Items for Consideration 1. J.D. Leach, City Clerk, City of Vaughan, with a resolution requesting the Provincial Government to pass legislation to rebate the education portion of residential property taxes or portion of rental expenses for seniors. (ATTACHED) 2. Linda Dietrich, Regional Executive Director, Dietitians of Canada, and Leslie Whittington-Carter, Ontario Government Relations Coordinator, Dietitians of Canada, with information and recommendations concerning "Raw Food Cost In Ontario Long- Term Care Homes". (ATTACHED) Va~an ., '& 3 Zil07 Clerk's Department 2141 Major Mackenzie Drive Vaughan, Ontario Canada L6A 1 T1 The Citg Above Toronto - Tel (905) 832-8504 Fax (905) 832-8535 FOR INQUIRIES: PLEASE QUOTE ITEM & REPORT NO. April 5, 2007 Mr. Mark G. McDonald, CAO The County of Elgin 450 Sunset Drive S1. Thomas, ON N5R 5V1 Dear Mr. McDonald: RE: RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TAX RELIEF FOR SENIORS I am writing to advise you that Vaughan Council, at its meeting held on April 2, 2007, adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS many seniors living in our communities have. expressed concerns over property taxes for many years due to their limited ability to pay; and . WHEREAS most seniors live on fixed incomes or very limited adjustments; and WHEREAS a large portion of property tax is not related to municipal service costs, primarily the Education and Social Service component; and WHEREAS seniors have already contributed immensely to the well being of our community; and WHEREAS seniors desire to live in the home they worked for or be able to afford to pay rent; THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED That the Provincial Government pass legislation to rebate the Education portion of residential property taxes, or a portion of the rental expenses for seniors, in a similar fashion to Bill 43 which was introduced on June 26, 2003, then refused; THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Premier of Ontario Dalton McGuinty, the Honourable Greg Sorbara, Minister of Finance, Mario G. Racco, MP.P. (Thornhill), local Members of Provincial Parliament,. Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, John Tory, Leader of the New Democratic Party, Howard Hampton, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the Regional Municipality of York, all Municipalities with a population over 50,000 in the Province of Ontario and all Seniors Groups in the City of Vaughan. .. ./2 Mr. Mark G. McDonald, CAO The County of Elgin Page 2 April 5, 2007 Attached for your information is Item 38, Report No. 15, of the Committee of the Whole regarding this matter. Sincerely, -3f~' pfZ))~a~ kcJV'. J. D. Leach l ) City Clerk Attachment: Extract Canadian Snowbird Association highlighted on Bill 43 Explanatory Notes - Bill 43. JDL/pa CITY OF VAUGHAN EXTRACT FROM COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 2. 2007 Item 38, Report No. 15, of the Committee of the Whole, which was adopted without amendment by the Council of the City of Vaughan on April 2, 2007. .._"""",,_~lJ-'j~!: :~: LiJ; -_ .IOOf IBt\t> LI[- '[ ~~:: .Jll>. -~!liI ' II o~il:11 i ill! ~.....l l!ll! 38 RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TAX RELIEF FOR SENIORS The Committee of the Whole recommends approval of the recommendation contained in the following report of Regional Councillor Rosati, dated March 26, 2007: Recommendation Regional Councillor Gino Rosati recommends the following Resolution: WHEREAS many seniors living in our communities have expressed concerns over property taxes for many years due to their limited ability to pay; and WHEREAS most seniors live on fixed incomes or very limited adjustments; and WHEREAS a large portion of property tax is not related to municipal service costs, primarily the Education and Social Service component; and WHEREAS seniors have already contributed immensely to the well being of our community; and WHEREAS seniors desire to live in the home they worked for or be able to afford to pay rent; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED That the Provincial Government pass legislation to rebate the Education portion of residential property taxes, or a portion of the rental expenses for seniors, in a similar fashion to Bill 43 which was introduced on June 26, 2003, then refused; THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Premier of Ontario Dalton McGuinty, the Honourable Greg Sorbara, Minister of Finance, Mario G. Racco, M.P.P. (Thornhill), local Members of Provincial Parliament, Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, John Tory, Leader of the New Democratic Party, Howard Hampton, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the Regional Municipality of York, all Municipalities with a population over 50,000 in the Province of Ontario and all Seniors Groups in the City of Vaughan. Economic Impact: No economic impact to the Cityof Vaughan Communication Plan: As outlined Purpose: To provide support to our seniors, who are already petitioning the Provincial Government to enact the proposed legislation. .. ./2 CITY OF VAUGHAN EXTRACT FROM COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 2. 2007 Item 38, CW Report No. 15 - Paqe 2 BackQround - Analvsis and Options: For many years now, our senior citizens have been complaining and asking for support in assisting them in easing the burden of their property taxes. The proposed resolution will provide some relief to them if enacted. The majority of these seniors have worked a life time to acquire a residential property and it would be an injustice to force a sale of such property due to taxes. Our seniors have worked long and hard and deserve our admiration and support in any way we can. This type of relief is long overdue and it is now time to act. Relationship to VauQhan Vision 2007 Section A Serve our Citizens Section 0-2 Develop Internal and External Collaborative Solutions - Develop internal and external "people connections" to solve problems and improve service delivery The above are consistent with this recommendation. ReQionallmplication Not Applicable Conclusion: This recommendation would provide much needed assistance to our seniors if implemented. Attachments: Canadian Snowbird Association highlighted on Bill 43 Explanatory Notes - Bill 43. Report Prepared Bv: Regional Councillor Gino Rosati (A copy of the attachments referred to in the foregoing have been forwarded to each Member of Council and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.) " CSA News Issue 48 Fall 2003 ~ Senior Power Page 1 of2 38.3 ( 1',.,.,.,.....,..,3. S "'....;L..*' ...JA ."' \.4UJoomn . nOWVll.s.:.l .' . ssoclauon .- ....__..__......,...,....,_.~~~..-..~~~.'_.:~~~~~ .' Benefits Travellnsurance . ." ry1~ga~ine Lifestyle Links "..."f:~~l$;:~'a,U'!~;;i,';:nt'il Senior Power Ontario's' New Seniors' Tax Credit and . Proposed Legislation to End Mandatory Retirement. .S eniors are the fastest growing segment of the Can~dian population. Seniors have worked hard for Canada, fought our wars, and contributed immensely to the country we all now enjoy. Most seniors also] on fixed incomes and the precipitous drop in interest rates, a weak Canadian dollar, and a collapse in the stock markets have led to serious financial pressures an.d stress on our senior population. c. To date, our governments have, too oftt'{u, ignored the plight of seniors and the many problems they face. this attitude now appears to be changing. Several provincial governments have set up Ministries, specific to represent the needs and interests of seniors. Ontario has been a leader in this changed attitude and the . Ontario Government has introduced two more ground-breaking initiatives to help seniors. The Eves government recently introduced Bil143 to give Ontariols s~niors some much needed tax relief. This new legislation - the Ontario Home Property Tax Relieffor Seniors Act - was passed in the Legislatl of o.ntario on June 25, 2003. It provides senior homeowners and senior tenants with a tax credit that' reimburses them for the residential education property taxes they' paid on their principal residence for the half o'fthe 2003 taxation year, and on a full-year basis starting in 2004.. The new seniors! tax credit will directly benefit Ontario's 700,000 senior homeowners and the 245,000 se tenants who will collectively receive $450 million in net new benefits every year. This represents an aver net saving of $475 a year per senior household. Persons are eligible for the new tax credit if: They are at least 65 years of age on December 31 of the tax year (to maintain consistency with existing provincial tax credit and federal programs fo~ seniors); Their primary place of residence is located in Ontario during the tax year; and They are liable to pay property taxes or rent on their principal residence. ( Seniors are required to complete an application form to apply for their tax credit. And applications will h sent out to eligible seniors this September. The first payments will be issued to seniors in December. To request specific information on the tax credit, seniors can call the Ontario Ministry of Finance's. toll-free number at 1-877-533-2188. . . http://www.snowbirds.org/csanews/issues/48/14.html 9/19/2006 c c ( ~<6.1..\- CSA News Issue 48 Fall 2003 ~ Senior Power Page 2 01'2 Combining the personal income tax age credit, the additional support for seniors in the Ontario Property; Sales Tax Credits and the benefits from Ontario's personal income tax cuts, will result in a total of$2.5 billion in tax savings, per year, for Ontario seniors. The initiative does not replace the existing Ontario Tax Credits program, which includes a combined property tax and sales tax credit for low-income seniors. These people will continue to be eligible to rece up to a maximum of $1,000 a year in credits under the existing program, but only on the portion not alree reimbursed through the new Ontario Home Property Tax Relief for Seniors program. On May 29, 2003, the Eves government also introduced Bill 68, the Mandatory Retirement Elimination 1. 2003. Bi1168 would amend the Ontario Human Rights Code to eliminate mandatory retirement and to pr( workers aged 65 arid over from discrimination in employment on the basis of age. This legislation has already passed First Reading in the Legislature of Ontario. If and when it passes Sec( and Third Reading, Bill 68 will allow more seniors to remain active in the workforce, retiring at a time 01 their own choosing, rather than automatically at the age of 65. The legislation would not affect those whc decide to retire at the age of 65. These people will still receive their full pensions. Bill 68 would also amend the Audit Act, the E!ection Act, the Health Protection and Promotion Act, the Ombudsman Act and the Public Service Act so that they no longer set out a mandatory age of retirement. These two Acts will benefit, literally, hundreds of thousands of seniors. and will also provide more .flexibi in retirement planning. We hope that they will set a precedent for other provinces and our Federal Government to follow. Senior Power - The Up and Coming Special Interest Group! :Ii. Table of Contents Issue 48 1 Next Issue Story I Horn~ I.Col1Wet CS~ I gy:~mt~ I k@sM!21 JQin C$81 P.ress.1 Maga?.ln!21 . Copyright @2003 Medlpac International Inc. All rights reserved. Terms of Use http://www.snowbirds.org/csanews/issues/48/14.html 9/19/2006 . c c:: l EXS03004_e 3<;<'(6 Page 1 o1"t EXPLANATORY NOTE This Explanatory Note was written as a reader's aid to Bill 43 and does not form pwt of the law. . Bill 43 has been enacted as Chapter 4 of the Statutes of Ontario, 2003,' A new statute, the Ontario Home Property Tax Relieffor Seniors Act, 2003, is enacted. The new Act establishes a tax credit that is payable to eligible seniors for home property taxes payable on their eligible principal residence for 2003 and subsequent years. For 2003, the tax credit applies' to home property taxes that are attributable to the period from July 1 to December 31. "Home property taxes II is defmed in section 1 of the Act. An individual is an eligible senior with respect to a year if he or she satisfies the criteria set out in subsection 2 (3) of the Act and such additional criteria as may be prescribed by regulation~ Regulations may also specify that other individuals are eligible seniors. ' An individual's eligible principal residence for the purposes of this Act is the same as his or her principal residence under subsection 8 (1) of the Income Tax Act, unless otherwise prescribed by regulation. ' Subsection 3 (1) of the Act specifies that the amount of the tax credit is to be calculated in accordance with the regulations. To receive payment of the tax credit for a year, the eligible senior must apply to the Minister of Finance for the credit within two years after the end of the year or within such 'longer period as may be prescribed by regulation. Complementary amendments are made to the Income Tax Act and to the Municipal Act, 2001. Clause 8 (3.1) (a) of the Income Tax Act establishes a property tax credit for seniors. Section 8 of that Act is amended to reflect the tax credit that will be provided to Ontario seniors in respect of property tax for 2003 and subsequent years under the new Act. Section 319 of the Municipal Act, 2001 requires municipalities to pass byla,ws .provld~gfQr property tax' relief for low-income seniors and specified others. Amendments to that section provide that it does not apply with respect to taxes for school purposes levied in such circumstances and for such years as may be prescribed by the Minister of Finance. http://www.e;.laws.gov.on.calDBLaws/Source/Explanatory N otes/Englishl2003/exS03004 ...:... 9/1912006 r "-'~,-._- Dietitians of Canada Les dietetisfes du Canada November 13,2006 Hon. George Smitherman Minister of Health and Long Term Care Ministry of Health and Long Term Care 80 Grosvenor St, 10th FIr, Hepburn Block Toronto ON M7 A 2C4 RE: Raw Food Cost Funding in Long Term Care Homes Dear Minister Smitherman, Dietitians of Canada (DC), Ontario region, recognizes that your Ministry understands the importance of quality food service and nutrition care for the residents of Long Term Care Homes. As noted in our letter of July 2006, the Long Term Care Action Group of DC has prepared a review of Raw Food Cost Funding in Ontario LTC Homes to reflect the current, actual costs of providing quality food and nutrition care services across the province, and the challenges facing Homes in meeting resident, family, and Ministry expectations within the current allotted funding. In our paper "Raw Food Cost in Ontario Long Term Care Homes - Funding Review and Priority Recommendations" we are recommending a substantial increase in the Raw Food Cost per diem. While we are cognizant of economic pressures within the healthcare sector, an increase in the RFC per diem can enhance quality of life for residents as well as improve nutrition and hydration status, preventing escalation of care costs for treatment of acute illnesses. Our priority recommendations are to: · Increase the funding allocation for Raw Food Cost now to a minimum of $6.75 per resident per day, with a further increase of $0.25 in October 2007 to bring the allocation to $7.00. · Increase the funding allocation to keep pace with inflation, on an annual basis thereafter, at a minimum. . Provide an enhanced rate for northern and other remote communities to compensate for increased food expenditures due to distance transportation charges. CENTRAL INFORMATION 480 University Avenue, Suite 604, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G 1 V2 Tel 416.596.0857 Fax 416.596.0603 E-mail centralinfo@dietitians.ca Web www.dietitians.ca Dietitians of Canada is pleased to continue working with the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care to improve the care of residents in Ontario Long Term Care Homes, and would welcome the opportunity to discuss the recommendations in this paper with you. Sincerely, ~ iL______ Linda Dietrich, M.Ed., RD Regional Executive Director Dietitians of Canada ~ U Leslie Whittington-Carter, RD Ontario Government Relations Coordinator Dietitians of Canada 27387 Talbot Line Wallacetown, ON NOL 2MO Tel/Fax: 519-762-0393 480 University A venue, Suite 604 Toronto, Ontario M5G 1 V2 Tel: 416-642-9302 Fax: 416-596-0603 E-mail: ldietrich@dietitians.ca E-mail: whitcart@sympatico.ca Cc :Monique Smith, Parliamentary Assistant, MOHL TC Tim Bums, Director, LTC Homes Branch, MOHLTC Vahe Kehyayan, Director, Compliance, Inspection and Enforcement Unit, MOHLTC Christine Barker, Chair, LTC Action Group, Dietitians of Canada Marg Ringland, Ontario Association of Non-Profit Homes and Services for Seniors Nancy Cooper, Ontario Long Term Care Association Pat Prentice, Ontario Association of Residents' Councils Lois Dent, Concerned Friends of Ontario Citizens in Care Facilities Judith Wahl, Advocacy Centre for the Elderly Mary Lou Gignac, College of Dietitians of Ontario Lorrie Plein, Ontario Society of Nutrition Management 2 RAW FOOD COST IN ONTARIO LONG TERM CARE HOMES FUNDING REVIEW AND PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS Dietitians of Canada Long Term Care Action Group November 2006 RAW FOOD COST IN ONTARIO LONG TERM CARE HOMES FUNDING REVIEW and PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Executive Summary 2 Preamble 3 Background 3-5 Priority Recommendation 5 Key Issues 6-9 Funding the Provision of Quality Resident Nutrition Care 10 Recommendations 11 Acknowledgments 11 Appendices: 1 - Current Costs of Nutrition Supplement & Other Specialty Products 12 2 - Guidelines for Budget Preparation - Estimated Cost Changes 13 October 2006 to September 2007 3 - Sample One Day Menu Costs 14 4 - Sample Actual Meal Day Costs 15 5 - Resources and References 16 Long Term Care Action Group 1 Dietitians of Canada, November 2006 RAW FOOD COST IN ONTARIO LONG TERM CARE HOMES FUNDING REVIEW and PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS Executive Summary Dietitians of Canada (DC) maintains that the Raw Food Cost allocation per resident per day must be increased to ensure that the diverse nutrition and hydration needs of Ontario's Long Term Care (LTC) Home residents can be met. An increase now to a minimum of $6.75 per day will allow homes to more appropriately and effectively provide the foods necessary to optimize residents' nutrient intake, enhance overall health, increase residents' meal satisfaction and improve their quality of life. A further recommended increase of $0.25 in October 2007 would bring the per diem to $7.00 at that time. A well planned menu, offering three nutritious meals, beverages, and between-meal snacks for residents is a cornerstone of nutrition care. The many benefits of offering menu variety and choice to residents cannot be disputed and DC strongly embraces this approach. The Ministry acknowledges this as well, as evidenced by many of the Dietary Criteria. What LTC homes need from the Ministry is the funding to fully support this approach. While there have been increases to the Raw Food Cost (RFC) funding per diem in recent years, the full amount of the current funding is not available to each resident, as it is decreased by the cost of providing menu item choices, texture modified foods, additional food to cover production needs for multiple dining areas and special diet products including nutritional supplements. The need for increased RFC funding at this time for LTC Homes is recognized and supported by many stakeholders. As well, there is an ongoing need for regular reviews and increases to the RFC funding allocation in order to keep place with inflation and other factors that affect food costs, such as increases in transportation costs. An increasingly frail resident population, the majority of whom are at nutrition risk, require nutrition interventions to manage existing medical/functional conditions and prevent further deterioration. Money spent on food can potentially contribute to substantial cost savings in treatments, medications and nursing care. The health and well-being of the vulnerable LTC resident population is substantially impacted by the current funding level. Long Term Care Action Group Dietitians of Canada, November 2006 2 Preamble: Dietitians of Canada submitted their first Raw Food Cost Funding paper to the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care in January, 2003: "Review and Recommendations to Support Safe, Quality Food and Meal Service". We were pleased with the subsequent increase in the funding, in July of that year, from $4.49 to $5.24 even though we had recommended that the minimum amount needed tofully provide for resident nutrition care requirements was $5.50 per resident day at that time. In a letter to the Ministry, we stated: ".... we believe the recent increase is a positive step towards addressing the shortfall that has accrued over the last ten years and acknowledge this commitment by your Ministry to enhancing resident nutrition care." We acknowledge that there have been two further increases in the RFC funding, $0.10 in September 2005 and $0.12 in July of this year, bringing the current allocation to $5.46 and almost achieving our 2003 recommendation of $5.50. It is apparent that the MOHLTC recognizes the value of a quality menu as a key component in the prevention of malnutrition and dehydration in LTC Homes, as evidenced by the Regulation introduced in January 2005 requiring that the Home's Dietitian review and approve all residents' menu. However, the current funding level for raw food is a barrier to planning quality menus that provide appetizing, nutritionally balanced meals and beverages, offering variety and choice to all residents and which can be adapted to meet each resident's individual, documented nutrition and functional care needs. We continue to be concerned about several factors related to the funding for residents food and present the following background material, some drawn from our 2003 paper with additional information to support our concerns. Back2round: . The funding level for Raw Food Cost (RFC) has not kept pace with actual food costs in Long Term Care Homes (L TCH) for the past thirteen years, although we recognize that efforts have been made since 2003 to correct this situation. Many Owners, Administrators, Registered Dietitians and Food Service Supervisors continue to be forced to limit variety, downgrade quality of food and ingredients purchased, use repetitive menu selections and increase the use of menu substitutions III order to meet budgetary constraints. Registered Dietitians (RDs) are very concerned about these cost saving measures which have a negative impact on residents and which contravene RDs' ethical and professional standards. Long Term Care Action Group Dietitians of Canada, November 2006 3 . There has been a significant increase in meal and food service expectations. Today, residents and their families have increased involvement in the care and services provided, and greater expectations for meeting and satisfying their personal food needs and preferences. They are aware that their co-payment (for room and board) goes into the Accommodation envelope and thus, in many cases, subsidizes food costs. Residents and their families expect, justifiably, higher quality food and meals, with increased selection, variety and attention to special needs. . The increasingly multicultural nature of Ontario's society has required the introduction of more diverse foods in homes providing services to residents with a variety of ethnic, cultural and religious backgrounds. One home may need to provide meals for several ethnic backgrounds, which may require the purchase of outsourced meals and foods appropriate for vegetarian, kosher and Asian meals, as examples. Residents from all backgrounds have a right to have their dietary needs met, despite the additional costs involved. . There is considerable disparity in the amount spent on food per resident meal day **. Many Homes are spending more than the funding allocation in order to provide appropriate, nutritious and satisfying food, beverages and meals for residents. The use of quality menu items and inclusion of prepared foods in order to meet the increased and diverse needs and expectations of residents adds substantially to RFC. However, it is recognized that some homes are quite strict with regard to keeping the raw food cost budget as closely in line as possible with funding which may greatly limit the variety and quality of food selections provided for residents. Residents should be offered quality meals with sufficient variety, as well as between meal beverages and snacks, in all Ontario LTC Homes ** I resident meal day = 3 meals & beverages plus 3 between meal beverages & 2 between meal snacks . Residents are more frail, with considerably more demanding and complex care needs. Many require extensive and complex nutrition interventions, including therapeutic diets and supplementation. More and more residents require specialty products that supply individual or combined nutrients, such as low lactose milk, soya milk, low sodium products, and gluten free products. In addition, many residents need their fluid consistency altered with special thickening agents. These factors all contribute markedly to increased costs for meals and between meal snacks. The cost of nutritional supplements and specialty nutrition products is currently included in the RFC allocation of $5.46, even thouJ!h the meal day definition (see above), on which the Long Term Care Action Group Dietitians of Canada, November 2006 4 funding is based, does not make provision for these special products. It is estimated that approximately 24% of residents are receiving nutritional supplements. The cost of a basic supplement is $0.30/resident per day for one 125 m1 serving, and $0.60 for two servings. See Appendix 1 . A significant percentage of residents require texture modified foods (minced, pureed). Pureed and minced menus cost as much as 16% more than the regular menu, adding approximately $0.87 to the cost of the daily menu (based on daily food costs at the minimum funding level). When considering an average population of 12% residents on pureed foods and 21 % on minced, this leads to a significant impact on the cost of food for these residents alone. The special needs of residents who require texture modified foods must be met despite the additional costs involve and these costs must be factored into an increased RFC allocation. · Residents must be served 3 quality meals, in addition to between meal beverages and snacks, as well as special nutritional supplements (as needed) to ensure the provision of appropriate nutrition care, as supported by the LTCF Program Manual (Criteria Pl.4, P1.5 and PU8). An increase in the RFC allocation is required in order to meet Ministry standards and expectations for resident nutrition care and dietary services. While Dietitians of Canada would prefer an immediate increase to $7.00 to meet current resident needs andfood costs, as outlined in the Appendices, we recognize that the MOH has financial pressures and other funding priorities. A stepwise approach is more feasible for the government's economic reality. PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION The Raw Food Cost allocation must be increased to meet the diverse nutrition and hydration needs of Ontario's seniors in LTC Homes. A minimum of $6.75 per resident per day is now required to plan quality menus and provide 3 nutritious meals, beverages and between meal snacks for residents. A further increase to $7.00 in October 2007 is recommended to meet predicted inflationary increases. Long Term Care Action Group Dietitians of Canada, November 2006 5 Kev Issues 1) LTC homes are exceeding the RFC allocation of $5.46. Many homes are currently spending well over $5.46 per meal day in an effort to meet residents' needs and expectations, despite the funding level. When individuals become residents in LTC homes they deserve quality and variety in their meals, and a pleasurable dining program that can provide for their individual needs and preferences in a homelike manner. The current funding level does not support the complex nature of providing food and nutrition care in today's LTC Homes nor take into consideration the operational requirements that reduce the amount of funding actually available for residents' meals, as demonstrated on page 9. . Actual meal day costs required to meet residents' needs, through the provision of quality meals with appropriate choice, are often well in excess of the funded allocation, as clearly demonstrated in the Appendices "Sample One Day Menu Costs" and "Sample Actual Meal Day Costs". See Appendices 3 and 4 . Information from the Ontario Long Term Care Association (OLTCA) and the Ontario Association of Non-profit Homes and Services for seniors (OANHSS) and discussions with both organizations indicates that they support the need for an increase in the RFC allocation for residents. In their presentation to the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs for the 2006/07 budget, OANHSS requested an additional $0.66 cents per resident per day be added to the RFC allocation. At that time, the allocation was $5.34, so their proposal translates to a minimum allocation of $6.00 per resident per day. The OLTCA has recently reviewed the LTC per diem funding, including the RFC allocation, and submitted their multi-year funding request to the Ministry for 2007/08 & 2008/09 - "The Time is Now: Creating a LTC System in Ontario that meets Residents Needs and Expectations". In this paper, under Goal #3, the OLTCA requests an addition $0.77 [raw food cost] funding per resident per day and another $0.77 in 2008/09 for a total increase of $1.54 which would bring the total per diem from $5.46 to $7.00. . Many residents' groups across the province are advocating an increase in the RFC allocation. The Canadian Legion's Ontario Command has recently launched a campaign, lobbing for an increase in the RFC allocation to $7.50 per day. 2) Food costs in Ontario continue to rise, with a predicted increase of 3.2% over the next year (October 2006 to September 2007). Global factors, such as mad cow disease and the avian flu, which contribute to the increasing prices of beef and poultry, must also be considered. . We recommend an increase of $0.25 in the RFC funding allocation in October 2006 to cover Long Term Care Action Group Dietitians of Canada, November 2006 6 this predicted rise in food costs, bringing the allocation to $7.00 at that time. See Avvendix 2 3) Cost-Saving modifications to meals and menus are being implemented. In order to minimize raw food expenditure, some homes are cutting back on the quality and variety of foods available, while still striving to provide adequate nutrient intake for residents and meet Ministry standards. Quality and variety of meals and menu items is adversely affected. Typical changes include: · Limited fresh fruits and vegetables · Limited or no choice on pureed texture menu · Drinks prepared from crystals vs. fruit juice · Frequent substitutions on menu to cut costs · Limited use of high fibre products . Limited use of whole grain products, such as specialty breads and breakfast cereals · Frequent use of instant mashed potatoes vs. fresh potatoes . Use of cheaper entree products, such as dark vs. white poultry and fish sticks vs. fish fillets · Limited quantity of second choice items · Elimination of on-site baked goods . Questioning/canceling RD orders for nutritional supplements in to reduce costs 4) Menu item choice for all residents impacts food cost. All residents must be offered a choice of menu items at all meals and snacks, including the main breakfast item and the entree, vegetable and dessert at dinner and supper. As a result, the number of portions prepared must exceed the number of residents. It must be remembered that, prior to 1993, homes were not required to offer choice. After the introduction of the LTC Facility Program Manual, many homes initially offered a choice of entree only, and have progressed over the years to full choice of entree, vegetable and dessert. This has had a significant impact on Raw Food Cost expenditures. . These choices must be available for residents on regular diets, therapeutic diets, and all the texture modifications for all the diets. Understandably, this contributes significantly to food cost and to food waste, since it is impossible to predict quantities exactly or to prevent food waste when mincing and pureeing all the choices. Homes are required to produce an additional 10 to 15 % in order to accommodate menu choice and show plates. . The benefits of offering menu variety and choice to residents cannot be disputed and DC strongly supports this approach. The positive outcomes for residents are well documented in a 2002 position paper by the American Dietetic Association*. The funding allocation for food must support the provision of variety and choice. See Resources and References, Appendix 4 . In many instances, individual packaged items are being purchased for snacks for all textures, as homes do not have staff available to make in-house snacks. As well, many menu items are purchased pre-prepared, again due to staffing limitations, in order to provide residents with Long Term Care Action Group Dietitians of Canada, November 2006 7 appropriate choice, thus increasing raw food cost. 5) New LTC home design requirements contribute to increased food cost. The LTC Facility Design Manual establishes meal service expectations for all new L TCHs currently opened or planned to be built. These expectations include multiple serveries and dining rooms in order to provide a more home- like environment for residents. . This concept, while desirable for the residents, has a major impact on RFC due to increased food inventory requirements for multiple serveries and dining areas, in order to provide adequate choice for residents and due to the inevitable additional food waste associated with a decentralized system. . Many homes are already operating in a decentralized fashion, with multiple dining areas, and it is well established that this creates increased costs due to the need to offer choice for all diets and modified textures at each dining area, the increased number of show plates, and the unavoidable increase in food waste. . As an example, to quantify what this actually means in terms of food costs: - The current Minimum Raw Food Cost Allocation/day is $5.46. - This may be reduced by up to 15% to account for the cost of menu choice, show plates and additional food sent to each dining area to provide for menu item choice (i.e. a 128 bed home with 4 dining rooms seating 32 residents should require 16 of each menu item selection + 1 show plate of each choice + 1-2 spares of each selection for choice). - This means that 18-19 servings of each choice x 2 choices = 37 meals to each dining room x 4 dining rooms = 148 meals prepared to provide for 128 residents - As a result, the "revised" raw food cost allocation actually available for each resident's food is reduced to $4.64. - This is before it is further reduced it to account for the cost of providing texture modified foods, thickened fluids and nutritional supplements. 6) Texture modified foods and specialty nutrition products further reduce the actual funds available for each resident's food. As noted under the Background section, texture modified foods can add up to 16% to food costs and specialty nutrition products (e.g. gluten free, low lactose milk) and nutritional supplements all must come out of the RFC funding allocation. Long Term Care Action Group Dietitians of Canada, November 2006 8 · The chart below shows the combined impact of factors affecting food costs on the bottom line available for resident's food. Factors Impactin2 Food Costs: Reduce Available Raw Food Cost per Diem: Fundin2 by: $5.46 funded Subtract 15% for costs of added $0.82 $4.64 production (choice, show plates, multiple serveries) Subtract 16% for increased cost of $0.87 $3.77 texture modified foods Subtract $.30 for cost of one serving of $0.30 $3.47 actually available a basic nutritional supplement to provide food for the daily menu 7) Ethnic, cultural and religious requirements lead to increased food costs. More and more LTC homes are accommodating the needs of residents with varied ethnic, cultural or religious backgrounds. · Residents with cultural, ethnic and religious diversities have the right to have their dietary needs and preferences met. · This often requires the purchase of specialty foods, which are generally more costly and frequently require special preparation. . A budget of $5.46 per resident meal day is not sufficient to cover expenses related to the purchase and preparation of specialty foods, as required to meet these needs. · In homes where the majority of residents represent one cultural group, food costs will be quite different from homes where there are a variety of ethnic backgrounds and therefore a diversity of needs to be met with an increased number of specialty food items to be provided. This latter increases food costs markedly. 8) Transportation costs and delivery fees affect food costs. Increased expenses related to transportation costs are having a significant impact on food costs in all areas of the province, urban and rural. · Rising fuel costs have forced many suppliers to increase prices or charge additional delivery fees, which are added to the grocery invoices and therefore absorbed in the Raw Food Cost budget. · Remote and Northern communities are particularly affected by this - even prior to the recent global fuel surcharges for deliveries, these communities were being burdened with additional transportation fees for food due to distances being travelled, adding 5% to 10% to their raw food cost. Long Term Care Action Group Dietitians of Canada, November 2006 9 Funding the Provision of Qualitv Resident Nutrition Care Adequate funding is a cornerstone in providing quality nutrition care for residents. It is well recognized that residents being admitted to L TCHs today are more compromised, and that their care needs are more extensive than those admitted even 5 years ago. The 2005 Level of care Classification results show a continued increase in acuity in LTC Homes, with a 1.98% increase in case mix measure. This increase in acuity results in related increases in level of nutrition risk. The majority of LTC residents are assessed to be at nutrition risk. Figures range from 25% to 35% at high nutrition risk and 45% to 60% at moderate nutrition risk.** These risk levels necessitate stricter attention to providing high quality, nutrient dense foods with sufficient variety to encourage residents to eat, as well as special supplements to increase caloric and nutrient intake, as required It is common for residents in LTC homes to require many different specialized supplements, fluid thickening agents, high-protein/energy supplements, as well as gluten free, lactose free, and high fiber products. These items are not eligible for funding under the "High Intensity Needs" program and consequently add considerably to the RFC. Without these interventions, residents experience compromised nutrition and hydration status as overall health deteriorates, evidenced by adverse consequences such as weight loss, increased falls and skin breakdown, leading to increased care costs. Nutrition is an integral component in optimizing health and quality of life. Good nutrition is a key factor in maintaining residents' mobility and independence and in ensuring adequate energy intake to support healthy body weights. It is a critical factor in reducing/preventing the development of skin breakdown, improving bowel and bladder function, improving immunity and therefore resistance to infections, and in maintaining hydration, to state a few examples. Money spent on food can potentially contribute to substantial cost savings in treatments, medications and nursing care. See Avvendix 4 A quality menu is a key component in the planning and providing for quality nutrition and hydration care. The current funding continually limits the ability of Homes to plan and develop menus in consultation with residents to reflect their preferences, because the foods residents might like to have are frequently too expensive. This results in lower quality menus less well adapted to the preferences of the Home's residents, thereby leading to increased food and beverage waste, decreased consumption and compromised nutrition and hydration care. ** A survey of 85 Ontario LTC Homes conducted by the DC Gerontology Network (Dietary Statistics Survey May 2006) showed average figures of 25% of residents at high nutrition risk, 54% at moderate risk and 10% at low risk. (Note: numbers do not add up to 100% due to respondents calculating percentage based on total occupancy versus number of beds actually filled at the time of the survey.) Long Term Care Action Group Dietitians of Canada, November 2006 10 Recommendations Priority Recommendations: ~ Increase the funding allocation for Raw Food Cost now to a minimum of $6.75) per resident per day, with a further increase of $0.25 in October $2007 to bring the allocation to $7.00. ~ Increase the funding allocation to keep pace with inflation, on an annual basis thereafter, at a minimum. ~ Provide an enhanced rate for northern and other remote communities to compensate for increased food expenditures due to distance transportation charges. Secondary Recommendation: ~ Develop protocols for regular reviews of the RFC funding allocation to accommodate factors that impact food costs such as: - increased resident acuity of care; - decentralized meal service; and - fuel costs and delivery charges. Acknowled2:ements Dietitians of Canada (DC) would like to thank the many Registered Dietitians working in LTC Homes who provided important costing information, supporting documentation and advice during the development of this paper. We would also like to acknowledge OANHSS and OLTCA. We are grateful to OANHSS for their support of the principals and recommendations contained in this paper and for providing us with valuable information. We thank OLTCA for their support in preparing this paper by providing valuable information and sharing their recommendations and rationale. We would like to acknowledge the Chair of the DC Gerontology Network for her invaluable assistance in developing and administering a Dietary Statistics Survey (May 2006) for RDs working in Ontario LTC Homes, and for and interpreting the results fine tuning the data for use in this report. Long Term Care Action Group Dietitians of Canada, November 2006 11 APPENDIX 1 Current Cost of Nutrition Supplements and Other Specialty Products Sample Supplements and Specialty Products: . Basic purchased liquid nutrition supplement (1 cal/ml.) 235 ml. can (per 125 ml. serving) : High protein, high energy purchased liquid nutrition supplement (2 cal/ml.) 235 ml can (per 125 ml. serving): High protein, high energy pudding 113g. each: $0.56 $0.30 $0.63 $0.34 $1.11 $1.76 $0.94 $1.41 $0.32 $0.55 $0.18 $2.52 $0.30 $0.90 $0.23 $0.32 $0.64 - $0.96 $0.27 $0.52 . Gluten Free Bread (per slice) compare to $0.09 for regular bread $0.26 · Lactose free milk (per 125 ml serving) compare to $0.17 for regular milk $0.24 . . . Specialized liquid nutrition supplement (for diabetics) 235 ml. can (per 125 ml. serving): Fruit formulated clear fluid, high energy supplement 235 ml. Note: The above prices are available through a group purchasing program and may vary from program to program. Prices are generally higher or Homes that do not have access to a purchasing group. . . High energy cereal (180 mls. Prepared with 2% milk) High energy shake (120 mls.) Other "Hidden" Costs The following items are generally included in the RFC budget, but are not used for residents' meals and snacks; costs for these can be significant. This expenditure must not be allowed to undermine money available for resident meals and snacks and should not be included in the RFC Allocation. . applesauce/pudding for dispensing medications: $ 0.35 per 113 g portion cup · gingerale: $0.11 per 250 ml. serving . free coffee/tea for family members: $0.10 per 200 ml cup (average cost with milk/sugar) · catering for special resident activities/functions · bottled water . . Thickener for fluids (per tablespoon) (to thicken 125mls fluid) At recommended daily fluid intake of 1500 mls. Thickened juice (per 90 ml. serving) At average of 3 servings per day . . Thickened water (per 90 mls.) Protein powder (per 7 gm. scoop) At average of 2-3 scoops per day . . High fibre spread (per 25 gm.) . Bread Pudding Puree (per 113 serving) Long Term Care Action Group Dietitians of Canada, November 2006 12 APPENDIX 2 GUIDELINES FOR BUDGET PREPARATIONS Estimated Cost Changes - October. 2006 to September. 2007 (Adaptedfrom: Complete Purchasing Services Inc.) ITEM % INCREASE Grocery 3% Fresh Vegetables & Fruits 2.5% Dairy Products 3.5% Ice Cream Novelties 4% Bakery Products 3% Meats - Overall average 3.5% Poultry 5.5% Eggs 2.5% Fish 2.5% Juices 3% Coffee 3% Tea 3% Nutritional Supplements 2% Estimated Food Cost Increase, including supplements 3.2% Long Term Care Action Group Dietitians of Canada, November 2006 13 APPENDIX 3 Sample One Dav Menu Costs Basic Menu Breakfast CostJItem 125 ml Orange Juice 0.12 175ml Oatmeal/Brown sugar 0.10 1 sl. Whole W. toast/butter 0.06 Jam 0.06 1 Boiled Egg 0.18 175ml 2% Milk 0.26 200 ml Coffee/2 creamers/1 sugar 0.12 Morning Snack 125 ml Fruit Beverage (crystals) 0.05 To Improve Oualitv/Varietv 125 ml. Stewed Prunes 175 ml. All Bran Peanut butter 1 Scrambled Egg & 1 Sausage link 125 ml. Fruit Juice Lunch 175m1 Beef Noodle Soup 0.22 Ham salad Sandwich 0.51 125 ml Marinated Vegetable Salad 0.15 125ml Pear slices 0.26 125ml2% Milk 0.17 200 ml.Tea/2 milkettes/1 sugar 0.08 Afternoon Snack 125 ml Fruit Juice 0.12 Cinnamon scone 0.33 1-5" Chicken Pot Pie 125 ml. Broccoli 1 Banana 200 ml. Coffee with cream & sugar 125 ml. Milk Rice Pudding Cup Dinner 125 ml Pineapple Juice 0.13 90g Turkey/gravy/cranberry 1.09 125ml Green Beans 0.21 125 ml. Mashed Potato 0.17 1 dinner roll/butter 0.11 1 slice Vanilla Caramel Cake 0.28 125 m12% Milk 0.17 200 ml Coffee/2 creamers/1 sugar 0.12 Evening Snack 1 oz. Cream Cheese & 6 crackers 0.29 125 ml. Fruit Juice 0.12 125 ml. Tomato Juice 90 gm. Veal Parmesan 125 ml. Mixed Garden Vegetables 1 Baked Potato/sour cream 1 whole grain roll 1 slice Peach Pie Evening Snack: Tuna Sandwich (1/2) 125 ml. Milk Total meal and snack cost = $5.48 0.38 0.19 0.10 0.34 0.12 0.92 0.28 0.29 0.12 0.17 0.43 0.15 1.18 0.25 0.27 0.14 0.51 0.34 0.17 Above items cost $1.99 more than the Basic Menu Total cost for this menu = $7.47 NOTES: · Costin!! assumes Au!!ust 2006 prices usin!! a volume discount pricing program · Costin!! does not account for waste due to multiple serveries or requirement to prepare 2 choices · Costin!! is for re!!ular texture foods, not for texture modified which are more costly · Cost will be hi!!her for residents receivin!! Nutritional Supplements. At an average cost of $0.30 for one 125 ml serving /day or $0.60 for 2 servings of a basic supplement, daily food cost would be $5.78 to $6.08 per day for the Basic Menu and $7.77 to $8.07 for the Improved Menu. Long Term Care Action Group Dietitians of Canada, November 2006 14 APPENDIX 4 Sample Actual Meal Day Costs A) Cost of Meals and Snacks for the Basic Menu (per Appendix 3): $5.48 . Assume an average 33% of residents are on texture modified food (12% pureed and 21 % minced - see page 5). Food costs will be approximately 16% more for these residents, or $6.36 per resident. When these higher costs are factored in, the average meal day cost rIses: $6.36 x 33% = $2.10 $5.48 x 67% = $3.67 .'. average meal day cost = $5.77 per resident · Add 15 % to account for the cost of menu item choice. show plates and additional food sent to each dining area (see pages 7 & 8): $5.77 + 15% ($0.86) = $6.64 per resident · Add the cost of supplements for an average 24% of residents (see page 5), at $0.30 to $0.60 (one to two servings) per day just for a basic supplement: Average cost for basic supplementation (at 1 Yz servings): $0.45 per day 24% of $0.45 = $0.11 added to average meal day cost, increasing it to $6.75 Therefore, the cost to provide a basic menu and snacks, accommodate residents who require texture modifiedfood and/or a basic nutritional supplement and provide for menu item choice plus additional food to accommodate multiple dining rooms is $6.75 per resident per day. B) Cost of Meals and Snacks for the Improved Menu (per Appendix 3): $7.47 · Going through the same exercise as above, the bottom line would come out to: $9.15 C) Cost of Specialty Products and Supplements · Neither of the above scenarios take into consideration the costs of more expensive supplements and specialty nutrition products (See Appendix 1) Long Term Care Action Group Dietitians of Canada, November 2006 15 APPENDIX 5 Resources and References Nutrition in Long-Term Care 2002 Annette M Kobriger, RD, CD, MPH, MPA, Kobriger Presents, Inc. (Chapter 1, pg 9) Higher Dietary Variety is Associated with Better Nutritional Status in the Frail Elderly M A Bernstein, K L Tucker, N D Ryder et aI, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, August 2002. Nutrition Management and Restorative Dining for Older Adults G E Robinson, B J LeifEditors, CDHCF, American Dietetic Association, 2001 Nutrition Care of the Older Adult, 2nd Edition American Dietetic Association, 2004 Nursing Home Weight Loss Quality Measures American Dietetic Association, Quality Management Committee, April 2006 Old Age, Malnutrition, and Pressure Sores: An Dl-fated Alliance J Gerontol A BioI Sci Med Sci. 2004 Apr; 59(4):355-60 Undernutrition in Older Adults Across the Continuum of Care: Nutritional Assessment, Barriers and Interventions. : J Gerontol Nurs. 2006 Jan;32(l):22-7. The Cost of Medical Nutrition Therapy in Healing Pressure Ulcers M K Jackobs, Topics in Clinical Nutrition 1999; 14(2):41-7. Dietary Statistics Clinical and Administrative Survey Results Dietitians of Canada Gerontology Network, May 2006. Menu Planning in Long Term Care - A Comprehensive Guide Chapter 3, Menu Cost Controls, Karen Thompson and Dale Mayerson, March 2005 Guidelines for Budget Preparations, Complete Purchasing Services, Inc., August 2006 Long Term Care Action Group Dietitians of Canada, November 2006 16 PETITION TO: Legislative Assembly of Ontario WHEREAS the McGuinty government's transformation agenda targets health improvement, illness prevention and improved quality of life for all Ontarians and current literature and research indicates that sound nutrition directly impacts healthy outcomes WHEREAS current literature and research indicates that the acuity and nutritional needs of residents in Long -Term Care Homes is rising and there is an increasing frail resident population in Long-Term Care Homes with 25% to 60% at moderate to high nutritional risk and that healthier Long-Term Care residents would decrease unnecessary hospitalizations, clogging of emergency wards and the use of acute beds in hospital environments WHEREAS the Raw Food Cost funding, which was $4.26 per resident per day in 1993 and is now $5.46 per day per resident, has not kept pace with inflation and has presented a barrier to providing nutritionally balanced meals and providing for the increasing specialized dietary needs and following an. extensive study, animmediate increase in Raw Food Cost Funding from $5.46 per day per resident to $7.00 per resident per day has been recommended by the Dieticians of Canada (Raw Food Cost in Ontario Long Term Care Homes-Funding Review and Priority Recommendations dated November 2006) to provide for the nutritional needs of this population, and these recommendation are viewed as a Best Practice and are recognized by professional stakeholders WHEREAS although the McGuinty government has made significant investments in many areas of Long- Term Care, most of these investments are not visible to family members and there is a growing concemamong family members that inadequate Raw Food Cost Funding is a barrier to planning quality menus and providing nutritionally balanced meals and beverages and family members must speak for Long Term Care residents who are unable to speak for themselves WHEREAS the increasing multicultural nature of our aging society requires the introduction of more diverse food choices and ethnic, cultural and religious requirements, which lead to increased food costs We the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to adopt the Dieticians' of Canada (Ontario Region) Report and Recommendations (Raw Food Cost in Ontario Long Term Care Homes-Funding Review and Priority Recommendations dated November 2006) and immediately increase the Raw Food Costs in Long- Term Care from $5.46 per day per resident to $7.00 per day perresident in orderto meet the nutritional needs of this population. Name (printed) I Address (printed) I Signature I I I I I I I I CORRESPONDENCE - APRIL 24. 2007 Items for Information (Consent Aaenda) 1. Hon. Donna Cansfield, Minister of Transportation, acknowledging Council's resolution concerning the exemption of fees for municipal vehicle registration requirements in Ontario. (ATTACHED) 2. Randy Bradfield, with copy of correspondence to Terrace Lodge Staff, thanking the Staff for the quality of care the Home provided and professional manner in which they cared for their Mother, Edna Bradfield. (ATTACHED) 3. Fern Labelle, Inspector Unit Commander, Provincial Communication Centre, North Bay, Ontario Provincial Police, thanking the County for selecting the Ontario Provincial Police as the C.E.R.B. 911 service provider and introducing the appointment of the new Unit Commander for the North Bay Provincial Police Communication Centre. (ATTACHED) 4. Gord Steeves, President, Federation of Canadian Municipalities, "New Funding Opportunity for Energy and Transportation Projects". (ATTACHED) 5. Sandra Datars Bere, Director, Ontario Works and Social Housing, St. Thomas-Elgin Ontario Works, with copy of correspondence to Housing Programs Branch of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, concerning the allocation of $127 million Housing Trust Fund. (ATTACHED) 6. AMO Member Communication: AMO Report to Members on March 2007 Board Meeting. (ATTACHED) 7. Joan Mansell, President, Elgin District W.I., acknowledging the efforts Staff of the County of Elgin in the digitization program of the Women's Institute Tweedsmuir History. (ATTACHED) Ministry of Transportation Office of the Minister Ferguson Block, 3rd Floor 77 Wellesley St. West Toronto Ontario M7A 1Z8 416 327-9200 www.mto.gov.on.ca Ministere des Transports Bureau du ministre Edifice Ferguson, 3" stage 77, rue Wellesley ouest Toronto (Ontario) M7A 1Z8 416 327-9200 www.mto.gov.on.ca ~ Ontario MAR 2 9 2007 ";;0' 7 f- ; ~ . .,.~ ~y' Mrs. Sandra J. Heffren Manager of Administrative Services County of Elgin 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, Ontario N5R 5V1 .~.. .~" " Dear Mrs. Heffren: Thank you for your letter of December 4, 2006, regarding the exemption for municipally owned vehicles from Ontario vehicle registration requirements. I welcome the opportunity to explain the ministry's policy. The ministry continually seeks ways to improve the quality of the service we provide to Ontarians. While I appreciate your comments, the ministry believes that it is important that we continue to register municipal fleets to ensure we have up-to-date data on vehicle registrants, and to ensure through the licence renewal process that vehicles are emission tested regularly under the Drive Clean program. Thank you again for bringing your concerns to my attention. Sincerely, ~~(1 ~~/ Donna Cansfield Minister c: The Honourable Greg Sorbara, Minister of Finance Association of Municipalities of Ontario Terrace Lodge 475 Talbot St E 49462 Talbot Line Aylmer ,On N5H 3 AS 29 March 07 Dear Terrace Lodge Staff, As you are aware, our mother Mrs Edna Bradfield passed away on the I st of March in St Thomas Elgin General Hospital while a resident of your facility in Aylmer. I am sure I speak for all members of my family in saying that though we will miss our mother very much our grief is eased somewhat knowing she spent her fmal years in this wonderful home cared for by your very professional staff. Mom thought of Terrace Lodge as her home and never liked to venture very far for very long before she was looking to getting back to her HOME... All the staff that attended mom have given my family comfort in our loss in that she in her final years was so well cared for and she knew it. Mom was never a complainer but it was easy to tell when she was unhappy and in all my visits to see her at Terrace Lodge I continually saw an elderly woman at peace and enjoying her surroundings and friends. Mom was HOME. ... In addition, our mother while at Terrace Lodge was also blessed with many lodge friends of which two of her closest were her room-mate _'and her friend 1-' and I am sure they too will miss mom from their daily lives as much as we do. Finally, may I say once more, on behalf of all my family "THANKYOU" and that you should be very proud of TERRACE LODGE and the work you do in caring for our elderly and the quality of life you provide them in their later years. You offer a facility that is very caring and friendly and I'm glad my mother was apart of that in her last days. Mom is HOME once again....... Ontario Provincial Police Police provinciale de l'Ontario a;; W Communications and Technology Services Bureau Bureau de gestion de communication et technologie Provincial Communications Centre North Bay Centre de communication provinciale, North Bay P.O. Box 21007 C.P.21007 877 Gormanville Road 877, chemin Gormanville North Bay ON P1 B 8G3 North Bay ON P1 B 8G3 TelephonelT elephone: FacsimilelTelecopieur: (705) 495-7000 (705) 495-7095 APR 1 3 2007 File Number/Reference: March 21, 2007 Greetings; I would like to take this opportunity to introduce myself as the new Unit Commander for the North Bay Provincial Communication Centre. I would like to thank your organization for selecting the Ontario Provincial Police as your C.E.R.B. 911 service provider and look forward to a long-term relationship. Our highly skilled professional workforce is committed to providing your community with the best possible service our unit has to offer. I look forward to the opportunity of meeting members of your organization and community at future gatherings and events. If you have any questions I can be reached by phone at (705) 495-7050 or bye-mail at fem.labelle@ontario.ca Thank You, em Inspector Unit Commander Provincial Communication Centre North Bay 111(.ftt/l!fllrj tk Call...#aitlrj a [J;lfe-rMoe- FCM 613.241.7440 4/11/2007 2:53 PAGE 001/001 Fax Server FCM ~'i!(D~iJn Mll.nicipttliritl' April 11 , 2007 PLEASE DISTRIBUTE TO MEMBERS OF COUNCIL AND SENIOR ST AFF f.td.er.ui~n QDudienM g'$JUlIikpfdS NEW FUNDING OPPORTUNITY FOR ENERGY AND TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS Green Municipal Fund (GMF) will offer financing to municipal governments and their partners to implement specific energy and transportation capital projects. GMF provides low-interest loans and grants, builds capacity, and shares knowledge to support municipal governments and their partners in developing communities that are more environmentally, socially and economically sustainable. To ensure the greatest possible impact, GMF invests in the best examples of municipal leadership in sustainable development- examples that can be replicated in other communities. The Fund issues Requests for Proposals (RFPs) annually in five categories of municipal operation: Energy, Waste, Water, Transportation, and Brownfield Remediation. A limited amount of funding is available for each RFP and as a result only the best applications will receive funding. The RFP for energy projects will open on May 23, 2007. The objective of the 2007 Energy RFP is to fund projects that implement distllct energy systems that use renewable energy sources or waste heat. GMF will award a total of up to $20 million in loans and up to $3.2 million in grants through the 2007 Energy RFP. The RFP for transportation projects will also open on May 23,2007. The 2007 Transportation RFP seeks to fund projects that result in one or more of the following: . acquisition (or retrofit) and operation of energy efficient or emissions-reducing municipal vehicles . implementation of transit-related initiatives that improve transit selVice, encourage ridership and increase transit person-ttips . an increase in levels of walking, cycling or ridesharing. GMF will award a total of up to $.10 million in loans and up to $"1.6 million in grants under the 2007 Transportation RFP. After May 23, the GMF Intentto Apply forms, along with details of both RFP requirements and processes, will be available on-line from the FCM Centre for Sustainable Community Development at www.sustainablecommunities.fcm.ca or by contacting the Application Co-ordinators named below. The deadline to submit an Intent to Apply for both these RFPs is June 20, 2007. Applicants will be notified if their Intent to Apply is accepted and asked to submit a detailed proposal that will be reviewed by a team of independent, third-party experts. Both RFPs will close August 15, 2007. Final decisions on funding will be available in December 2007. p~ Gord Steeves President For questions on the 2007 Energy RFP: Andree Thomas, Application Co-ordinator, GMF 24 Clarence Street, Ottawa, ON K1N 5P3 Phone: 613-907-6246; Fax: (613) 244-1515 E-mail: energy.rfp@fcm.ca For questions on the 2007 Transportation RFP: Michelle Beaudoin, Application Co-ordinator, GMF 24 Clarence Street, Ottawa, ON K1N 5P3 Phone: 613-907-6261; Fax: (613) 244-1515 E-mail: transportationfp@fcm.ca ST. THOMAS ST. THOMAS - ELGIN ONTARIO WORKS 423 Talbot Street St. Thomas, Ontario N5P ICI THE CORPORATION 01'THE CITY ()J< Apri110,2007 ~ 6 2007 Susan Bacque, Director Housing Programs Branch Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing 777 Bay St., 2nd Floor Toronto, ON M5G 2E5 '(jUJ"(f Dear Ms. Bacque: The purpose of this letter is to request clarification and express concern regarding the allocation of the $ I 27-million Housing Trust Fund, also lmown as DOOR funding (Delivering Opportunities for Ontario Renters), as announced in the recent Provincial Budget. As pmi of the $392-million federal govemment transfer to the Province, it is understood that the Housing Trust Fund is not pmi of any other existing program, including the Canada-Ontario Affordable Housing funding agreement, and that there are no conditions or restrictions around the use of DOOR funding by Service Managers. We were concerned to learn that St. Thomas - Elgin was one of only a handful of Service Manager Areas across the province that did not receive an allocation of funding under the Housing Trust Fund. We were additionally concemed that at the time the DOOR funding was announced, infOlmation on the allocation model for this Fund was not shared with Service Managers nor was a distribution list provided showing the amounts of funding received in other parts of the province. It is ac1mowledged, however, that this infonnation has since been made available by the Ministry. In conespondence dated March 23, 2007 from Minister Genetsen to St. Thomas Mayor Cliff Barwick, it is stated that "service managers like St. Thomas with ready-to-go projects were identified that could be approved under the existing AHP instead of the Housing Trust Fund in order to expedite proj ect approvals". We fully agree with and suppOli the use of Wave I Affordable Housing Program (AHP) surpluses to provide additional funding for AHP projects. Yet, if ready-to-go projects in St. Thomas and Elgin were funded through the AHP program and not the Trust Fund, why does it appear that St. Thomas has been subsequently denied a portion of the Trust Fund when AHP surpluses were used? Our community is most appreciative of the additional AHP funding granted under the AHP and we are committed to working diligently with our providers to ensure new affordable housing options are successfully developed. Notwithstanding, it is suggested that any additional funding for AHP projects in St. Thomas (or any other Service Manager Area) should more appropriately be adjusted against Wave I surpluses or against Wave 2 allocations within the AHP funding pool. It appears that our community may have been penalized and denied an opportunity to receive unconditional funding because we had "ready- to-go" projects that received top-up funding (conditional funding) under the AHP. It is noted that St. Thomas and Elgin did not receive funding under the AHP Pilot Program. Was the Trust Fund allocation adjusted for areas that received those additional AHP funds? Similarly, were Trust Funds adjusted for areas that have or will receive Housing Allowance top-ups? Additionally, what impact might this funding have on areas that might receive additional Rental and Supportive funding in the future when further surpluses are identified? Will the present receipt of Trust Funds be taken into account? It seems somewhat arbitrary that only very recent AHP top-ups were taken into account in determining which Service Managers would receive DOOR funding. With respect, it is recommended that this additional AHP funding be considered a re-allocation of surplus program funding, and should not negatively impact any allocation for S1. Thomas - Elgin under the new and separate DOOR funds. It is fmiher recommended that DOOR funding should be allocated equitably across the province, as other new program dollars have been allocated (for example, the Rent Bank or the Strong Communities Rent Supplement Program). That way, some areas of the province would not be deprived of the opportunity to receive unconditional funds to use as needed. Unconditional DOOR funding would certainly be very welcome in the S1. Thomas - Elgin area at this time. For example, with vacancy rates at 2.5% in S1. Thomas (CMHC 2005 Rental Market Report), there is a great need for additional rent supplement dollars. Many of our federal housing providers are reduced to just a small percentage ofRGI units due to financial challenges. Additional rent supplement money would allow us to increase our supply of RGI housing there, as well as to provide much-needed capital funding for those projects with under-funded Capital Reserves. DOOR funding could be used to provide RGI rents at some of our four approved AHP projects. I am sure that you would agree that open and fair processes for distributing public dollars are essential. At this time, however, our community is concerned about the allocation process that was implemented to allocate DOOR funding. We ask the MinistlY to reconsider the DOOR allocation decisions and allow all Service Manager areas equitable and fair access to these funds, separate and apart from any other Program allocation. Sincerely cc: John Gerretson, Minister, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Steve Peters, MPP Elgin-Middlesex-London Mayor Cliff Barwick, City of S1. Thomas Lynn Acre, Warden, County of Elgin Tony Brutto, MMAH, MSO, South West Region Joe Preston, MP, Elgin-Middlesex-London 2 393 University Ave, Suite 1701 Toronto, ON M5G 1E6 Tel.: (416) 971-98561 Fax: (416) 971-6191 E-mail: amo@amo.on.ca Association of Municipalities of Ontario MEMBER COMMUNICATION ALERT NO: 07-022 To the attention of the Clerk and Council April 12, 2007 FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurel McCosham, Policy Advisor (416) 971-9856 ext 315 AMO Report to Members on March 2007 Board Meeting As part of its commitment to keep members informed, AMO will update members on important issues that are considered at regular meetings of the AMO Board of Directors. Highlights of the March 2007 Board meeting follow: . Species at Risk The Board considered a technical briefing from the Ministry of Natural Resources on updated legislation for Species at Risk. Members expressed dissatisfaction at several features of the legislation. Ministry staff was advised of the need for further discussions with the sector and other stakeholders before proceeding on this issue. The following motion was passed: "AMO believes that the protection of species in an important matter, however, AMO strongly encourages the Province to delay any Standing Committee Hearing process and put in place a series of meetings with municipal governments and other key stakeholders, to be held across the province that would offer the opportunity for question and answers about the proposed legislation. This would help achieve a better understanding of the proposed legislation, its flexibility, new process, rules and enforcement. This interim step would offer a better opportunity to discuss matters than is normally achieved at Standing Committee. An interim step would help for more informed submissions and presentations to Standing Committee on ideas to ensure the legislation is clear and does not bring unintended consequences." A copy of this motion will be forwarded to the Minister of Natural Resources, other relevant Ministers, as well as to the leaders of the main provincial parties. Contact: Milena Avramovic, Senior Policy Advisor, email: milena@amo.on.ca ext: 342 . Best Practices Blue Box Program Plan The Board was asked to provide direction to the Municipal-Industry Program Committee (MIPC) of Waste Diversion Ontario (WOO) regarding the WOO Best Practices KPMG Project. The project aims to determine the Ontario net system best practice cost for determining the stewards' contribution, and to identify best practice activities, which are to be correlated to costs. Municipal representatives at MIPC are concerned that there would be no correlation between costs and best practices. Municipal representatives of MIPC were seeking Board direction to ensure that there is a correlation between best practices and stewards' fees. Endorsing the recommendations of municipal MIPC representatives, the Board unanimously agreed that further AMO support of the project would be contingent on the correlation between best practice activities and steward fees. Should no correlation be found, municipal representatives are to renegotiate Association of Municipalities of Ontario 1-3 Member Communication the Cost Containment Plan with Stewardship Ontario and Waste Diversion Ontario with a new methodology other than Best Practice. The Board also indicated that the Minister of the Environment should be made aware of these very serious issues and be requested to provide a new direction to Waste Diversion Ontario to ensure that municipalities are paid 50 per cent of their total net costs of the Blue Box Program in line with stipulations under the Waste Diversion Act. Finally, the Board raised the issue of applying best practices to packaging, in accordance with enhanced producer responsibilities. This is an issue that requires immediate attention from the Blue Box Program Stewards. Contact: Milena Avramovic, Senior Policy Advisor, email: milena@amo.on.ca ext: 342 . AMO Principles for Housing in Ontario The Board considered a set of principles for housing developed by AMO staff. In light of municipalities' role providing social housing, the importance of a strong municipal voice on this issue was noted. Members agreed that the principles represented a very progressive step in terms of social housing policy in Ontario. The Board provided a strong endorsement of the AMO Principles for Housing which will now be communicated to the provincial and federal governments. These principles will serve as the basis for future AMO discussions on housing in Ontario. Please see AMO Alert 07/018 for additional information. Contact: Petra Wolfbeiss, Senior Policy Advisor, email: pwolfbeiss@amo.on.ca ext: 329 . Proposed Ontario Public Health Standards The Board considered a set of recommendations from the AMO Public Health Task Force regarding the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care's proposed Ontario Public Health Standards. Support was expressed for the flexibility the Standards provide. However, because the protocols that will guide service delivery have not yet been created, a cautious approach was advised. The Board approved the recommendations of the Task Force. These recommendations will now be forwarded to the Co-Chairs of the Technical Review Committee for consideration. Contact: Petra Wolfbeiss, Senior Policy Advisor, email: pwolfbeiss@amo.on.ca ext: 329 . WOO Board Restructuring The Board received an update on the proposed restructuring of the Waste Diversion Ontario (WOO) Board. The Board endorsed the new governance model as supported by the WOO Board. The proposed restructuring of the WOO Board is now before the Minister of the Environment for approval. Contact: Milena Avramovic, Senior Policy Advisor, email: milena@amo.on.ca ext: 342 . Municipal Hazardous or Special Waste Program Plan (MHSW) The Board received an update on the public consultation that is taking place on the development of the preliminary Household Hazardous and Special Waste (MHSW) Program Plan. The plan is scheduled for completion in late May 2007 when it will be considered for endorsement by the WOO. It will then proceed to the Minister of the Environment for approval. Further details on the proposed plan will be provided to the AMO Executive at its April 2007 meeting. Contact: Milena Avramovic, Senior Policy Advisor, email: milena@amo.on.ca ext: 342 2-3 Association of Municipalities of Ontario Member Communication . Penalty Policies for Over-Reporting on Municipal Blue Box Datacall The Board considered a revision to the penalty policy for over-reporting on municipal blue box datacall. It was proposed that the penalty policy be modified to ensure that all municipalities which over-report by more than 2% are subject to penalties. It was recommended that this policy be applied to the 2005 audited programs which over-reported. The Board approved the proposal, which will now be communicated to MIPC for recommendation to the WDO. Contact: Milena Avramovic, Senior Policy Advisor, email: milena@amo.on.ca ext: 342 . LCBO Funding Distribution to Municipalities The Board was asked to consider how the $5 million LCBO funding commitment from the deposit return program should be distributed to municipalities. Expressing agreement with the AMO Waste Management Task Force's recommendation, the Board decided that distribution should be based on total glass marketed by program. Contact: Milena Avramovic, Senior Policy Advisor, email: milena@amo.on.ca ext: 342 . Funding for Print and Media Campaign to Encourage Recycling Municipal MIPC representatives requested direction from the Board on the issue of funding the blue box print and media campaign through the Effectiveness and Efficiency (E&E) fund. Consisting of two commercials and some print media designed to encourage recycling, the campaign was initially intended for the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). Once completed, however, it became evident that all Ontario municipalities stood to benefit from the ads. Province-wide broadcasting costs amount to $3.1 million. The Board supported the broadcast of the commercials across Ontario with one third of the $3.1 million total cost flowing from the E&E fund. The remaining two thirds of the cost will be requested from the Ministry of the Environment and Stewardship Ontario. AMO staff will report on the responses from MOE and Stewardship Ontario at the AMO Executive's April 2007 meeting. Contact: Milena Avramovic, Senior Policy Advisor, email: milena@amo.on.ca ext: 342 . Fine Reductions under the Provincial Offences Act The Board discussed the issue of fine reductions being ordered by JPs in POA cases where the defendant has made a charitable donation. While concern was expressed with respect to funding implications for local charities, Board members indicated that such fine reductions were not an appropriate use of the POA system. The Board approved that a letter be sent to the Ministry of the Attorney General asking him to advise JPs and MAG officials that this practice is inappropriate. Contact: Laurel McCosham, Policy Advisor, email: Imccosham@amo.on.ca ext: 315 This information is available in the Policy Issues section of the AMO website at www.amo.onca. 3.3 Association of Municipalities of Ontario Jff~n~rat~u ~amen's c1ustitutes of OOntartu Cathy Bishop Director of Cultural Services 450 Sunset Drive St. Thomas, ON N5R 5Vl ELGIN DISTRICT WOMEN'S INSTITUTE GREETINGS RE: Tweedsmuir History Digitization Program - AprilS, 2007 I am duly proud to be involved in this worthwhile and exciting project; as Elgin County District Women's Institute President, as your representative for the Women's Institute on the Museum Advisory Committee, and as a member of the Yarmouth Glen branch. On behalf of the 13 branches represented in Elgin, we wish to express our gratitude and congratulations to Brian and his team for the efforts put into the new digitization program of the Women's Institute Tweedsmuir History. If former members could see this modem technology that you have demonstrated here today come into fruitation, they would be proud to share in its initiation and enthusiasm. This venture would not have been possible without the assistance of a Heritage Canadian Culture On~Line grant, local contributions from community organizations, and monetary donations from the Women's Institute branches. Our goal is to promote local heritage with this convenient and efficient documentation service that is easily accessible to the public. This unique programming has proven to be successful under the umbrella of the Elgin County Cultural Services which includes the Archives, Museum, and Library. It is appropriate for these departments to combine, work together as a team, and share their assistance and knowledge in literature, art, science, history, and artifacts. We wish for each one of you, in your respective roles, continued success for the preservation of our local Tweedsmuir History, and trust the dedication and commitment will remain ongoing far into the future. Thank you. Respectfully submitted, ~ Joan Mansell President Elgin District W.I. Cc: Manager of Cultural Services Curator Elgin County Museum Elgin County Warden Administrative Services Department Administration Building 450 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas, Ontario, N5R 5V1 Phone: (519) 631-1460 Ext. 156 Fax: (519) 633-7661 County of Elgin www.elgin-county.on.ca Fax To: Warden Acre and Elgin County Councillors Call Group From: Mark G. McDonald mmcdonald@elgin-county.on.ca April 20, 2007 7 including cover sheet Fax: Phone: Re: Additional Items for Council Agenda of April 24, 2007 Date: Pages: CC: Comments: Staff Reports: (Attached) 1. Director of Engineering Services - King George IV Lift Bridge Correspondence - Items for Consideration: (Attached) 1. Glen R. Knox, County Clerk, County of Simcoe, with a resolution urging the provincial government to increase funding per diem to residents of Long-Term Care Homes. (ATTACHED) 2. The Honourary Lt. Colonel and Commanding Officer, with an invitation for the Warden and Council to a civic reception at the 60th Reunion of the Elgin Regiment Veterans' Association. (ATTACHED) THE INFORMATION IN THIS FACSIMILE IS FOR THE NAMED RECIPIENT ONLY. IT MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTiAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE is NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THE MESSAGE TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, ANY DISSEMiNATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, OR THERE ARE ANY PROBLEMS IN TRANSMISSION, PLEASE NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE. REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL FROM: Clayton Watters, Director Engineering Services DATE: April 17, 2007 SUBJECT: King George IV Lift Bridge CORPORATE GOALS To recognize and seize opportunities for improvement, To build and maintain an efficient, affordable, effective and safe transportation network that accommodates the diverse needs of our communities and is able to support economic development and sustainable growth. INTRODUCTION In the early morning of March 21, 2007 an electrical control failure resulted in the King George IV Lift Bridge being inoperable for a few hours. The bridge operator, maintenance contractor and Byrne Engineering Incorporated staff did manage to get the bridge operational after a few hours of electrical control repairs. Shortly thereafter, Elgin County staff proceeded to engage an independent consulting company to review the electrical engineering and controls for the Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) program and converse with input from the bridge operator and electrical/mechanical contractor to determine if any other works were required. DISCUSSION After the bridge failure on March 21, 2007 staff requested JMP Engineering Incorporated (an electrical engineering and controls firm) review the PLC, discuss deficiencies (if any) with the bridge operator and maintenance contractor and report back to County staff on their findings. On April 11, 2007 JMP provided a list of 10 items that should be changed or modified to the existing software at the King George IV Lift Bridge in Port Stanley. JMP suggested changes are generally to the PLC logic which is too complicated and difficult to troubleshoot. JMP is recommending re-writing the PLC program for ease of understanding and troubleshooting. The program is being simplified, so therefore the changes should lead to less issues rather than more. The County of Elgin has two options: continue using the services of Byrne Engineering Incorporated, the present engineering company or change to JMP Engineering Incorporated (for electrical engineering and controls). Byrne has been providing engineering services to the Port Stanley Lift Bridge for more than three years. They completed the engineering and contract administration for the replacement of the electrical system and the electrical controls. They provide engineering and administrative services to three other lift bridges in Ontario. JMP is a London based electrical engineering and controls company to large, just in time, manufacturing companies in the London area. They are fully aware of meeting the needs of the clients in a fast paced manufacturing sector. The King George IV Lift Bridge is a double bascule bridge. In the simplest of forms one needs to push a button for the leafs to raise and lower when the boat has passed. There are other variables involved in the system such as: nose locks, gates for traffic and pedestrians and limiting the raising angle to name a few. The bridge is not as complicated as other systems JMP works with. The Byrne Engineering PLC still functions, although the County has had issues with the program before, and they still provide services to the County of Elgin. However, with the total failure on March 21 it was important that another company with experience in electrical engineering and controls review the present systems and provide comments to the County. For assurance to the people who use the system, a procedure is in place to dramatically reduce the down time to re-start the program if another system failure were to occur. Staff is recommending JMP Engineering Incorporated complete a re-write of the PLC program using JMP standards and logic rather than rewriting sections of the Byrne program. CONCLUSION: The County of Elgin hired an independent electrical engineering company, which also writes system controls (PLC) to ascertain if any remedial works are required to the bridge controls and electrical system. As part of JMP Engineering's review of the PLC and electrical controls, JMP also consulted with the bridge maintenance contractor and the bridge operator who had additional deficiencies. This review of deficiencies is also included in their company's best practices and industry standards. JMP listed 10 items that needed attention, which are mainly centred on a rewriting of the PLC program. Their proposed schedule is to complete all critical operations items by May 11 and to complete any non- critical work in the fall. The cost to change the PLC is $22,000 (plus taxes). County staff is interested in assuring the users of the system that the bridge operates effectively and without interruptions. Hiring an independent electrical engineering and control company to review the system would provide an insurance that the system runs effectively when needed so not to cause any undue disruptions to either the road or water traffic. RECOMMENDATION: That JMP Engineering Incorporated complete the necessary electrical and control improvements at the King George IV Lift Bridge at their estimated cost of $22,000 (plus taxes), and also, That the funds be allocated from the approved 2007 Capital Project Budget. Respectfully Submitted (Mw~ k Mark G. aid Chief Administrative Officer Clayton D. Watters Director of Engineering Services The Corporation of the County of Simcoe (705) 726-9300 Fax: (705) 726-3991 Beeton Area (905) 729-2294 CLERK'S OFFICE Telephone Extension 1246 Administration Centre 1110 Highway 26 Midhurst, Ontario LOL 1XO April 10, 2007 All Municipalities in Ontario Western Ontario Warden's Caucus Please be advised that at the March 1, 2007 meeting of Simcoe County Council, Council approved circulation of the following resolution to all municipalities and is requesting that you support the position contained therein: WHEREAS, the Liberal party promised during the 2003 election campaign to increase funding to long term care homes by $6,000 per resident per annum; WHEREAS, a request in 2005 to increase funding in the per diem of$l1.19 for direct care and services to residents was only increased in the 2006/07 budget by $1.07; WHEREAS, the combined increases since the 2003 Liberal campaign represent $2,307 or approximately one third of the government's $6,000 promise; AND WHEREAS, significant investment is needed now to meet the immediate needs of residents; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the County of Simcoe urge this government to increase the funding per diem to residents of Long Term Care Homes in the fiscal year 2007-2008 by $3,693 per resident, thereby fulfilling its election promise made in 2003; AND THAT a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Western Warden's Caucus and municipalities province wide. . ../2 All Municipalities in Ontario Western Warden's Caucus April 10, 2007 Page 2 A copy of the background report on this matter is available on the County of Simcoe website at http://qilford.county. si mcoe. on. ca/ClearF rame/Prod uctionl eGendal eGenda. nsf/0/2d bf6ffb96e 545cf852572790069a 122/$FILE/HS %2007-024 %200ANHSS%20Update.doc Please advise both Minister Smitherman and the undersigned of your support of the quoted resolution. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Yours truly, Original signed by Glen R. Knox County Clerk Icam 2 () 2007 ""Ii"'R~!Cff'~ 'C;;".,", I' Ie ,';' 'C:jI;I8 l .t>rj'(iJ 7~~~Lt~ ad ~ ()~, ~ Uwite eput to ~ a. cWie ~ attk 60tlt 7<~ 01- tk ~~&~ 7<~1t~' ;i~" to de Itdd in tk ()~ ' 'I1te44 at tk~, 18'00 ~, ?~, ~ 1, 2007 RSVP The Adjutant 519-631-3316 Ext 7516 Dress Business Suit Administrative Services Department Administration Building 450 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas, Ontario, N5R 5V1 Phone: (519) 631-1460 Ext. 156 Fax: (519) 633-7661 County of Elgin www.elgin-county.on.ca Fax To: Warden Acre and Elgin County Councillors Call Group From: Mark G. McDonald mmcdonald@elgin-county.on.ca April 20, 2007 1 including cover sheet Fax: Phone: Re: Additional Items for Council Agenda of April 24, 2007 Date: Pages: CC: Comments: CONFIDENTIAL In-Camera Item: 1) S.E.I.U. Contract Negotiations - proposed settlement with Elgin Manor. Report For Consideration: 1) Verbal report from C.A.O. and Warden: Sponsoring a Waste Management Seminar on June 22,2007. THE INFORMATION IN THIS FACSIMILE IS FOR THE NAMED RECIPIENT ONLY. IT MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THE MESSAGE TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, OR THERE ARE ANY PROBLEMS IN TRANSMISSION, PLEASE NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE.