December 13, 2007 Agenda
)..
.~
Q
~
,~
u..
o
CI)
0::
lU
Q
a::
o
~
~
c
c
. .
0)
I
......
c
C
N
(W')
~
'0::
UJ
~
~
UJ
Q
).:
~
CI)
~
~
a::
~
E - -
JBcc ::;::;- -
e coo> Cc-O
- 0>'- E 0>.- 0>
(/) E ~ E .Q...c
c (/) .- ..c ..c _ 0
.Q ~ {3 ~ ~ 0> 0 .~ ~
ro .~ ~ .2 ~ ~ ~ (/) m
-gEroE--o~O>t)
_ --0 J: 0>=
o O>s.... C >---
~ E.$ 0 t::: 00>
~ ~ ~ 5 ~ 8 E-a1
~ I- ~c 5 0> fE
f'-- ~ -E .g :~ :5 c ~ '0
N - (/) 0>'0. > c .Q = c
s....o> ~ c(/)O m 0 ~'S: :J
o O>c.c c;:> 0
E ~ +=' a. m 0 'g 8' ~ 0
0> 0> ~ 00> (!) :J 00 0>
~ 55 ~ :;~ 0> 8 ~~ ~ l@
Z(!)O 00:5 0> o>csCi5
_ ~s.... C _ 0>0>
00>-0 00.. 0 m >-(/) 0>"0"0
0>:5 c 0.8 0> R .Q~..c ~ ~
c "0 m 00"0 - :J 0..0.. I- 0
~ ~ ~ >- c ~ 0 E 0> <5 -E ~
0> _ 0 c m 0.. - W:5 0> m m
E (/) ~ :Jt) :J ~ 0>0> 0> 00>
0> ~ c 8 ~ .8 0> .~.~ ~ III 0>
:5 ~ ~ cg 0> ~ fD~ E ~ (/)
s.... 9> 0 - 'C cwo E '^ 0>
s.... .8 i::' - (/) C "0 0> _'- 0 ~ 0
-E I .~ 0... .c 0 co...o..c ~ :J C
o (/) C (/) (5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~
O .$ :J C 0> Is....o> m m c '0 c
_ :J 0 0..> 0>"0 O>..c 0
"0 C & ~ C/)z.$o> ~ .c >-00> 5 0..
0::::: 0> w..c 0 0 c > (/)
0>0::::'00...0 - ~ III Z:J 08 {g
m'O 0> o>i= os....~_ 0
o c :; :E <:;E 2 2 0.8.8 0 0
g> :R ~ c ffi <i. <i. <i. ~'o c ~ '0
~ 0 u ~ ..J 0 0 I() 0 5 :8 & 5
0> "0 .!a ~ W C?, M "':I: N 0 0 0> 0
ffi ~ <( 0 0... Co> 0> 0> '1:"'"0 ~ e:::: 0
~ - "0 "0 ..c
o :2 ~ ~ ~
..c ..c ..c
- - -
L!) <0 f'--
=It
UJ
C>
~
0>
I
N
o
T""
N
T""
T""
f'--
I
C'0
T""
T""
T""
-
C
0>
(/)
C
o
cO
0--
+='C
~.Q
0>-
:2~
(/) s....
5.8
05
s.... s....
.8.8
(/) (/)
E E
0> 0>
::: :::
--
T""N
f'--L!)
f'--O>
. .
NCO
f'--f'--
-
m
"0
c
0>
0>
<(
~
0>
.c
E
0>
~
>-
.c
(/)
0> >-
'C 0
:J C 55 (/)E
C/) g.Q 0>
C/) --0 s.... 0>
W cno:::::::> ::
Z _0::::_ 0>
c_ 0 C
C/) 0> 0 (/) +='
::) Eo>s.... 0>
"^ 0> 0 0> 0>
...... -.-::t:: 0:::::
IV m- m 0::::
... _00:::::"0
W WZo:::: 0>
::c: (/)
I- 0
o 0
..c
-
co
---
T""NC'0
-
m
"0
c
0>
0>
m
0>
-
~
m
0..
0>
(/)
0>
0>
(/)
--
0>
o
..c
S
0>
..c
I-
-
o
0>
0>
~
E c
E :8
o 0
o ~
0>
..c
-
c
w
c
:>
o
~
c..
w
m
....I
....I
-
~
J:
()
Z
::J
....I
T""
c
E (/)
e 0>
- C
(/) "0
C m
:8 0>
m e::::
"0 C'0
C --
t::: 0>
o E ~
0.. E m
0> 0 ...J
e:::: 0 >-
"0 0> III
c e:::: ?-
m 0. '0 Z
0> 0 C W
~ Jt :8 ~
o 0 ~ ~
_ _ 0> u..
(/) C C "0 ::>
~ 0 0 '00 0
o+='+=' C-,
0> 0 0 0 0
e:::: ~ ~ 0 <(
..c
-
0>
..c ..c
- -
o T""
T"" T""
..c ..c ..c
- - -
N C'0 "<:t
T"" T"" T""
N
o
T""
I
co
0>
w
u
i=
o
z
E 0>
.!:
e-co
-_0
"O:JO
Q)ON
(/).!: ~
o 0> C'0
u:Ji::'
Q) e m
.c.!::J
-c
="Om
~Q)-'
0>- C
C ~ 0
.- 0
"O_C
= Q)
:J(/)o..
III 0> 0
.- 0>
C ro s....
os..........
.- .c \oJ
ro'- c
s.......J m
-
(/) .
.- ..c ~
co.
.- c
Emo...
"Os....o
<(Ill 0
-- ..
Q) T""
..cCO_
-om
.~ N f'--
o
JB i::' 0
CmN
O>:J ~
Ec"<:t
t:::mN
m -, s....
0.. 0>
Q)o.c
O-E_
>- f'-- 0> ~
_00:J
c-o>o
:J"<:t0..c
oN_
Os....:Jo
_0>0_
<(.c.c..c
Em 0
I Q) s.... c
coo ~
~Q)c.c
000-
...... o>m
~c(/)o
:JooO
..c --
wcos....
_:J
(/)0=0
mO~>-
E c >-1:)
t)ocm
'C 0 :J -
..c"oc
0~08
coco
cooo
000
ONN
N
~ f'-- N
COT""N
i::'i::'i::'
m m m
:J :J :J
C C C
m m OJ
-, -, -,
0>
C
+='
0>
,- Q)
o~
C
:J=
o 0
05
o 0
"0-0
0>"0 >-
s....0>_
'5= c
c-m:J
0> E 0
s...._0
0>0>.
cO>.
+=,"O~
Q):J .
o>.c<(
E~o
o~o
ZOO>
T""
HENNESSEY GIBSON HOGAN LLP
Barristers, Solicitors, Notaries Public
99 Edward Street, 2nd Floor, St. Thomas, Ontario N5P 1Y8
Telephone:
Facsimile:
E-mail:
(519) 633-3310
(519) 633-9374
steveg@hbgclaw.com
File No. 150-381
December 4, 2007
Corporation of the County of Elgin
450 Sunset Drive
S1. Thomas, Ontario N5R 5Vl
Canada
ATTENTION:
Mr. Mark McDonald
Dear Sir:
RE: Coroner's Inquest - Michael Hipson
Further to my previous letter, I confirm that the Inquest into the death of Michael Hipson
occurring on January 23,2006, on Glen Erie Line in Bayham Township proceeded before Coroner Jack
Stanborough for a period of eight days between November 13,2007 and November 22, 2007.
I personally attended as counsel for the Corporation of the County of Elgin on all hearing dates
save and except November 15,2007, upon which date Deborah-Anne Gibson of these offices attended as
substitute counsel. I was unable to attend the Inquest on that date due to a prior Court commitment which
could not be changed. At my request, Coroner's Counsel Liz Maguire had arranged to call witnesses on
November 15,2007, which were not critical to the interests ofthe County of Elgin.
I also confirm that, throughout the Inquest, either Clayton Watters or Peter Dutchak were in
attendance to provide technical and/or detail assistance to me. In my mind, both Mr. Watters and Mr.
Dutchak were of great assistance to me and my representation 0 f County interests.
As we discussed during the course of preparation for the Inquest, much of the focus of
proceedings was on safety on public roads, although unique circumstances of Mr. Hipson's death further
focused the issue on construction equipment on public roads. This anticipated focus of the Inquest
naturally lead to inquiry into, among other things, road acquisition policies, road inspection practices,
oversized/overweight permit mechanisms, and maintenance protocols. Given that the specific scene of
Mr. Hipson's death was on a County Road, being Glen Erie Line, much of the Inquiry into these issues
focused upon County practices, although inquiry was also made into practices of the Municipality of
Bayham given that such Municipality was the prior owner of the subject road until shortly before the
accident, with normal maintenance obligations, and, even after acquisition of Glen Erie Line by the
County of Elgin in September, 2005, such maintenance obligations were continued by Bayham as the
contract agent for Elgin.
The Inquest proceedings also made inquiry into the practices of construction companies intending
to utilize public roads for the movement of construction equipment between sites, including the apparent
absence of any real disclosure of detail or application to any municipality relative to the project in which
Mr. Hipson was specifically employed.
Murray J. Hennessey, B.A., B.C.L. (retired)
Stephen H. Gibson, B.A., LL.B.
Deborah-Anne (Hennessey) Gibson, B.A., LL.B.
John E. Hogan, B.B.A., LL.B.
-2-
Finally, there was also inquiry into potential provincial response to the circumstances giving rise
to Mr. Hipson's death, including current Provincial Permit practices and possible centralization of all
overweight/oversize permit mechanisms to the provincial level.
All in all, I was satisfied with the treatment of County interests through the Inquest process.
Although much of the focus was on County practices, the Coroner and his Jury were made aware of all
relevant County practices, including the existence of an overweight/oversize permit system for use of
County Roads, and the failure on the part of any contractor to apply to the County for any such permit to
allow the type of equipment which Mr. Hipson was operating on a County Road at the time of his death.
In this regard, however, if there was one area of inquiry in which I was somewhat disappointed, it was as
to the review of the realities of a two-tier municipal system as it reflects upon jurisdiction over County
and Municipal Roads and the maintenance of upper tier roads by lower tier municipalities. In my
opinion, the Jury might have made more useful detailed recommendation if the Inquest were permitted to
make further and better inquiry into that structure.
In any event, given the focus of the Inquest, it should come as no surprise that the bulk of the Jury
recommendations were directed to the County of Elgin and Municipality of Bayham. To that end, I
enclose herewith a copy of such recommendations, the contents of which are self-explanatory. In this
regard, however, I would caution that the enclosed Jury recommendations and indeed the Jury verdict is
draft only and becomes final and effective only after review and approval by the Office of the Chief
Coroner. I expect to receive the final verdict and recommendations in the near future but I do not
anticipate any revision.
I should note that the County of Elgin is obliged to report to the Office of the Chief Coroner
within one (1) year of the date of verdict as to the steps it has taken to implement Jury recommendations.
It is my practice to monitor implementation of Jury recommendations and thereafter review the report of
the Municipality prior to submission of same to the Chief Coroner. I suggest that a reasonable monitoring
program be established in the near future.
I finally confirm that I will be attending County Council on December 13, 2007, to provide a
verbal report as to the results of the Inquest. I certainly intend to review the rationale behind each of the
Jury recommendations to Council members at that time. I will also make my own recommendations for
changes in County operations which became apparent through the Inquest process even though not
reflected in Jury recommendations. It will certainly be up to County Council to decide whether or not to
implement these further recommendations.
With the end of the formal Inquest hearing process, it is appropriate to render an account for
further services performed through delivery of is report and I therefore enclose same for your
consideration.
ly,
SSEY GIBSON HOGAN LLP
SHG:sb
Encl.
occ Clayton Watters
OMAS 5196339629
OEC-04-2007 16:20 From:CROWN ATT ST.TH
To:519 633 9374
P.2/4
THE CORONER:S ACT - PROVINce OF ONTARIO
VERDICT OF CORONER'S JURY
We, J.VE. of St. Thomas 'tJ(>;') jttJ
R.F. of Port Slanley fft f..1f'I t.-
O __
E.H. of Aylmer V tf2-IJ I t- J
J.M. of 5t. Thnm~9
J-W or St.Thomas
tile jury serving on tM inqUOSl into the death of:
on
aged _42_, held at_8ast Western, Stoneridge Inn
13-22
by Dr.
days of _Novembftr
2007
StanborOlJgh
Coroner for Ontario. having been duly SWOfl'l, Mving Inquired into
and determined the fOllOWing:
1. Name of Oeceased: Michael Hipson
2. Date & Time of Deatll: January 23, 2006, 5:05pm
3. Place of Death: ton don Health Sciences Center
4. Cause of Death: HyPothermic Drowning
5. By WMt Means: Accident
J.VE.
R.F
E.H
Signature of f' oroperson
J.M._
J.W.
SIgnature of Jurors
This verclict was received by me this
day of
,2007
Coroner
C<.1010 (rev16190)
VerdiCt mll8t be frJrwardfJd to tfJ~ Ollief Coroner o.nd II COpy to Ihfl Crown AttomflY
THOMAS 5196339629
DEC-04-2007 16:20 From:CROWN ATT ST.
To:519 633 9374
P.3/4
We WISH TO MAI(r; nlE F.OLlOW/NG RECOIlllAleNDATIONS:
1. Ontario Good Roads Association should recommend all road supervisors/superintendents
becom~ CertifiEld Road Supervisors, as a mandatory minimum qualification of their
employment.
Page _
2. Mandatory annual attendance at "Road School" by the MuniCipality & County roads
superintendents. Other road employees should be given the opportunity of attending.
3. That the, Ministry of Municipal Affairs recommend that on large, multi jUrisdication
construction prOject, 1 or mOre qualified local government Official be designated to deal
with issl:les/questions that may arise (permits/road issues/regulations etc.) relating to the
project.
4. The Mini~try of Transportation should give consideration to amending S.11 0 of the
Highway Traffic Act to require all Municipalities to make overdimensional vehicle permits
mandatory. All Municipalites should be educated on the regulations for ovardimensionsl
loads/equipment. The Ministry of TranSportation should consider providing assistance
when requested.
5. That the Bi;lilding Code Act and/or it's Regulations be amended 10 include a requirement
that each B,uiJding Permit include a check box indicating aU relevant permits have been
applied for and granted. Copies of those permits should be attached.
6. That the PrOVince consider amending the Minimum Road Standards to give consideralion
to periOdic inspection for the structural integrity of roads and to include a reqUirement to
maintain con~truction details and maintenance records. This should also include records
of visual inspections.
7. That permits Qbtained for the Use of the road during the COurse of a project will include a
requirement for a periOdic engineering assessment of the structural integrity of the road, if
deemed necessary and appropriate by the Official granting the permit.
a. The County of J;:lgin create and utilize a standardized maintenance report to be completed
on a regular basis.
9. Quarterly County of Elgin inspeotions to be conducted with the Ml,Inioipal Road Official.
uc::..........~..,-c::lOl::'Jr It:>.cXJ r-rom.\.,.r\u....'1 MI' 01. InUColH:> ;:).L~C~~
IO.';:;)l'j C..J..J 'j..Jf&.f
t".---t"'t
10. All Elgin Municipalities provide quarterfy "Activity Reports" back to the County of Elgin.
11. Bayha91 Township should implement a permit system immediately.
12. Crane manufacturers should consider Changing the designs of future cranes to Include at
least 2 escape exits.
Signature of Forepetson
Signatum of Coroner
HENNESSEY GIBSON HOGAN LLP
Barristers, Solicitors, Notaries Public
99 Edward Street, 2nd Floor, S1. Thomas, Ontario N5P 1 Y8
Telephone:
Facsimile:
E-mail:
(519) 633-3310
(519) 633-9374
steveg@hbgclaw.com
File No. 150-354
December 5, 2007
Corporation of the County of Elgin
450 Sunset Drive
St. Thomas, Ontario N5R 5V1
Canada
ATTENTION:
Mr. Mark McDonald
Dear Sir:
RE: Committee Membership - Term Limits
I acknowledge your verbal request for an opinion as to the authority of County Council to
create terms limits for members of "Committees" appointed by Council and to which municipal
powers and duties are delegated.
As a matter of clarification, I understand that your inquiry would relate not so much to
Council Committees but rather to an individual or body to whom County Council has delegated a
function or power which it has received under statute or regulation. To that end, reference
should first be made to definition of "local board" as set forth in section 1 of the Municipal Act
2001, to whom County Council often delegates public functions. In this regard, however, it must
be recognized, that County Council may well delegate functions and powers to an individual or
body which would not necessarily meet the definition of a local board and, as such, inquiry
cannot focus upon and be limited to issues surrounding delegation to and constitution oflocal
boards.
The above wider delegation analysis therefore leads to a consideration of subsections
23.1 through 23.3 of the Municipal Act, 2001, related directly to delegation of municipal duties
and powers. A review of such sections reveals that, among other things,
· Council may delegate powers and duties subject to and only in accordance with
statutory restrictions (23.1 (1))
· all Council delegations are revocable at anytime without notice unless the
delegation bylaw specially limits such power of revocation (23.1 (2))
· Possibly most significant to your inquiry, a delegation may be subject to such
conditions and limits as Council considers appropriate (23.1(2)(5))
· the conditions and limits applicable to any delegation may include (but are not
limited to),
o a requirement that the delegate act by by-law, resolution, or otherwise
o the procedures that the delegate must follow
Murray J. Hennessey, B.A., B.C.L. (retired) Deborah-Anne (Hennessey) Gibson, B.A., LL.B.
Stephen H. Gibson, B.A., LL.B. John E. Hogan, B.B.A., LL.B.
-2-
o accountability and transparency of the delegate's actions and decisions
(section 23.1(3))
· the right of delegation by Council is limited to
o one or more members of Councilor a Council Committee
o a body having at least two members of which at least fifty percent of such
members are
· members of Council
· individuals appointed by Council
· a combination ofthe persons described in the first two items
immediately above.
o an individual who is an officer, employee, or agent of the municipality
(section 23.2(1))
· delegation by Council is permitted only in respect of powers and duties authorized
under the Municipal Act, 2001, Planning Act, a specific private Act relating to
that particular municipality and any other Act prescribed by statute or regulation
(23.2(2)).
In my opinion, the answer to your specific inquiry to Committee term limits is to be
found in Section 23.1 (2)( 5) as referred to above. Where delegation of a public function, duty, or
power is permitted, whether to a local board or other Council Committee, body, or individual,
County Council possesses the express statutory right and discretion to impose conditions and
limits that it considers appropriate. Although Section 23.1(3) identifies only three (3) potential
conditions and limits, there is no prohibition against other limits, including term limits, where
Council, in its discretion determines that such limits would be appropriate. The discretion
appears unfettered so long as exercised in compliance with any and all restrictions expressed
within the Municipal Act, 2001.
Under this analysis, County Council would possess the discretion to create term limits for
members of local boards to whom it has delegated municipal powers and to committees and
other bodies as well as individuals exercising delegated municipal powers. I again note that
there may be local boards that are not necessarily exercising delegated powers, and as such, the
ability of County Council to create term limits for members of such boards is less clear - under
the analysis reflected above, the ability for term limits to be created for such local boards may
well depend upon the manner in which such board is created and the nature of the power being
delegated. For example, given that the Land Division Committee for the County of Elgin is
created under the Planning Act and is thereby a local board but exercises a power delegated from
County Council under such Act, the above analysis would conclude that County Council does
have the ability to create term limits for that particular body.
I am aware of media reports in which reference is made to my previous opinion of
September 18, 2003, cautioning against term limits for the office of Warden, particularly as
enacted by resolution amending a Council policy. In that situation, the primary concern related
to the fact that the proposed limits had the effect of creating a further qualification for the office
of Warden which was not established by and which appeared inconsistent with the provisions of
the Municipal Act 2001. As such, the creation of such term limits could be characterized as
action beyond the statutory jurisdiction of County Council. Indeed, it is and remains my opinion
that the creation of term limits for the office of Warden through amendment to Council policy is
not authorized by the Municipal Act, 2001.
-3-
The situation under review is quite different in as much as the Municipal Act, 2001,
appears to contemplate appropriate conditions and limits being placed upon bodies or individuals
exercising public duties and power delegated from Council. The jurisdiction to create conditions
and limits is very broad and it is that breadth which seems to include the authority to create term
limits if Council determines those limits are appropriate. In this regard, Council must consider
the issue objectively and fairly but, ifit does so and concludes that term limits are applicable, I
am of the view that Council has the jurisdiction and authority to legally create those limits.
I am also aware that my previous opinion raised the spectre of constructive
discrimination in relation to the proposed creation of term limits for the office of Warden. Much
of that caution related the unique circumstances of the debate then under consideration. With
respect ofthe current issue, while the matter of constructive discrimination cannot be completely
discounted, it is much more distant given the statutory authority of Council to create term limits
as reviewed above. Indeed, constructive discrimination could only arise if it was determined that
the term limits were created so as to exclude, restrict, or prefer individuals or a group of
individuals identifiable by prohibited ground of discrimination under the Human Rights Code.
Furthermore, even if the term limits resulted in exclusion, restriction, or preference of
identifiable individuals or group of individuals, such term limits would never the less be
acceptable if found reasonable and bona fide in all circumstances. To that extent, therefore, I am
of the opinion that the spectre of constructive discrimination relative to committee term limits is
extremely remote.
I trust the forgoing is sufficient for your current purposes.
Your truly,
HEN E SEY GIBSON HOGAN LLP
SHG:sb$
To the Warden and members of County Council,
In August I was given a substantial donation by the County to go to
Vietnam, Malaysia and Singapore. I went as part of Global Vision Economic
Mission, a not for profit organization. It has the goal of providing young
Canadians with the opportunity to gain diplomatic and leadership skills,
while promoting their region and Canada across the world. Be rest assured
that I, at every opportunity, presented all my information on Elgin County
wherever we went and to all the different organizations we attended.
I have a 10 minute slide show that hopefully captures my trip and my
experiences and I would be glad to answer any questions the Council
might have. Thank you and I look forward to meeting you on Dec. 13.
Tucker Vendrig
DecA, 2007
St.Thomas, On.
Mark McDonald, Administrator
County of Elgin
Dear Mark:
As per our telephone conversation of this date I am requesting standing at the next
council meeting on December 13,2007.
As you are no doubt aware we are currently down to the crunch in the decision making
process as it relates to the amalgamation of the courts here in Elgin. My reason for
requesting the opportunity to speak to County Council is to solicit their support in the
efforts to convince the Province of Ontario to locate the amalgamated courts in the Elgin
County Courthouse on Wellington St. in St.Thomas. One would think that the natural
place for the courts would be the courthouse which for all intent and purposes has been
the Seat of Justice in our county since before confederation. (built as a courthouse in
1853) This however does not appear to be the case with the powers to be in Toronto.
I would like to bring Councilors up to date with the current situation and request their
support in their municipalities as we move along in the process. By the time of the
council meeting we will have started a number of different things to garner public
support for our cause and I will update everyone on the progress to date as well as
explain the road ahead and more importantly get ideas from the Councilors present with
regards to their ideas to reach our goal.
Let me add that for once at least, you will have someone speaking to you who is not
looking for money, only much needed public support.
I look forward to your response to my request.
With Kindest Regards
Bob de la Penotiere
EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION - DECEMBER 13. 2007 COUNCIL MEETING
ADMINISTRATIVE Sandra Heffren
SERVICES
CUL TURAL
SERVICES
HUMAN
RESOURCES
LONG-TERM
CARE HOMES
Gail Driscoll
Emily Finch
Deanna Hindley
Susan Morrell
Jane Grass
Dorothy Schaap
Marg Harder
Gloria Hiddink
Mary Jenken
Phyllis Maertens
Sandra Tapsell
Marg Ashton
Barbara Gammon
Marjorie Gibson
Carolyn Howey
Anna Young
Karen Johnson
Michele HarriS
Joan Lale
Tammy Payne
Susan Shackelton
Katherine Sheeller
Tina Teichroeb
Patricia Vandevenne
Francine Vankoughnett
Rejeanne Allaire
Andrea DeNeire
Amy Doolittle
Marjorie Ford
Kelly Griffin
LuciLyons
Mary Jane Palmer
Sheri Willcocks
Lisa Zinkan
30 years
20 years
20 years
20 years
20 years
1 0 years
Dutton
Port Stanley/Shedden
Main Office
Aylmer
Bayham/Port BurwellNienna
20 years
30 years
30 years
30 years
30 years
30 years
25 years
25 years
25 years
25 years
25 years
20 years
15 years
15 years
15 years
15 years
15 years
15 years
15 years
15 years
10 years
10 years
10 years
10 years
10 years
10 years
10 years
10 years
10 years
Elgin Manor
Elgin Manor
Terrace Lodge
Terrace Lodge
Elgin Manor
Elgin Manor
Elgin Manor
Bobier Villa
Elgin Manor
Bobier Villa
Terrace Lodge
Terrace Lodge
Terrace Lodge
Bobier Villa
Terrace Lodge
Terrace Lodge
Terrace Lodge
Bobier Villa
Elgin Manor
Bobier Villa
Terrace Lodge
Terrace Lodge
Terrace Lodge
Elgin Manor
Bobier Villa
Elgin Manor
Bobier Villa
Bobier Villa
REPORTS OF COUNCIL AND STAFF
DECEMBER 13. 2007
Staff ReDorts -(ATTACHED)
14 Director of Financial Services - West Lorne Heritage Homes
16 Director of Financial Services - Budget Comparison - October 31,2007
21 Director of Financial Services - Collections - Agreement with Region of Durham
23 Manager of Administrative Services - Fee for Closed Meeting Investigations
38 Manager of Administrative Services - A Policy for Accountability and Transparency
of the Actions of the Council and its Administrative Staff
43 Manager of Administrative Services - Schedule of Council Meetings for 2008
45 Ambulance and Emergency Management Coordinator - Ambulance Call Information
Request
47 Payroll & Benefits Coordinator - London Employee Assistance Consortium (LEAC)
49 Human Resources Assistant - Summer Student Subsidy Reimbursement
50 Director of Human Resources - Policy 9.40 and 9.110 - Leaves of Absence Approval
53 Manager of Road Infrastructure - Request to Install Four Way Stop - Miller Road, Dutton
56 Director of Engineering Services - The State of the Road Infrastructure
69 Director of Engineering Services - Wellington Road and Ford Road
13
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM:
Linda B. Veger, Director of Financial Services
DATE:
November 20, 2007
SUBJECT:
West Lome Heritage Homes
CORPORATE GOALCS) REFERENCED:
To ensure fiscal responsibility and accountability.
INTRODUCTION:
The Municipality of West Elgin has requested that the County of Elgin apply the
residential ratio of one (1) to a property that would otherwise carry the multi-
residential ratio of 2.3458. The multi-residential properties pay almost two and
one-half times the tax rate of residential.
DISCUSSION:
West Lome Heritage Homes Not for Profit Corporation applied for funding under
the Canada/Ontario New Affordable Housing Program, a program funded by both
the Federal and Provincial governments. The Corporation was approved for
funding of approximately $70,000 per unit for 16 one and two bedroom seniors'
apartments. The project is started and occupancy is slated for August 2008. This
was one of four projects approved for the geographic area of the County.
A program requirement is a reduced tax rate at the local level over the course of
the next twenty years. Section 110(6) of the Municipal Act allows for this
reduction once a corporation under this program has entered into an agreement
with the designated Consolidated Municipal Service Manager, the City of St.
Thomas. West Elgin has passed a by-law allowing for the reduction in tax ratio.
The County is now being requested to also reduce the ratio on this property.
Using 2007 County tax rates, for every $1 million of assessment this would
represent a savings to West Lome Heritage Homes of $7,500. This reduction in
their taxes would then be bome by other taxpayers across the County.
CONCLUSION:
Council has shown its support for affordable housing projects. The reduction of
the tax ratio on this property will assist in keeping rents reasonable by reducing
the annual operations expenditures.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT Council approve a tax ratio of one (1) for the West Lome Heritage Homes
project; and,
THAT this tax ratio shall apply to taxation as of the effective date of the first
supplementary or omitted assessment notice on the property; and,
THAT a by-law be prepared; and,
THAT the Municipality of West Elgin be requested to keep the County of Elgin
apprised as to the status of the assessment on this property.
Respectfully Submitted
~~
Linda B. vegerr
Director of Financial Services
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM:
Linda B. Veger, Director of Financial Services
DATE:
November 21, 2007
SUBJECT:
Budget Comparison - October 31, 2007
Corporate Goal Referenced:
To ensure fiscal responsibility and accountability.
Introduction:
Attached is the budget comparison to October 31, 2007 for the County operating
departments.
Discussion:
The departmental totals are reasonable for the tenth month of the year. Wage and benefit
lines continue to be very close to the budgeted amount. The benefit lines will improve as more
staff reach the maximums for Canada pension and employment insurance.
Warden & Council - 11,787 - expenses for the Warden's Banquet recorded in November.
Meals & refreshments under budget - Elgin Manor will invoice in December for supplies used
during the year.
Administration Building - 31,136 - purchased services and utilities under budget. Utility
expenditures fluctuate depending on the season and may increase later in the year.
Corporate Ex~enditures - 80,876 - insurance paid late 2006. Next billing will come due
November 15t . Legal and professional fees under budget however this line will most likely be
over spent at year end due to the inquest. Small positive variances in several other lines
make up the balance of this positive variance.
Engineering Services - 31,756 - railway protection less than anticipated at budget time.
Overall the three Homes are in a positive position - 217,448. The increases in revenues
started flowing in April. Effective September 1 st the Homes received an increase in raw food
costs of $1.43 per diem. This equates to approximately $129,000 annually. Wage lines are
over in all three Homes. The overage is, for the most part, in nursing. At budget time it is very
difficult to anticipate all outbreaks that may have a negative effect on wages. Senior staff
develop their budgets to include dollars for these incidents however trying to anticipate all that
could occur would lead to inflated budgets. For this reason, wages are over budget in some
years. Other budget lines are being closely scrutinized to make up the wage line negative
variance.
Library - 220,606 - grants from 2006 and 2007. The Library is in the process of carefully
selecting expenditures for these grants. Also the annual grant from the Province has been
received.
Information Technologies - 44,883 - Consulting fees under budget however support and
maintenance are over budget.
Provincial Offences - 370,149 - revenues higher, indicating the increase from 401 fines. The
first payment to the municipalities was made in early July. The municipalities benefiting from
the 401 revenues will receive their first payment for those fines after the year end is closed. In
2008, they will receive a first payment in July for the first half of 2008.
Ambulance Services - 113,094 - contractor payments lower than expected at budget time.
These lower payments lead to lower payments from the City of St. Thomas.
Recommendation:
THAT the report titled Budget Comparison - October 31, 2007 and dated November 21, 2007
be received and filed.
Respectfully Submitted
~~
Linda B. Veger
Director of Financial Services
Approved for S n
Ma McDonald
Chief Admims ra Ive Officer
COUNTY OF ELGIN
Departmental Budget
Comparisons
For The 10 Periods Ending October 31,2007
Total YTD YTD Variance %OF
Budget Budget Actual () Budget
Warden & Council
Wages 178,520 148,767 148,763 4
Benefits 8,000 6,667 6,076 591
Operations 72,000 59,283 48,091 11 ,192
Total 258,520 214,717 202,930 11,787 78.50%
Administrative Services
Wages 270,450 217,712 213,804 3,908
Benefits 59,500 47,898 48,330 (433)
Operations 15,600 13,000 14,907 (1,907)
Total 345,550 278,610 277,041 1,569 80.17%
Financial Services
Wages 305,968 247,712 249,058 (1,346)
Benefits 73,891 59,822 58,691 1,131
Operations 16,200 13,500 14,586 (1,086)
Total 396,059 321,034 322,335 (1,301 ) 81.39%
Human Resources
Wages 320,000 257,600 254,807 2,793
Benefits 85,200 68,978 54,792 14,186
Operations 16,800 14,000 13,449 551
Total 422,000 340,578 323,048 17,530 76.55%
Administration Building
Wages 180,000 144,900 144,916 (16)
Benefits 45,000 36,225 30,824 5,401
Operations 96,500 84,234 58,482 25,751
Total 321,500 265,359 234,222 31,136 72.85%
Corporate Expenditures
Insurance 263,500 257,187 225,617 31,570
Telephone 30,000 25,000 28,393 (3,393)
Legal & Professional 95,000 79,167 59,576 19,591
Retiree Benefits 25,000 20,833 14,432 6,402
Other Expenditures 87,990 73,325 46,618 26,707
Total 501,490 455,512 374,636 80,876 74.70%
Engineering
Wages 259,000 208,495 216,115 (7,620)
Benefits 59,000 47,495 49,697 (2,202)
Operations 80,100 66,750 31,175 35,575
Maintenance 2,586,850 1,933,887 1,927,884 6,003
Total 2,984,950 2,256,627 2,224,871 31,756 74.54%
Agriculture
Fees Revenue 0 0 (420) 420
Operations 32,953 24,765 24,025 739
Total 32,953 24,765 23,605 1,159 71.63%
Elgin Manor
Revenues (4,585,470) (3,821,225) (3,890,117) 68,892
Wages 4,106,768 3,305,948 3,353,147 (47,198)
Benefits 1,032,002 830,762 855,347 (24,585)
Operations 969,361 808,968 653,614 155,354
Total 1,522,661 1,124,453 971,990 152,462 63.83%
Terrace Lodge
Revenues (5,172,542) (4,310,452) (4,370,689) 60,237
Wages 4,093,056 3,346,229 3,571,115 (224,886)
Benefits 1,166,521 953,675 899,901 53,774
Operations 982,404 819,920 718,073 101,847
Total 1,069,439 809,373 818,400 (9,027) 76.53%
Bobier Villa
Revenues (2,927,060) (2,439,217) (2,475,498) 36,281
Wages 2,883,810 2,321,467 2,368,566 (47,099)
Benefits 723,980 582,804 563,880 18,924
Operations 718,602 599,668 533,763 65,906
Total 1,399,332 1 ,064,722 990,710 74,013 70.80%
Museum
Wages 84,681 68,282 67,156 1,126
Benefits 20,977 16,887 15,167 1,719
Operations 25,300 21,084 26,767 (5,684 )
Total 130,958 106,252 109,090 (2,839) 83.30%
Library
Wages 1,108,648 892,887 916,407 (23,520)
Benefits 267,944 215,695 212,066 3,629
Collections 239,500 199,583 217,242 (17,658)
Operations 243,173 202,644 (47,970) 250,614
Total 1,859,265 1,510,809 1,297,744 213,065 69.80%
Archives
Wages 85,358 68,713 86,356 (17,642)
Benefits 22,193 17,865 21,647 (3,782)
Operations 51,800 43,167 24,601 18,565
Total 159,351 129,745 132,604 (2,859) 83.22%
Land Division
Wages 57,640 46,854 44,539 2,315
Benefits 9,610 7,752 8,329 (578)
Operations (67,250) (56,042) (48,542) (7,500)
Total 0 (1,437) 4,326 (5,762) 0.00%
Emergency Measures
Wages 5,300 4,267 4,267 0
Benefits 1,375 1,107 1,107 0
Operations 9,000 7,500 4,824 2,676
Total 15,675 12,873 10,198 2,676 65.06%
Information Technologies
Wages 197,525 159,008 161,818 (2,811 )
Benefits 49,381 39,752 38,390 1,362
Operations 299,749 249,791 203,460 46,331
Total 546,655 448,550 403,668 44,883 73.84%
Provincial Offences
Grant (75,045) (62,538) (93,004) 30,467
Fines Revenues (700,000) (583,333) (826,995) 243,662
Shared Revenues - Municipal 381,655 190,828 120,709 70,118
Wages 146,275 117,751 119,013 (1,261 )
Benefits 32,200 25,921 29,764 (3,843)
Operations 185,975 137,313 106,306 31,006
Total (28,940) (174,058) (544,207) 370,149 1880.47%
Ambulance Services
Province of Ontario (3,097,692) (2,581,410) (2,620,209) 38,799
City of St. Thomas (1,476,139) (1,230,116) (1,169,507) (60,609)
Contractor Payments 6,590,990 5,492,492 5,376,640 115,852
Wages 67,817 54,593 55,403 (811 )
Benefits 17,972 14,467 12,604 1,864
Operations 35,300 29,417 11,418 17,999
Total 2,138,248 1,779,443 1,666,349 113,094 77.93%
Collections
Revenue (305,000) (254,167) (205,933) (48,233)
Shared Revenues - Municipal 147,919 73,960 77 ,269 (3,310)
Wages 47,520 38,254 28,884 9,370
Benefits 12,545 10,099 7,897 2,202
Operations 34,300 28,583 16,392 12,191
Total (62,716) (103,271) (75,492) (27,780) 120.37%
Economic Development
Grants (90,000) (75,000) (50,000) (25,000)
Wages 106,390 87,160 92,357 (5,197)
Benefits 18,260 14,699 17,960 (3,260)
Operations 127,200 106,000 62,175 43,825
Total 161,850 132,859 122,491 10,368 75.68%
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM: Linda B. Veger, Director of Financial Services
DATE: December 3, 2007
SUBJECT: Collections - Agreement with Region of Durham
CORPORATE GOAL(S) REFERENCED:
To ensure fiscal responsibility and accountability.
To forge community partnerships.
INTRODUCTION:
In August of this year the position of Provincial Offences Collections Officer
became vacant. Senior staff reviewed the options for meeting the collections
responsibilities and reported those options to Council. One option was partnering
with another municipality to provide collections services. On September 11, 2007
the following recommendation was adopted:
THAT staff be directed to further investigate entering into an agreement with the
Region of Durham to carry out the collection of defaulted POA fines; and,
THAT staff report back to Council on the outcome of any negotiations regarding
the above.
DISCUSSION:
Since September staff has been working closely with the Region of Durham to
ensure a smooth transition should both parties agree to the transfer of
responsibilities for collections. The POA Court Supervisor has been involved and
is in agreement with details that will affect the Court. New forms have been
developed that, if approved by the Justice of the Peace, may be utilized across
the southwest region for requests for extensions.
The Region completed a number of tests to ensure the separation of the two
municipalities' data streams. The Region has advised they would be prepared to
start the transition immediately.
A draft agreement has been presented by the Region. The agreement outlines
the responsibilities of both parties. It includes such clauses as services, terms of
payment, and the contract term including an out clause. Schedule "B" sets out
the fee. The fee has been set at 25% of defaulted fines recovered, with a
minimum fee of $88,000 payable in monthly instalments of $7,333. Staff is
negotiating with Durham to reduce this minimum fee. Incidentals such as
postage, envelopes, etc. will also be billed.
The minimum fee of $88,000 will be met with the collection of $352,000 in
defaulted fines. The Region will add an additional collections employee should
Council agree to this arrangement. The County would expect to budget
approximately $62,000 for a collections employee in 2008. Therefore the
minimum fee should cover an additional employee, any training that may be
required plus the Region will retain net revenue for its efforts.
In exchange for this fee, the County receives the benefit of a sizable collections
department and automated processes that could lead to increased revenues to
be shared with the municipalities. In 2006, the County collected approximately
$303,900 in defaulted fines. After paying all costs including the victim fine
surcharge, the municipalities shared in $154,530 of revenue. With the assistance
of the Region of Durham, it is anticipated that revenues will increase leading to
an increased share to the municipalities.
CONCLUSION:
The Region of Durham has many resources in its collections department
including five collectors, highly automated processes, and a legal clerk. The
County has the opportunity to benefit from those resources by entering into an
agreement with the Region for the collection of defaulted fines. The agreement
includes a ninety (90) day out clause and a review of the services at six (6)
months and again at the end of the first year. Renewals are for successive one
(1) year periods.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT staff report back to Council on the outcome of negotiations regarding the
minimum fee as requested in the draft agreement; and,
THAT the Warden and CAO be authorized to enter into an agreement with the
Regional Municipality of Durham to provide POA collections services for
defaulted fines; and,
THAT the above be subject to review and approval by the County's solicitor.
Respectfully Submitted
Approved for Submission
~d~
Linda B. Veger
Director of Financial Services
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM:
Sandra Heffren
Manager of Administrative Services
DATE:
November 26, 2007
SUBJECT:
Fee for Closed Meeting Investigations
CORPORATE GOALS REFERENCED
1. To ensure fiscal responsibility and accountability.
INTRODUCTION:
Council previously agreed to the appointment of Mr. Maddox as Closed Meeting
Investigator to comply with requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001. An
appointment by-law was to be prepared.
DISCUSSION:
A meeting was held with the Lower-Tier Administrators (two were unable to
attend), the County and Mr. John Maddox to discuss the process for closed
meeting investigations. A standard complaint form and closed meeting
investigator appointing by-law was discussed for adoption by the Councils of the
participating lower-tier municipalities and the County (see attachment). Another
issue raised was charging a $25 fee to complainants at the outset of the
investigation. The rationale for charging a fee is to help recover a portion of the
cost of the investigation. Should an investigation conclude that an item
discussed in a closed meeting was not warranted or the Council did not act in
accordance with its Procedural By-Law and result in a recommendation from Mr.
Maddox, the fee would be refunded to the complainant. The Administrators who
attended the meeting were in agreement to propose charging a fee to help defray
some of the costs of an investigation.
The County's Fees and Charges By-Law would also require amendment to add
the $25.00 fee for closed meeting investigations.
A Policy has also been prepared outlining the process to be followed to deal with
any complaints that may be received from the public in a consistent manner and
is attached for consideration.
CONCLUSION:
An appointment by-law and complaint form requires adoption prior to January 1,
2008 for closed meeting investigations. A fee of $25.00 paid by complainants for
closed meeting investigations, refundable if the Council acted improperly in its
Closed Meeting procedures, is being proposed to offset some of the administrative/
processing costs of an investigation. The Council's Fees & Charges by-law
requires amendment to include a $25.00 fee for closed meeting investigations. A
standard policy for processing complaints ensures that any complaints are dealt
with in a consistent manner.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT a by-law appointing Mr. John Maddox (JGM Consulting) as Closed
Meeting Investigator for the County of Elgin be adopted; and
THAT an administrative/processing fee of $25.00 be charged to complainants for
closed meeting investigations; and
THAT in the event that the closed meeting investigator concludes that either an
item discussed in a closed meeting ought not to have been discussed in such
closed meeting or that Council did not act in accordance with its Procedural By-
Law, then the administrative/processing fee shall be refunded to the submitting
Complainant; and further
THAT the County's Fees and Charges by-law be amended accordingly; and
THAT the attached Policy for Municipal Closed Meeting Investigator be adopted.
~~~~
San Heff
Manager of Administrative Services
Ma cDonald
Chief Administrative Officer
POLICY FOR MUNICIPAL CLOSED MEETING INVESTIGATIONS
Policv Statement
The County of Elgin (the municipality) is committed to ensuring that a request for an investigation under
Section 239 of the Municipal Act, 2001 as amended (the Act) is dealt with in a fair, open and expeditious
manner.
The municipality commits to full co-operation including the provision of all information requested by the
Municipal Closed Meeting Investigator (the Investigator), either written or through interviews, to assist the
Investigator in his investigations.
The municipality commits to including any report received from the Investigator related to an investigation
under the Act, on a public agenda and to considering such report in an open public meeting of Councilor
a Committee of Council.
This policy shall be posted on the municipal website and available from the Chief Administrative Officer's
Office (the Clerk), 450 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas, ON, N5R 5V1 or by contacting the Administrative
Services Department at 519-631-1460 or through e-mail todbutcher@elqin-countV.on.ca
This policy applies to all appointed Boards as defined in the Municipal Act.
Backqround:
Through By-Law No. 07-38 the municipality has appointed Mr. John Maddox as a Municipal Closed
Meeting Investigator and authorized him to conduct investigations upon receipt of a complaint in respect
of meetings or part of meetings that are closed to the public to determine compliance with the Act or the
Municipal Procedural By-Law and to report on the results of such investigations.
Complaints Procedures:
Members of the public are encouraged to speak directly with the Clerk regarding a Complaint in order to
resolve any concerns prior to beginning the formal complaint process.
Members of the public may submit complaints to the Investigator relating to compliance with the Act or
the Municipal Procedural By-law for meetings or part of meetings that are closed to the public.
All complaints will be treated as confidential, unless authorization is given by the complainant to release
his or her identity.
Every request for an investigation shall be initiated through the submission of the "Municipal
Investigation Complaint Form" ("Complaint Form") provided. The said Complaint Form shall be
made available to the public through the Clerk's Office or can be downloaded from the County
website at www.elgin-county.on.ca. Completed Complaint Forms will not be accepted by facsimile, e-mail
or other electronic means.
A completed Complaint Form shall be submitted to either the Clerk's Office or directly to the
Closed Meeting Investigator and shall be accompanied by payment of an administrative/
processing fee of $25.00, payable in cash or bank draft to the Corporation of the County of Elgin,
in accordance with the following:
· By delivery to the Clerk in a sealed envelope clearly identified as a Complaint under
Section 239 of the Municipal Act
or
· By mail directly to:
John Maddox, Municipal Closed Meeting Investigator
99 Edgevalley Road, Unit #42
London, Ontario
N5Y 5NI
Inquiries onlv may be submitted by email to John Maddox: maddoxio@svmpatico.ca or by
telephone at 519-951-0330 during regular office hours.
A completed Complaint Form will not be accepted unless accompanied by payment of the
required administrative/processing fee.
In the event that the closed meeting investigator concludes that either an item discussed in a
closed meeting ought not to have been discussed in such closed meeting or that Council did not
act in accordance with its Procedural By-Law, then the said administrative/processing fee shall
be refunded to the submitting Complainant.
All complaints must contain:
. Name of Municipality
. Complainant's name, mailing address, telephone number and e-mail address (if
applicable)
. Date of Closed Meeting under consideration
. Nature and Background of the particular occurrence
. Any activities undertaken (if any) to resolve the concern
. Any other relevant information
. Direction with respect to release of identity
. Original signature
When complaints are submitted directly to the Clerk, the Clerk shall follow the following
procedures:
1. Take all measurers to ensure the envelope remains sealed and its contents remain
confidential;
2. Assign a file number and record said file number on the envelope;
3. Log the file number together with the date and time received;
4. Forward, forthwith to the Investigator by regular mail.
For all complaints, the municipality shall supply forthwith the following or any other information
or documentation as requested by the Investigator related to a complaint:
. Certified copy of Notice of Meeting
. Certified copy of Agenda
. Certified copy of Minutes of Meeting
. Relevant Resolutions
. Municipal contact list
. Other
COUNTY OF ELGIN
By-Law No. 07-38
"BEING A BY LAW TO APPOINT JGM CONSULTING AS THE INVESTIGATOR
PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 8. 9.10 AND 239.1 OF THE MUNICIPAL ACT. 2001.
S.O. 2001. C.25. AS AMENDED"
WHEREAS effective January 1, 2008, pursuant to Section 239.1 of the Municipal
Act, 2001, S.D. 2001, c.25, as amended, permits a person to request an investigation of
whether a municipality or local board has complied with section 239 of the Municipal Act,
2001 as amended, or a procedural by-law under subsection 238 (2) in respect of a
meeting or part of a meeting that was closed to the public; and
WHEREAS Council deems it desirable to appoint JGM Consulting as the
Investigator to investigate all requests on behalf of the Municipality and its Local Boards
for a one year term commencing January 1, 2008;
WHEREAS Section 391.(3) and (4) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.D. 2001, c.25, as
amended, authorizes a municipality to impose a fee or charge including costs incurred by
the municipality or local board related to administration whether or not it is mandatory for
the municipality to provide or do the service or activity.
NOW THEREFORE the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the County of Elgin
hereby enacts as follows:
1. THAT pursuant to Sections 8, 9, 10 and 239.2 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.D.
2001, c.25, as amended, (the "Act") Council hereby appoints JGM Consulting as
the independent Investigator to investigate in accordance with the legislation all
requests for an investigation of the Council and committees of the Municipality and
the local boards and their committees of the Municipality. For the purposes of this
By-Law, "committee" and "local board" shall have the meaning as defined in
Section 238 of the Act.
2. The appointment shall be for an initial term of one year commencing the first day of
January 2008 and ending on December 31, 2008 and may be renewed for
subsequent terms.
3. JGM Consulting or its delegate shall have, in carrying out the functions of
Investigator, regard to, among other matters, the importance of the Investigator's
credibility, the independence, impartiality and confidentiality with respect to the
investigative process.
4. The Investigator or the delegate may hear or obtain information from such persons
as the Investigator or the delegate thinks fit, and may make such inquiries as
Investigator or the delegate thinks fit and it is not necessary for the Investigator or
the delegate to hold any hearing.
5. Subject to Section 6, no person is entitled as of right to be heard by the Investigator
or the delegate.
6. If at any time during the course of an investigation it appears to the Investigator or
the delegate that there may be sufficient grounds for a report or recommendation
that may adversely affect the municipality, a local board or any other person, the
Investigator or the delegate shall give him, her or it an opportunity to make
representations respecting the adverse report or recommendation, either personally
or by counsel.
7. After conducting an investigation, the Investigator or the delegate shall report to the
municipality or in the case of a local board, to the local board and the Municipality.
The report shall include an opinion and the reasons for it and may make such
2
recommendations as the Investigator or the delegate deems fit. The report shall be
included on the next agenda of the Council, or in the case of a Local Board, the
Council and the Local Board agendas, immediately following receipt of the report.
8. Every request for an investigation shall be initiated through the submission of a
"Municipal Investigation Complaint Form" ("Complaint Form") in the form attached
as Schedule "A" hereto and forming part of this By-Law. The said Complaint Form
shall be made available to the public through the Clerk's Office. A completed
Complaint Form shall be submitted to either the Clerk's Office or directly to the
Closed Meeting Investigator and shall be accompanied by payment of an
administrative/processing fee of $25.00, payable in cash or bank draft to the
Corporation of the County of Elgin. A completed Complaint Form will not be
accepted unless accompanied by payment of the required administrative/
processing fee. In the event that the closed meeting investigator concludes that
either an item discussed in a closed meeting ought not to have been discussed in
such closed meeting or that Council did not act in accordance with its Procedural
By-Law, then the said administrative/processing fee shall be refunded to the
submitting Complainant.
9. An agreement between the Municipality and JGM Consulting for investigative
services, as shown on Schedule "B" attached hereto and forming part of this by-law,
is hereby approved and the Warden and the Chief Administrative Officer are hereby
authorized to execute the agreement on behalf of the Municipality.
10. This By-law shall come into force and take effect immediately upon the final passing
thereof.
READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 13 TH DAY OF
DECEMBER 2007.
Mark G. McDonald,
Chief Administrative Officer.
Warden.
3
SCHEDULE "A"
By-Law No. 07-38
COMPLAINT FORM
MUNICIP AL INVESTIGATION
IN ACCORDANCE WITH
Section 239 of the Municipal Act 2001
(As Amended)
A FEE OF $25.00 MUST ACCOMPANY THIS FORM PRIOR TO BEING PROCESSED.
PLEASE FORWARD COMPLETED FORMS TO:
John Maddox
JGM CONSULTING
#42 - 99 Edgevalley Road
London, Ontario N5Y 5Nl
4
COMPLAINT FORM FOR MUNICIPAL INVESTIGATION
Section 239 - Municipal Act 2001
(As Amended)
COMPLAINANT'S
NAME
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE HOME I I WORK I
E-MAIL
CAN YOUR IDENTITY BE REVEALED DURING THE INVESTIGATION? YES [ ]
NO [ ]
. PERSONAL INFORMATION IS COLLEC1ED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF SECTION 239 OF THE MUNICIPAL A CT 2001 (AS
AMENDED) AND WILL BE USED BY THE MUNICIP AL INVESTIGATOR TO CARRY OUT AN INVESTIGATION UNDER THE ACT.
NAME OF MUNICIPALITY
DATE OF CLOSED MEETING
MUNICIPAL CONTACT NAME
TELEPHONE
BACKGROUND
I This should provide as much information as is required to explain the nature and background of
the particular occurrence. (i.e.) Timin!!; Municipal Contact; Municipal Explanation.
ACTION
I Activities that the complainant has undertaken to resolve the matter.
5
SUMMARY / COMMENTS
Date of signature
Signature of Complainant
6
SCHEDULE "B"
By-Law No. 07-38
AGREEMENT FOR MUNICIPAL INVESTIGATOR
THIS AGREEMENT made as of the
day of
,2007.
BETWEEN:
CORPORATION OF THE
(Hereinafter referred to as the "Municipality")
OF THE FIRST PART
AND:
JGM CONSULTING
(Hereinafter referred to as the "Independent Contractor")
OF THE SECOND PART
WHEREAS:
(A) Section 239.2 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25 (the "Act"), when
proclaimed in force, authorizes municipalities to appoint an investigator to
investigate in an independent manner any complaint as to whether the
Municipality has complied with the Act or a Municipal procedural by-law in
respect of a meeting or part of a meeting that was closed to the public and to
report on the investigation;
(B) In appointing an investigator and in assigning powers and duties to him, a
municipality is to have regard to, among other things:
i) the investigators independence and impartiality;
ii) confidentiality with respect to the investigator's activities;
iii) the credibility of the investigator's investigative process;
(C) The Municipality is satisfied that the Independent Contractor has the skills and
ability to meet the foregoing criteria.
NOW THEREFORE the parties agree as follows:
1. Services - The Municipality hereby retains and appoints the Independent
Contractor as an Investigator for the purposes of Section 239.2(1) of the Act
and the Independent Contractor agrees to provide such services for and at the
request of the Municipality and accepts such appointment. The Independent
Contractor confirms that services under this agreement will be carried out by
John G. Maddox except as otherwise delegated by John G. Maddox.
2. Duties - The duties of the Independent Contractor shall be:
i) to conduct investigations from time to time as requested by the
Municipality upon receipt of a complaint ("Complaint") in respect of
meetings or part of meetings that are closed to the public to determine
compliance with the Act or the Municipal procedural by-law and to report
on the results of such investigations;.
ii) in conducting such investigations, to have regard to the importance of the
matters listed above in recital (B);
iii) to proceed without undue delay and with due diligence to investigate a
Complaint;
iv) to conduct each investigation in private;
v) to hear or obtain information from such persons as the Independent
Contractor thinks fit and to make such inquiries as he thinks fit;
vi) to provide an opportunity to the Municipality or any person that may be
adversely affected by a proposed report of the Independent Contractor,
the opportunity to make representations respecting such report or
recommendation;
7
vii) to preserve confidentiality and secrecy with respect to all matters that
come to his knowledge in the course of performing duties hereunder,
save and except disclosure of such matters as in the Independent
Contractor's opinion ought to be disclosed in order to establish grounds
for his conclusions and recommendations;
viii) after making an investigation, to render his opinion as to whether or not
the meeting or part of the meeting that was the subject matter of the
investigation appears to have been closed to the public contrary to the
Act or Municipal procedural by-law and, in either case, the Investigator
shall report his opinion and the reasons for it to the Municipality and shall
make such recommendations as he thinks fit.
In performing such duties, the Independent Contractor shall have the powers
set out in Subsection 223.13(6) and Sections 223.14 to 223.18 of the Act,
copies of which are attached hereto as Appendix "A".
3. Joint Retainer - The Independent Contractor acknowledges that the
Independent Contractor is appointed as an Investigator for each of the
participating member municipalities within the County of Elgin ("Included
Municipalities"), as shown on Appendix "8" to this Agreement, together with
payment of the Additional Fee defined below. Each Included Municipality
shall enter into separate agreements with the Independent Contractor.
4. Fees
a) Annual Retainer - The Municipality shall pay to the Independent
Contractor on or before the commencement date TWO THOUSAND
FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($2,500.00) plus applicable taxes. In order
to add the Included Municipalities to the duties of the Independent
Contractor, an additional fee of THREE HUNDRED ($300.00) for each
Included Municipality shall be paid by the County of Elgin.
b) Hourly Rate - In addition, the Independent Contractor shall be paid a fee
of SEVENTY-FIVE DOLLARS ($75.00) per hour plus applicable taxes
during such time the Independent Contractor is performing his duties
hereunder. The Independent Contractor agrees such rate shall be
charged only for such time that the Independent Contractor is actively
investigating a Complaint and preparing and presenting his report with
respect thereto. The Independent Contractor shall not charge for travel
time. The Independent Contractor is entitled to be reimbursed for other
reasonable receipted expenses related to his duties, including food and
hotel costs, car rental, kilometre rate at the respective municipal rate or
railway tickets.
c) Responsibility for Payment - The Independent Contractor further
covenants and agrees that his hourly fee and related expenses
hereunder shall be paid by the Municipality against whom the Complaint
is made and which initiated the investigation. The Municipality agrees to
be responsible for such fees and expenses and, notwithstanding the joint
retainer, the Independent Contractor shall not hold the other Included
Municipalities responsible for such payment obligation. The Independent
Contractor shall invoice the applicable Municipality upon completion of
his report.
5. Term - The term of this Agreement ("Term") is for a fixed one (1) year term
commencing the effective date of the execution of this Agreement and ending
on the first anniversary date thereof unless renewed and/or extended by
agreement of all parties. The Independent Contractor or the Municipality shall
give at least thirty (30) days written notice prior to the end of the Term of its
intent not to renew this Agreement if such renewal were to be available.
6. Taxes - All amounts payable to the Independent Contractor shall be paid
without deduction. The Independent Contractor shall be responsible for any
contributions imposed or required under employment insurance, health tax,
social insurance, income tax law, Worker's Compensation (if elected to enrol),
pension with respect to any amounts paid to the Independent Contractor. The
Municipality assumes no obligation or liability as between the parties to this
Agreement to deduct or remit any statutory or government remittances.
8
7. Independent Contractor - The Independent Contractor is a contractor
independent of the Municipality. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to create
a relationship of employer/employee, partnership, franchise, agency or joint
venture or other like arrangement.
8. Deleqation - In the event more than one Complaint is made at anyone time
requiring more than one investigation, the Independent Contractor may
determine that it is necessary to delegate some or all of his powers and duties,
then he may do so in writing to any person other than a member of council,
provided that the person to whom such delegation is made agrees in writing to
be governed by the same duties of secrecy as the Independent Contractor
and to abide by the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Such person
shall always be under the supeNision and direction of the Independent
Contractor. Such delegation shall not be to a member of councilor staff of
any Municipality and shall not result in any additional costs or fees to the
Municipality. Invoices shall be rendered by the Independent Contractor and
payment made to the Independent Contractor and the Independent Contractor
shall otherwise be responsible for the fees and disbursements of any his
delegates.
9. Bindinq - This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind the parties and
their respective heirs, successors and permitted assigns.
10. Indemnification - The Municipality agrees to indemnify and save harmless the
Independent Contractor, its agents and assigns, from and against any and all
liabilities, losses, suits, claims, demands, damages, expenses, costs
(including all legal costs), fines and actions of any kind or nature whatsoever
arising out of or in connection with the Independent Contractor's provision of
seNices and carrying out of its duties including, but not limited to, any alleged
breach of this agreement, any procedural defect or other breach of relevant
statutory provisions.
11. Entire Aqreement - This Agreement contains the entire agreement between
the parties and supersedes all previous negotiations, understandings and
agreements, verbal or written with respect to any matters referred to in this
agreement.
IN WITNESS HEREOF, each of the parties hereto have set its hand and seal as of this
_ day of , 2007.
SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED
THE CORPORATION OF
THE COUNTY OF ELGIN
Warden
Chief Administrative Officer
The Independent Contractor hereby accepts and agrees to the terms and conditions
herein contained.
JGM CONSULTING
Witness
John G. Maddox for JGM Consuilting
9
APPENDIX "A"
By-Law No. 07-38
In performing Investigator duties, the Independent Contractor shall have the powers
set out in Subsection 223.13(6) and Sections 223.14 to 223.18 of the Act, as
follows:
Ombudsman
Powers paramount
223.13(6) The powers conferred on the Ombudsman under this Part may be exercised
despite any provision in any Act to the effect that any such decision, recommendation, act
or omission is final, or that no appeal lies in respect of them, or that no proceeding or
decision of the person or organization whose decision, recommendation, act or omission it
is shall be challenged, reviewed, quashed or called in question.
Investigation
223.14 (1) Every investigation by the Ombudsman shall be conducted in private.
Opportunity to make representations
(2) The Ombudsman may hear or obtain information from such persons as he or she
thinks fit, and may make such inquiries as he or she thinks fit and it is not necessary for
the Ombudsman to hold any hearing and no person is entitled as of right to be heard by
the Ombudsman, but if at any time during the course of an investigation it appears to the
Ombudsman that there may be sufficient grounds for him or her to make any report or
recommendation that may adversely affect the municipality, a local board, a municipally-
controlled corporation or any other person, the Ombudsman shall give him, her or it an
opportunity to make representations respecting the adverse report or recommendation,
either personally or by counsel.
Application of Ombudsman Act
(3) Section 19 of the Ombudsman Act applies to the exercise of powers and the
performance of duties by the Ombudsman under this Part.
Same
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), references in section 19 of the Ombudsman Act
to "any governmental organization", "the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy
Acf' and "the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006' are deemed to be references to "the
municipality, a local board or a municipally-controlled corporation", "the Municipal Freedom
of Information and Protection of Privacy Acf' and "this Act", respectively.
Duty of confidentiality
223.15 (1) Subject to subsection (2), the Ombudsman and every person acting under
the instructions of the Ombudsman shall preserve secrecy with respect to all matters that
come to his or her knowledge in the course of his or her duties under this Part.
Disclosure
(2) The Ombudsman may disclose in any report made by him or her under this Part
such matters as in the Ombudsman's opinion ought to be disclosed in order to establish
grounds for his or her conclusions and recommendations.
Section prevails
(3) This section prevails over the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act.
No review, etc.
223.16 No proceeding of the Ombudsman under this Part shall be held bad for want of
form, and, except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, no proceeding or decision of the
Ombudsman is liable to be challenged, reviewed, quashed or called in question in any
court.
10
Testimony
223.17 (1) The Ombudsman and any person acting under the instructions of the
Ombudsman shall not be called to give evidence in any court, or in any proceedings of a
judicial nature, in respect of anything coming to his or her knowledge in the exercise of his
or her functions under this Part.
Same
(2) Anything said or any information supplied or any document or thing produced by any
person in the course of any investigation by or proceedings before the Ombudsman under
this Part is privileged in the same manner as if the inquiry or proceedings were
proceedings in a court.
Effect on other rights, etc.
223.18 The rights, remedies, powers, duties and procedures established under sections
223.13 to 223.17 are in addition to the provisions of any other Act or rule of law under
which any remedy or right of appeal or objection is provided for any person, or any
procedure is provided for the inquiry into or investigation of any matter, and nothing in this
Part limits or affects any such remedy or right of appeal or objection or procedure.
11
APPENDIX "B"
By-Law No. 07-38
INCLUDED MUNICIPALITIES
The Included Municipalities under this Agreement shall be:
The Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham
The Corporation of the Municipality of Central Elgin
The Corporation of the Municipality of Dutton/Dunwich
The Corporation of the Municipality of West Elgin
The Corporation of the Town of Aylmer
The Corporation of the Township of Malahide
The Corporation of the Township of Southwold
REPORT TO MANAGEMENT TEAM
FROM:
Sandra Heffren
Manager of Administrative Services
DATE:
November 14, 2007
SUBJECT:
A Policy for Accountability and Transparency of the Actions
of the Council and its Administrative Staff
CORPORATE GOALS REFERENCED
1. To ensure fiscal responsibility and accountability.
INTRODUCTION:
Revisions to the Municipal Act, 2001 requires that a policy be adopted for the
manner in which the municipality will endeavour to ensure that it is accountable
to the public for its actions and that its actions are transparent to the public.
DISCUSSION:
Council has many policies in place to ensure accountability and transparency to
the public. These include: procedural by-law; appointment of a Closed Meeting
Investigator; Sale and Disposition of Land; when and in what manner Public
Notice will be given; delegation of minor powers and to whom it is given; Code
of Conduct; procurement policy; and hiring of employees.
Council agendas are available to the public on the County website on the Friday
preceding a Council Meeting and the media is sent fax notices of upcoming
meetings.
Council operates in a Committee Of The Whole system. All issues before the
Council are researched and in a report format from staff so that Council is fully
informed on a subject which demonstrates accountability and transparency in the
decision making process.
A policy has been prepared outlining how Council and staff are held to account
for their actions and how those actions are explained and justified and is
attached for Council's consideration.
CONCLUSION:
A policy must be adopted respecting accountability and transparency of the
Council and its administrative staff.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT the policy in the attached draft by-law respecting the manner in which the
municipality will endeavour to ensure that it is accountable to the public for its
actions and that its actions are transparent to the public, be adopted.
o f)" fit- <
San r Heffr;
Manager of Administrative Services
a onald
Chief Administrative Officer
COUNTY OF ELGIN
By-Law No. 07-39
"BEING A BY-LAW TO ESTABLISH A POLICY RESPECTING THE ACCOUNTABILITY
AND TRANSPARENCY OF THE ACTIONS OF THE COUNCIL AND ITS
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF"
WHEREAS the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, S. 270(1), provides that a
municipality shall adopt and maintain policies with respect to the manner in which the
municipality will endeavour to ensure that it is accountable to the public for its actions and
that its actions are transparent to the public; and
WHEREAS Council and its Administrative Management and Staff are committed to
providing a strong, well-managed municipal government.
NOW THEREFORE the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the County of Elgin
enacts as follows:
1 . THAT the Corporation of the County of Elgin hereby adopts a Policy for
Accountability and Transparency of the Actions of the Council and its Administrative Staff,
attached as Schedule "A" hereto and forming part of this By-Law.
2. THAT this by-law shall come into force and effect on the date of its passing.
READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 13TH DAY
OF DECEMBER 2007.
Mark G. McDonald,
Chief Administrative Officer.
Warden.
-2-
SCHEDULE "A"
By-Law No. 07-39
A POLICY FOR ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY OF THE ACTIONS
OF THE COUNCIL AND ITS ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF
1. Purpose/Application
The Municipa/ Act, 2001 (the Act) requires that all municipalities adopt and maintain a
policy with respect to the manner in which the municipality will endeavour to ensure that it
is accountable to the public for its actions, and the manner in which the municipality will
endeavour to ensure that its actions are transparent to the public. The purpose of this
policy is to provide guidance for the delivery of the Municipality's (County of Elgin)
activities and services in accordance with the principles as outlined herein. This policy
has been developed in accordance with the Act to comply with Section 270.
2. Definition(s): Accountability; Transparency
i) Accountability - The principle that the Municipality will be responsible to its
stakeholders for decisions made and policies implemented, as well as its
actions or inactions.
ii) Transparency - The principle that the Municipality actively welcomes
stakeholder participation and openness in its decision-making processes
through an . opportunity to make delegations and written submissions.
Additionally, transparency means that the Municipality's decision-making
process is open and clear to the public.
3. Policy Statement
The Council of the County of Elgin acknowledges that it is responsible to provide good
government for its stakeholders in an accountable and transparent manner by:
. Encouraging public access and participation to ensure that decision making is
responsive to the needs of its constituents and receptive to their opinions;
. Delivering high quality services to our citizens; and
. Promoting the efficient use of public resources.
Accountability, transparency and openness are standards of good government that
enhance public trust. They are achieved through the Municipality adopting measures
ensuring, to the best of its ability, that all activities and services are undertaken utilizing a
process that is open and accessible to its stakeholders. In addition, wherever possible,
the Municipality will engage its stakeholders throughout its decision making process which
will be open, visible and transparent to the public.
4. Corporate Goals
The following Corporate Goals have been adopted by the Municipality and are upheld in
the day to day operations of the Municipality:
1. To ensure fiscal responsibility and accountability
2. To promote cultural services
3. To nurture and support dignified long-term care
4. To be recognized as a desired employer
5. To promote Elgin as "The Place to Live"
6. To forge community partnerships
7. To provide innovative and collaborative quality service
8. To recognize and seize opportunities for improvement ,
9. 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.
-3-
5. Policy Requirements
The principles of accountability and transparency shall apply equally to the political
process and decision-making and to the administrative management of the Municipality.
i) Financial Matters
The Municipality will be open, accountable and transparent to its stakeholders in
its financial dealings as required under the Act. Some examples of how the
Municipality provides such accountability and transparency are as follows:
1. internal/external audit
2. reporting/statements
3. long term financial planning
4. asset management
5. purchasing/procurement
6. sale of land
7. budget process.
ii) Internal Governance
The Municipality's administrative practices ensure specific accountability on
the part of its employees through the following initiatives:
1. code of conduct for staff
2. performance management and evaluation
3. hiring policy
4. orientation/continuing education
5. health and safety
6. work/life balance
7. compensation/benefit
8. responsibility for ensuring that administrative practices and
procedures recognize Council's commitment to accountability
and transparency, as described in the CAO's appointing by-law.
iii) Public Participation and Information Sharin!:1
The Municipality ensures that it is open and accountable to its stakeholders
through implementing processes outlining how, when and under what rules
meetings will take place. The Municipality's meetings will be open to the
public when and as required under the Act, and members of the public will
have an opportunity to make delegations or comments in writing on specific
items at these meetings. In addition, the Municipality has adopted policies,
which ensure that participation by the public can be meaningful and effective,
through timely disclosure of information by various means including print
media, websites, etc. Some specific examples include:
1. procedural by-law
2. code of conduct for Councillors
3. economic development strategic plan
4. delegation rules
5. records retention
6. planning processes
7. public notice by-law
8. appointment of a Closed Meeting Investigator.
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM:
Sandra Heffren, Deputy Clerk
DATE:
19 November 2007
SUBJECT: Schedule of Council Meetings for 2008
Attached for your consideration are suggested meeting dates of County Council for 2008.
Council can change meeting dates at any time with advanced notice.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT the attached schedule of County Council meeting dates for 2008 be approved.
Respectfully Submitted
Approved for Submission
sdfj~-'
San r Heff
Manager of Administrative Services
Mark cDonald
Chief Admin
er
SCHEDULE OF COUNTY COUNCIL MEETINGS FOR 2008
DATE TIME
January 8 no meeting
January 17 - Draft Budget mailed to Council
January 22 9:00 a.m. - 4th Tuesday - one meeting due to Christmas
shutdown - Capital budget discussion
February 12 9:00 a.m. - 2nd Tuesday - Operational budget discussion
- one meeting due to OGRAlROMA Conference
February 24-27, 2008
March 11 9:00 a.m.
March 25 9:00 a.m.
April 8 9:00 a.m.
April 22 9:00 a.m.
May 13 9:00 a.m.
May 27 9:00 a.m.
June 10 9:00 a.m.
June 24 9:00 a.m.
July 8 9:00 a.m. ) if required
July 22 9:00 a.m. ) if required
August 12 no meeting ) meetings are not normally held in August
August 26 no meeting ) AMO Conference August 24-27,2008
September 9 9:00 a.m.
September 23 9:00 a.m.
October 21 9:00 a.m. - 3rd Tuesday - due to AMO Counties and Regions
Conference October 26-29,2008
November 11 no meeting - Remembrance Day
November 25 9:00 a.m.
December 9 7:00 p.m. - Warden's Election
December 11 9:00 a.m. - Regular Council Meeting
Council Meetings are normallv held every 2nd and 4th Tuesday of the month and are
subject to change.
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM: Larysa Andrusiak, Ambulance & Emergency Management Coordinator
DATE: November29,2007
SUBJECT: Ambulance Call Information Request
CORPORATE GOAL(S) REFERENCED:
To recognize and seize opportunities for improvement.
To provide innovative and collaborative quality service.
INTRODUCTION:
At the November 27th Council Meeting, a report entitled "Service Level Increase
Consideration" was presented to Council. As a result of discussion regarding
that report a request was made to provide Council with a breakdown of
ambulance calls by priority codes.
This data is provided to Council for information.
DISCUSSION I CONCLUSION:
The attached data is a summary of calls responded to by Elgin-St. Thomas EMS
within Elgin County by ambulance base and by priority codes for the time period
January 1, 2007 to October 31, 2007.
Call priorities are defined as: Code 1 is a deferrable call; Code 2 is a "scheduled"
call (Dr's appointment; medical test appointment); Code 3 is a "prompt" response
required; Code 4 is an urgent call; Code 8 is a stand - by call.
RECOMMENDATION:
That this report entitled" Ambulance Call Information Request" be received and
filed.
Respectfully Submitted
O:~~~Ju
Larys Andrusiak, Ambulance &
Emergency Management Coordinator
UPPER TIER REPORT
SUMMARY OF ALL PICKUPS (BY UPPER TIER MUNICIPALITY) -
FROM 01/01/2007 TO 31/10/2007 11:59:59 PM
November 29,2007
County of Elgin
CRITERIA - ServiceMaster.ServiceID in(704) and PickupUpperTier in (4) and len(t3_enroute) > 0
Service Name 704 ELGIN-ST. THOMAS EMS
Priority
Station 1 2 3 4 8 Total
0- ST THOMAS - Edward (COlUlty of Elgin)
2007 County of Elgin 434 139 318 1409 881 3181
2 - ST THOMAS South/West Base (COWlty of Elgin)
2007 County of Elgin 331 60 259 1047 595 2292
3 - AYLMER BASE (COWlty of Elgin)
2007 County of Elgin 59 42 138 673 114 1026
4 - DUTTON (COWlty of Elgin)
2007 County of Elgin 20 6 69 306 961 1362
5 - RODNEY BASE (COWlty of Elgin)
2007 County of Elgin 6 0 50 262 666 984
TOTAL 850 247 834 3697 3217 8845
GRAND TOTAL
1
850
2
247
3
834
4
3697
8
3217
Total
8845
ONTARIO MINISTRY OF HEALTH, EMERGENCY HEALTH SERVICES
Page lofl
.:loo4
UPPER TIER REPORT
SUMMARY OF ALL PICKUPS (BY UPPER TIER MUNICIPALITY) -
FROM 01/0112004 TO 31/12/2004 11:59:59 PM
December 11, 2007
County of Elgin
CRITERIA - ServiceMaster.ServiceID in(704) and PicknpUppetTier in (4) and len(t3 _enronte) > 0
Sen.;ce Name 704 ELGIN-ST. THOMAS EMS
Priority
Station 1 2 3 4 8 Total
I - ST THOMAS HOSPITAL BASE (County of Elgin)
2004 County of Elgin 1018 260 920 2485 1499 6182
3 - AYLMER BASE (Counly of Elgin)
2004 County of Elgin 84 46 195 700 148 1173
4 - DUTTON (County of Elgin)
2004 County of Elgin 37 18 97 292 669 1113
5 - RODNEY BASE (County of Elgin)
2004 County of Elgin 19 8 69 270 437 803
TOTAL 1158 332 1281 3747 2753 9271
GRAND TOTAL
1
1158
2
332
3
1281
4
3747
8
2753
Total
9271
ONTARIO MINISTRY OF HEALTH, EMERGENCY HEALTH SERVICES
Page 1 ofl
~~O~
UPPER TIER REPORT
SUMMARY OF ALL PICKUPS (BY UPPER TIER MUNICIPALITY) -
FROM 01/01/2005 TO 31/12/2005 11:59:59 PM
December 11. 2007
County of Elgin
CRITERIA - ServiceMaster.ServiceID in(704) and PickupUpperTier in (4) and len(t3 _enroute) > 0
Service Name 704 ELGIN-ST. THOMAS EMS
Priority
Station 1 2 3 4 8 Total
I - ST maMAS HOSPITAL BASE (County of Elgin)
2005 County of Elgin 827 180 729 2144 1248 5128
2 - ST maMAS SonthlWest Base (County of Elgin)
2005 County of Elgin 310 57 267 729 430 1793
3 - AYLMER BASE (County of Elgin)
2005 County of Elgin 96 57 230 781 171 1335
4 - DUTTON (County of Elgin)
2005 County of Elgin 32 19 75 349 1103 1578
5 - RODNEY BASE (County of Elgin)
2005 County of Elgin 14 3 68 300 804 1189
TOTAL 1279 316 1369 4303 3756 11023
GRAND TOTAL
1
1279
2
316
3
1369
4
4303
8
3756
Total
11 023
ONTARIO MINISTRY OF HEALTH, EMERGENCY HEALTH SERVICES
Page loft
~OO~
UPPER TIER REPORT
SUMMARY OF ALL PICKUPS (BY UPPER TIER MUNICIPALITY)-
FROM 01/01/2006 TO 31/12/2006 11:59:59 PM
December 11, 2007
County of Elgin
CRITERIA - SeIViceMaster.SeIViceID in(704) and PicknpUpperTier in (4) and len(t3 _enroute) > 0
Service Name 704 ELGIN-ST. THOMAS EMS
Priority
Station 1 2 3 4 8 Total
0- ST lHOMAS - Edward (County of Elgin)
2006 County of Elgin 289 94 235 844 447 1909
I - ST lHOMAS HOSPITAL BASE (County of Elgin)
2006 County of Elgin 2 0 7 3 13
2 - ST lHOMAS SouthlWest Base (County of Elgin)
2006 County of Elgin 832 218 734 2148 1318 5250
3 - AYLMER BASE (County of Elgin)
2006 County of Elgin 109 47 218 793 125 1292
4 - DUTTON (COlmty of Elgin)
2006 County of Elgin 38 20 102 374 1176 1710
5 - RODNEY BASE (County of Elgin)
2006 County of Elgin 6 7 77 318 927 1335
TOTAL 1276 386 1367 4484 3996 11509
GRAND TOTAL
1
1276
2
386
3
1367
4
4484
8
3996
Total
11509
ONTARIO ?vllNISTRY OF HEALTH, E!\'lliRGENCY HEALTH SERVICES
Page 10ft
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM: Dorothy Schaap, Payroll & Benefits Coordinator
DATE: November 29,2007
SUBJECT: London Employee Assistance Consortium (LEAC)
CORPORATE GOALS:
1 ) To ensure fiscal responsibility and accountability
2) To be recognized as a desired employer
INTRODUCTION:
In May of 2001 County Council approved an employee assistance program to be
provided to all county employees and their families. London Employee Assistance
Consortium has been providing this service since May of 2001.
DISCUSSION:
Annually they provide the members of the consortium the financial picture for the
present and coming year. From this report the rates are established and we are
pleased to report that the 2008 rates will be the same as for 2007 ($16,000.00).
Some of the other Elgin County municipal members belonging to the consortium are
Central Elgin, Bayham, Elgin St. Thomas Health Unit and the City of St. Thomas. In
keeping with the County's purchasing policy, specifically item 8, the arrangement
with LRAC is considered as a "preferred consulting service" and does not require
tendering.
CONCLUSION:
Staff are pleased to report that the excellent service provided to all County of Elgin
employees by the London Employee Assistance Consortium will be provided in 2008
at the same rate as in 2007.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT the report on the London Employee Assistance Consortium (LEAC) dated
November 29,2007 be received and filed.
Respectfully Submitted
IJvxt I. ~ ~f
Doro y Schaap .
Payroll & Benefits Coordinator
sSlon
Mark Id
Chief Administrative Officer
/
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM:
Heather Rosevear, Human Resources Assistant
DATE:
December 13, 2007
SUBJECT: Summer Student Subsidy Reimbursement
CORPORATE GOAL(Sl REFERENCED:
To be recognized as a desired employer
To forge community partnerships
To provide innovative and collaborative quality service
To recognize and seize opportunities for improvement
INTRODUCTION/DISCUSSION:
The County of Elgin participated in the Summer Jobs Service Program (SJS)
provided by Employment Services Elgin. This program is offered to employers to
support students with their search for summer employment as well as helping
employers by offering a $2.00 per hour wage subsidy to hire students.
CONCLUSION:
The County of Elgin was reimbursed $4,020.00 for 15 students hired from May
24,2007 - September 2,2007.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT this report be received and filed.
Respectfully Submitted
Mark c
Chief Administrative Officer
~
; " ~h ~ ~ .J..
, --
Heather Rosevear
Human Resources Assistant
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM: Harley J. Underhill
Director of Human Resources
DATE: November 28, 2007
SUBJECT: Policy 9.40 and 9.110 Leave of Absence Approval
CORPORATE GOAL(S) REFERENCED:
To be recognized as a desired employer.
To recognize and seize opportunities for improvement.
INTRODUCTION:
The leave of absence approval policies have been in effect for some years now
and with recent issues and the need for some housekeeping the policy has been
reviewed by staff.
DISCUSSION:
Issues have arisen that in the future should be avoided with the recommended
changes to the policies as attached. The main changes are in the note dealing
with the use of vacation and/or accrued time prior to granting leaves of absence
plus a housekeeping item.
CONCLUSION:
Policies 9.40 Approval Procedure and 9.110 Other Leaves With or Without Pay
have been reviewed and amended as attached to this report. The amendments
make it clear to all county staff what is required prior to approval of leaves of
absence in a clear and concise manner.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the amended policies 9.40 Approval Procedure and 9.110 Other Leaves
With or Without Pay be approved.
County of Elgin
Human Resources Policy Manual
Section: 9
Subject: Approval Procedure
Policy Number: 9.40
Date Approved: Oct. 1/87
Date Last Revision: Jan. 98
Code - A
Page 1 of 1
The Director of Human Resources and the affected Department Head/Manager or designate,
shall have the authority to grant leaves of absences.
Such leaves shall be in writing, but must be approved before the leave is taken.
Note: Vacation and accrued time owing must be used prior to utilizing a personal leave of
absence Delete ['S in exoess of one (1) month (refer to Policy 5.30 for benefits)].
County of Elgin
Section: 9
Human Resources Policy Manual
Subject: Other Leaves,
With or Without Pay
Policy Number: 9.110
Date Approved: Oct. 1/87
Code - A
Page 1 of 1
Date Last Revision: April 22/97
Leaves of absence not mentioned in this section or not covered by other County policy or
Collective Agreements require the approval of the Department Head, in conjunction with the
Director of Human Resources. Delete [[heir decision shall be reported to the appropriate
Standing Committee at the next regularly scheduled meeting.]
Note: Vacation and accrued time owing must be used prior to utilizing a personal leave of
absence Delete ['S in ex-cess of one (1) month (refer to Policy 5.30 for benefits)].
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM: Peter Dutchak, Manager of Road Infrastructure
DATE: November 27, 2007
SUBJECT: Request to Install Four Way Stop - Miller Road, Dutton
CORPORATE GOALS:
To build and maintain an efficient, affordable, effective and safe transportation network
that accommodates the diverse needs of the communities and is able to support economic
development and sustainable growth.
INTRODUCTION:
The County of Elgin has received a request from the Council of the Municipality of Dutton /
Dunwich to allow a four way stop at the intersection of Miller Road (County Road #15) and
John Street.
DISCUSSION:
The Council of the Municipality of Dutton / Dunwich has requested that the County of Elgin
agree to provide a four way stop condition on Miller Road. In their letter to the County
(attached), the explanation for this request is to provide a safe crossing across Miller Road
for school children.
In the past, the County has received requests from Dutton / Dunwich to make
improvements to County roads to provide a safer environment for school children in the
area. The County has permitted the installation of an illuminated pedestrian crosswalk
(PXO) and the signing and designating of a Community Safety Zone as previously
requested.
It is staff's opinion that a school crossing guard would provide a safe passage for school
children crossing roads during school hours.
Historically, four way stops are discouraged by staff and only one four way stop location
exists on a County Road (Carlow Road at Warren Street). Four way stops are not favoured
by staff because they must be warranted (similar volumes at all approaches) and they
cause all through vehicles to stop which adds to environmental pollution (i.e. fuel, noise,
etc.)
A four way stop is technically not warranted at this location because intersecting roadways
do not have similar volumes and vehicles on Miller Road (1/200 per day) will be required
to stop unnecessarily during all times of the day and year. Also/ collision warrants are not
met.
However/ because the County classifies Miller Road as a local road/ and its volumes are
less than an average County Road/ staff can support the local request provided all costs
are bourne by the municipality.
Such costs will include permanent signage/ temporary signage and local advertisement.
The County will cover the costs to amend the by-laws.
CONCLUSION:
The County of Elgin has received a request from the Municipality of Dutton / Dunwich to
install a four way stop condition on Miller Road in Dutton.
The four way stop is not technically warranted and its purpose would be to provide safe
passage for children crossing the roadway. Staff believes a school crossing guard enables
safe crossing of roads for children.
The County classifies Miller Road as a local road because of its use/ speed/ volume and the
proximity to other County roads that serve as arterial and collector routes. Therefore/ as a
local road serving local issues/ the County can support the request to install a four way
stop at Miller Road and John Street provided all costs are bourne by the municipality.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT the request from the Municipality of Dutton / Dunwich to install a four way stop on
Miller Road at John Street be approved; and/
THAT all associated costs be bourne by the Municipality of Dutton / Dunwich; and/
THAT the necessary by-law be prepared.
~D
Peter Dutchak
Manager of Road Infrastructure
APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION
Mark McDo
Chief Administrative Officer
IIL\VOR
]Somli. Vowel
;lIl,M'aI,')'Street
DUttOn,NOLJ4o
DEPtlTYlIlAVOR
CIlmcr(>llllloWIIIllun
88140 CelticLlDe 1l.1l. tll
DuU.....NoLJ4o
:Jvlunicipality Of <Duttonj<Dunwicli
Box 329, 199 CIIrrie Road, DU'lTON, Ontario NGL lJG
Telephone! (s19) 76a-2204 FuNG. (s19) 76a-2278
Clerk Tl'elISUl'eJ' AdndnJatratol'
Ken Loveland
COUNClLLQRS
lanPleek
anllliJJc.. B<lad; Box lW&
Dutton,N/lLJ4o
101m Yolwm
32543 Plollee.. LIne, 1l.1l. /I 1
D~, NoLJ4o
J)onaJ4R.Pap
7949 Coyne Roa4 R. R. /I a
WaIIlleewWll, NoL a7.lo
County of Elgin
4$0 Sunset Drive
St. Thomas, Ontario
N5R SVI
October 18, 2007
Attention: Clayton Watters
Dear Mr. Watters
The Council of the Municipality of Dutton Dunwich discussed the school crossing located on
MiHer Road. In an attempt to insure that the children trom the West portion. of the former
village of Dutton can cross Miller Road in a safe manner. CouncH is considering the
possibility of installing a Four Way Stop at the intersection ofMiUer Road, John Street and
Center Street.
Since Miller Road is a County Road, council passed the following resolution.
MOVED by Yokom and SECONDED by Fleck THAT the Council of the Municipality of
Dutton Ounwich request that the County of Elgin agree to provide a Four Way Stop at the
intersection of MiHer Road, John Street and Center Street. .
CARRIED
If you require any further information, please contaot either Mike Hull-Road Superintendent
or the undersigned.
YOu;~ ~
~.a-
Kim Loveland
Clerk Treasurer
Administrator
RECEIVED OCT 2 2 ~007
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM: Clayton Watters, Director of Engineering Services
DATE: December 3, 2007
SUBJECT: The State of the Road Infrastructure
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.
To provide innovative and collaborative quality service.
INTRODUCTION:
Over the past couple of years Council has allocated approximately $4.5 million dollars for
capital projects on County roads. The general condition of the County's roads and
structures has been gradually declining between 2001 and 2004. Reports were presented
to Council in 2001 and 2004 that recommended additional funding to increase the dollars
spent on road / bridge projects.
In 2001 it was indicated that there was more than $75 million dollars of road and bridge
needs, the needs increased to $138 million by 2004. By 2007 those needs have
dramatically increased to $229 million.
It was stated in 2001 and 2004 that if more funding was not injected into the capital
program at that time, needs will grow and be realized in the future at a significant increase
in cost. Since 1998 County Council has increased the road's allocation by $2 million dollars
which has helped to offset construction inflation.
This report will update County Council on what has changed within the road system since
2004 and the proposed changes that are urgently required to sustain the County of Elgin
infrastructure as indicated in the corporate goals.
DISCUSSION:
This report will review issues about the road / bridge infrastructure for the County of Elgin
and specifically: the 'life cycle', the needs of the infrastructure (roads and bridges), the cost
to maintain the system, under-funding of the infrastructure and what are the options
available to the County of Elgin.
Infrastructure Life Cycle
The infrastructure 'life cycle', which is a term that defines the theoretical life span of an
average road or average bridge in an average location. The analysis is used due to the
difficulty in putting a life span to each and every road and bridge. Each road is different
due to the construction of the roads at different years, the environmental conditions are
different, the soils characteristics are different and the road users are different. Therefore,
the analysis is simplified by using the average road, in an average location with average
traffic. The same average bridge life cycle is used because all the bridges are different in
lengths, widths, types and as constructed dates, also, the bridge age will vary depending
on the road classification. Arterial roads demand greater level of service for winter control
which, directly implies larger amounts of salt use each year and salt is a major contributor
to reducing the life cycle of a bridge.
Using a simplified approach to the life cycle, average age of road and bridge makes it
easier to understand and calculate life cycle costs. With that information in mind, the
County road system has a definite life span. Bridges have an estimated life cycle of 75
years, as determined by the Ontario Highway Bridge Code and experience in the County,
while roads are estimated life cycle is 50 years as determined by local experience.
As a background to this issue to determine the life cycle, a road is constructed in year one,
22 years later a layer of asphalt is placed on the existing surface and then there are three
. layers of thin cold mix overlay spaced every seven years apart. Then the cycle repeats
itself. The same can be said for a bridge, reconstruction in year one, then at years 25 and
50 the deck is rehabilitated. At the 75 year mark the cycle repeats itself with a replacement
of the bridge.
The Needs for the Roads and Bridges
The needs for the County vary from year to year. If monies are spent on resurfacing a road
this year then those needs for that road are removed in the following year. But, additional
road(s) will be included in the next year due to meeting the requirements for either
resurfacing and or reconstruction as identified by staff during that bi-annual review.
The majority of engineering department capital allocations is spent on infrastructure
renewals, while some are spent on preservation. Infrastructure renewals are to bring the
road or bridge back to its original condition, while asset preservation is concerned with
stabilizing the system. An infrastructure renewal would be a reconstruction, like the Talbot
Line or Sunset Road projects, while the asset preservation is the application of the 'Thin
Cold Mix Overlay' that has been applied in recent years. These roads are John Wise Line,
Dunborough Road, and Lyons Line as examples.
The needs for the County of Elgin have increased in recent years, which is due to many
factors. The most important issue dealing with the needs is the under-funding of the
County of Elgin road infrastructure. As discussed earlier the roads system needs a certain
amount of capital money so that the system is stable. This means that when a road has a
resurfacing need there is appropriate money available to resurface the road. Likewise for a
bridge replacement, when a bridge needs replacing there is an appropriate amount of
money to replace the structure.
Table 1 below lists the allocations, both operational and capital, that the engineering
department has completed since 1992. It clearly shows that the allocations decreased from
1992 to 1998 by more than $3.3 million or 36%. From 1998 to 2007 an increase in
allocations of more $2 million or 36%. Since 1997, 24% was added to the road system
from the downloading of the provincial highways in 1997 and in 2002 an additional 2% was
transferred from our lower tier partners, the old connecting links.
It should be noted that the radical drop in funding was largely due to the significant
decrease in provincial funding for roads and bridges during the so called 'Common Sense
Revolution'.
Chart 1 Engineering Allocations
County Road Allocations
$9,000,000
$8,500,000
$8,000,000
$7,500,000
2i $7,000,000
+'
~ $6,500,000
.2
<C $6,000,000
$5,500,000
$5,000,000
$4,500,000
$4,000,000
~ W * ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ & ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Year
T bl 1 E .
All f (M. t
de .t I)f I t16
a e ngmeermg ocalons am enance an apla or as years
Year Allocations Year Allocations
1992 $8,671,400 2000 $5,844,800
1993 $7,900,200 2001 $6,395,000
1994 $7,730,500 2002 $6,377,500
1995 $7,674,100 2003 $6,813,300
1996 $7,004,400 2004 $6,937,500
1997 $6,513,800 2005 $7,000,700
1998 $5,544,800 2006 $7,299,600
1999 $5,844,800 2007 $7,545,000
Notes:
1) 1996 - the County had under its jurisdiction 555 kilometres
2) 1997 - 135 kilometres (old Highways 3, 4, 19, 73, 74 and 76) were downloaded from
Province to the County of Elgin for a total road system of 690 kilometres.
3) 2002 - 10 kilometres were transferred from lower tier partners (old connecting links of
Graham Road, Colborne Street, Bridge Street, Belmont Road, John Street and Robinson
Street) to the County of Elgin for a total road system of 700 kilometres.
Of importance to the County of Elgin is to determine the condition of the infrastructure.
Each road and bridge is reviewed on a bi-annual basis to determine the condition and if any
corrective actions are required. It is apparent that this rating has been steadily decreasing
over the past several years. One of the most important components of the rating system is
the road's structural adequacy. A road's structural adequacy relates to the capacity of the
surface and base courses to support a load and to resist deformation or rupture. Signs of
inadequacy may be cracking, rutting, heaving, pot-holing, roughness, alligatoring, dishing,
break-up, frost boils, and others.
From 1987 to 1993 the structural adequacy rating of our road system was approximately
87%, that is to say that 13% of our road kilometres were structurally inadequate. Today
our structural inadequate roads are at 29%, for an increase of 223%. It is no coincidence
that this deterioration is occurring at a time when Provincial funding has decreased.
What is particularly troubling is the rate of growth of the needs. The rate of growth for the
infrastructure needs from 1996 to 2004 increased at an annual rate of growth of 7.8% and
it has increased at an annual growth rate of 18.4% from 2004 until 2007. Now the rate of
growth of the needs is increasing at more than 4.5 times the rate of the long term inflation.
Chart 2 graphically depicts the needs versus the years.
Road Needs
$250,000,000
$50,000,000
II Bridge Needs
II Road Needs
DTotal Needs
$200,000,000
III
"C
CI) $150,000,000
CI)
z
....
o
CI)
~ $100,000,000
>
$0
1996
2004
Year
2007
Chart 2 - Road needs over the past decade
Table 2: Infrastructure Needs
Year Bridge needs Roads needs Total
1996 $25,969,000 $49,182,000 $75,151,000
2004 $32,651,000 $105,120,000 $137,771,000
2007 $30,582,000 $198,000,000 $228,582,000
What is required is an extrapolation of the most recent information for another five year
period, this will highlight the needs variances that are possible. Chart 3, which is an
extension of Chart 2, extrapolates the rate of growth that matched the long term
inflationary for two different assumptions. Assumption one is to continue the rate of growth
at the long term inflation, 4.0750/0, the needs would then grow to $279.1 million.
Assumption two would increase the needs at an annual increase of 18.5%, the needs
would then grow to $534.1 million.
Chart 3, Needs variances for 2012.
Projected Growth of Needs
$600,000,000
$300,000,000
-+-4.075% (Inflation) Growth
___18.5% Growth
$500,000,000
$400,000,000
$200,000,000
$100,000,000
$0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Year
Costs to maintain the Infrastructure
The third item for discussion is the cost to maintain the system. In other words how many
2007 dollars are required keep each road and bridge in a state that maintains the integrity
of the infrastructure. It was discussed earlier that the road life cycle is 50 years while a
bridge life cycle is 75 years. To determine the cost of the life cycle of the road, costs are
required for a total reconstruction, asphalt resurfacing and a thin cold mix over lay, in 2007
dollars. Then using those benchmark costs an 'average' road is constructed and then those
costs are interpolated across our system. The same rational is used for an 'average' bridges
and 'average' culverts. Table 2 lists those average costs to our entire system. It should be
emphasised that the chart below is made in whole and portions should not be severed in
any way. This is because each component is dependent on each other. An example is if the
rural road construction is removed then the County could save that portion of the required
needs for the system. But, as was indicated above if you do not reconstruct a road every
50 years, then the road cannot go back to its original condition.
$1 200,000
$650,000
$500,000
$150,000
$100,000
$150,000
$1,170 000
$6,920,000
$1,040 000
$100,000
$900,000
$12,880,000
Brid e Construction / Re lacement
Brid e Deck Rehabilitation
Culvert Construction / Re lacement
Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous Ca ita I Pro'ects
Munici al Drains
Pavement - Resurfacin 585 km
Road Construction - Rural
Road Construction - Urban
Road Side Safe S stems
Road Surface Preventative Maintenance
Table 3 Capital Allocations required for current system.
Table 3 indicates that $12.9 million dollars is required to maintain the 700 kilometres of
roads and the 150 structures, but our present allocation is only $4.6 million. That is a
dramatic difference. If the $12.9 million is used as a benchmark then it is approximately
$18,600 per road kilometre per year is required to maintain the system for capital
expenditures only. If the current allocation of $4.6 million is not increased for capital works
then the County could only sustain 250 kilometres of road. Otherwise, there needs to be an
immediate increase of $8.2 million dollars or our road system's deterioration will increase at
an even faster rate than the past three years, of which it grew $91.0 million for a total
needs of $229.0 million.
It also should be noted that approximately $3,700 per kilometre is allocated to the lower
tier municipalities for maintenance, which is not included in the $18,600. Some of those
maintenance items are: roadside grass cutting, drainage, safety and winter control to name
a few maintenance issues. These funds are provided annually to our lower tier partners and
is increased the rate of previous years inflation. Therefore, $22,300 is required for
maintenance and capital expenditures for County roads per kilometre annually.
System Funding Requirements
11IIII Road Maintenance ($2,500,000)
11IIII Bridge Construction I
Replacement ($1,200,000)
D Bridge Deck Rehabilitation
($650,000)
D Culwrt Construction I
Replacement ($500,000)
11IIII Miscellaneous ($150,000)
11IIII Miscellaneous Capital Projects
($100,000)
11IIII Municipal Drains ($150,000)
Ii1 Pawment - Resurfacing
($1,170,000)
11IIII Road Construction - Rural
($6,920,000)
11IIII Road Construction - Urban
($1,040,000)
D Road Side Safety Systems
($100,000)
11IIII Road Surface Prewntatiw
Maintenance ($900,000)
Chart 4 - depicts the distribution of funds required to maintain the current road
system of 700 km. Total cost per year is $ 15,380,000.
The Options.
There are several options that are available to the County of Elgin to overcome the
obstacles and they are:
o Increase County allocations by increasing the tax levy,
o Request an increase in the present Gas Tax allocations,
o Request a new provincial initiative to fund the road program,
o A change in the capital allocations to the County road system,
o Wait for the results of the Provincial - Municipal Fiscal Review, and
o A combination of above.
Option 1 increase tax levy: An increase in the allocations to capital budget is difficult at
the best of times. But increasing the allocation by $8.3 million, to bring the budget up to
$12.8 million, may seem insurmountable, which is an increase in the County tax of more
than 40%. It should also be noted that the long-term inflation for the last 50 years is
4.075% annually. So increasing the capital allocation by 40% would also still require
additional increase of more than 4% to cover the annual long term inflationary increases.
The $8.3 million increase could be spread out over a number of years such as a 5 or 10
year period. A five year increase would equate to a $1.67 million increase per year (8.3%
increase to County budget). If the plan was to incorporate the adjustment in 10 years, the
increase would be $0.84 million (4.2% increase to County budget). What is not included in
the real increase of 8.3% and 4.2%, this is the inflationary increase of 40/0, which would be
required to capture the long term inflation increases as stated above. Adding the real
increase of 8.3% or 4.2%, with the inflationary increase, of 4.07%, gives the nominal
increase of either to 12.3% for a five year adjustment and 8.20/0 for the 10 year
adjustment. If this action was chosen by Council, it would be clearly stated to the County
taxpayers that the increases to the County levy would be directed to the road network.
Option 2 is an increase in the Federal gas tax allocations: The second option
available is to request an increase in the Federal Gas Tax. The Federal Gas Tax is already
increasing by an additional $750,000. The Warden could make a specific request through
our Federal member, but this still leaves an additional $7.5 million shortfall. At present
there is no change in the federal government plans to increase it more than 16 fold and the
programme does have an end date of 2011. This option seems possible but unlikely to
increase by such a large amount.
Option 3 is a new provincial road program: The third option is to request a new
provincial program that would allocate funds on a per kilo metres basis for upper tier
roadways, such as counties and regions. A program existed for many years, funded
through the Ministry of Transportation, but a new program should be conditional for
preservation and capital programs only. And that the municipalities must provide adequate
information that their system is maintained to acceptable standards, such as the Minimum
Maintenance Standards and Maintenance Best Practices. It should be noted that if the
information does not substantiate the claim of maintaining the system then their funds
allocated to that municipality would not be supplied. Simply put, either do the right
program at the right time or receive no money.
Option 4 would change the capital allocations to the road system: The fourth
option is to change the capital allocations to the road system. Presently, the County
completes capital projects on the worst to first basis. In other words if Talbot Line is in
worse shape structurally than John Wise Line in Bayham then Talbot Line gets the monies
first. Staff is noting that the present allocation of $4.6 million can sustain only 250
kilometres of roadway. There are currently 250 kilometres of major and minor arterial
roads in the County system and the present allocation is sufficient to sustain these roads
only.
The drawings in Appendix A lists the different classifications of roads within the
municipalities. The remaining roads are rural collectors and local roads that would not be
prioritised for capital investment. For clarification, a major reduction in funds being
allocated to collectors and local roads would see a increase in maintenance and an
decrease in road ride quality. Therefore, the County would only provide allocations to keep
the roads in a safe manner. That means if the roads would see a reduction in the posted
limit, to either 60 or 50 kmfh, and also installation of rough roads signs.
Staff is in the process of reviewing all capital allocations and money will be allocated only to
the arterial system and urban collectors. In the present capital allocations of $4.5 million to
this road system of arterials and urban collectors, only a small portion will be allocated to
the remaining system of rural collectors and local roads. This means that Roads 5, 9, 13,
18, 43, 48 and 55 to name a few will get rougher and require additional maintenance
attention.
Option 5 would be to wait for the Provincial - Municipal Fiscal Review: The
province and municipalities are presently meeting to discuss the fiscal realignment. Since
this review is to complete in the spring of 2008 it may be appropriate to wait until the final
outcome is complete so that if there is any financial rearrangement then that can form part
of this discussion. It is however unlikely that a change would increase the compensation to
the County by $8.3 million.
Road Maintenance
Council should be aware of information that helps in the decision process for the road and
bridge under funding. Over $2.5 million dollars is allocated for road maintenance operations
to the lower-tier and is increased annually by the cost of inflation. When the County was
providing the maintenance activities any unused maintenance monies or surplus monies to
the equipment reserve was applied directly to capital projects. Our lower tier municipalities
while partners, or maintenance contractors, are not the owners of the road system but
provide the maintenance. Contractors will provide services that they have agreed to in the
contract, they do not have connection to the system as the owners, nor do they have the
same commitment as the owners. The owner of the system will provide better
maintenance to the infrastructure than a contractor and make asset investment decisions
when performing maintenance functions. This is not being done under the current
arrangement and the system's condition is not being improved by current maintenance
activities. Additional dollars that our contractors may realise each year are not being
reinvested into the roads as they once were.
Infrastructure Programs
Also, there has been and continue to be upper level government infrastructure programs
(COMRIF and RIll to name two) that are ideally suited to replace existing structures and to
rebuild roads, but the County still has a substantial back log of needs. The County still has
structures (townline bridges) that are not located on a County road and serve local
interests and not the County as a whole. These structures are Vienna, Jamestown, Gillets,
Fulton, Fleming Creek, Lings, McGinnis and Harkness. These structures have needs of $9
million. But, the County will only maintain these bridges until they are deemed unsafe,then
they will be closed.
Although infrastructure programs may continue in the future they may remain competitive
and the County mayor may not be successful in receiving funding. If the County was
successful obtaining matching funding for future projects, the County will still have difficulty
allocating its one-third share of the project cost. Therefore, consideration should be given
to establishing a reserve specifically intended to be used for infrastructure program
funding.
And finally to put this issue into perspective, a house with an assessed valued of $150,000
portion of taxes to the County of Elgin in relation to the capital program for engineering
services is only $190.00. Today internet service throughout the area is nearing $400 per
year, while the telephone system nearing another $600 per year. Therefore, taxpayers pay
5 times more for internet service and telephone within their homes than they provide
capital monies to the County road system. But, the telephone or internet cannot ship a car
or a bushel of corn or a pound of fish. All physical commodities still need to be put on a
highway to be sold! In summary if residents are willing to spend 5 times more money for
telephone and internet service then they are likely willing to pay an increased amount to
support their transportation system that provides essential services.
CONCLUSION:
The County's transportation infrastructure condition is in an increasing decline and the
needs to the system are increasing faster than capital monies are spent making
improvements. If not addressed now, the inadequacies of our road network will accelerate
and create an even more expensive rehabilitation program.
The road network urgently requires and additional $8.3 million in capital monies or
otherwise a reduction in the network to support. The County will receive funding through
the federal gas tax and staff will be applying for any monies through the federal, provincial
and local tripartite agreements, but much more is needed.
If the County was successful in receiving funds in any future infrastructure investment
program, the County would have difficulty allocating its share of the project's costs without
utilizing reserves, therefore, it may be prudent to initiate a road infrastructure program
reserve.
Construction inflation over the past few decades has averaged approximately 4% per year.
The Capital program requires an annual increase of 4% just to maintain current work
volume, otherwise, less work will be completed each year. Regardless, road needs
continue to increase at a pace between 5% and 19% annually above annual inflation.
If current funding allocations remain, staff is recommending that the County's road capital
program be allocated to major and minor arterial roads and suburban connecting roads.
The remaining roads, collector and local, would only receive minor allocations to keep their
condition safe, however their condition will deteriorate and maintenance demands on
those roads will increase. In other words, the existing capital investments can only sustain
the County's major and minor arterial roads (250km in total).
Each Elgin County household contributes $190 towards the County road capital program
annually.
Council may want to consider the following recommendations during budget deliberations:
That the County roads designated as Major and Minor Arterial and Suburban Collector
receive prioritized funding through the County capital program and roads designated as
Collector and Local Road receive limited investment; and also,
That the capital budget for Engineering Services be increased by 4% annually to offset
inflationary construction costs beginning in 2008; and also,
That an Infrastructure Program Reserve be established with an annual investment in the
amount of 2% of the County's Capital Budget beginning in 2008.
OR
THAT the capital budget for Engineering Services be increased in 2008 by $1,677,000 and
each year for an additional four years (until 2012); and also,
That the capital budget for Engineering Services be increased by 4% to offset inflationary
construction costs in 2008 and each subsequent year.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT Council consider the road infrastructure deficit during the 2008 composite budget
deli berations.
Respectfully Submitted
~~
(.fL Cia on w~ers
Director, Engineering Services
~:::s ...-,
Chief Administrative Officer
APPENDIX A - COUNTY ROAD CLASSIFICATIONS (6 pages)
Suburban Unk
450 $UNSq DRlVE. STJHOMAS,ON
N5R 5V1 (519)6Jb 1460
_ MaJdtArtenal_>COfledor .
_. MlnOtArt!lriar_Local
THECO[JNTY QFELG]N
450 SiJNSE'T DRIVE:, !iT-THOMAS, ON
N5R 5V1 (519)(j31 1460
COUNTYOF.E
ROAOMA
TJfBCOUNTY OFELGTN
4SQSUNSEtORIVE, StTHOMAS, ON
NSR 5V1 (SI9)I>JI-J4f1O
LEGEND
__ MiljorAr!eriaf)_CoIIEldtor
~ MiiWtArle/'iill_LQCElI
'Suburban I.Ink
L!GEND
_ MajllT.Aitenal__Collector
_MinIlTArterial_Locat
SUbUtbanUnk
TFfECOUNTYOFBLGlN
4soSUNSET DRIVE, ST.IHOMAS, ON
N5R5V1 (519)6311460
.Subui'ban lIilt<
THE COUNTYQFBLGIN
450 St)NSa DRIVE, stTHOMAS, ON
N5R 5Vl (519)63J-1460
-
~
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM: Clayton Watters, Director of Engineering Services
DATE: December 5, 2007
SUBJECT: Wellington Road and Ford Road
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.
To provide innovative and collaborative quality service.
INTRODUCTION:
A request has been made from the Township of Southwold to transfer a portion of Ford
Road that is under the ownership of the County of Elgin (formerly Bostwick Road or
County Road 26).
DISCUSSION:
The Township of Southwold has made a request to the County of Elgin to transfer a
portion of Ford Road. Ford Road (formerly Bostwick Road or County Road 26) is
physically closed at this location and is still under the ownership of the County of Elgin.
A search at the land registry office has found that portions of Ford Road remain under
the legal ownership of the County of Elgin and should be transferred to the Township of
Southwold since this road has not been in the County's road system for many years.
The County of Elgin is only interested in retaining a portion of the Ford Road allowance
that extends into the Wellington Road right of way so that a desirable width of the
Wellington Road allowance can be retained. Wellington Road is classified as a major
arterial roadway and the required right of way for this classification is 36 meters.
Therefore, at this location the County requires a 27 foot wide strip of land across the
old Ford Road property.
The legal descriptions of the parts of Ford Road to be transferred to the Township of
Southwold are indicated in the table below:
Property Identifier Description
Number PIN
35167-0184 (L T)
35168-0211 (LT)
35160-0242 (LT)
Part lot C or 45 Gore L T, Cone. NTR Southwold (travelled road)
and part 2 11R-2102, part 6 to 9 11R-230 (aka Bostwick Line,
Bostwick Street and Coun Road 26 ,Townshi of Southwold
RDAL BTN Lot D, Cone. SENBTR and Cone. E Southwold, Part
lot D Cone. SENBTR Southwold as in D-892 S of County Road
#29 (aka County Road #26 and Ford Road) Township of
Southwold
RDAL BTN Lot 3 Cone. D and Lot A and 41 Eof N Branch Talbot
Road Southwold, RDAL BTN Lot B Cone E of N Branch Talbot
Road and Cone. D Southwold, RDAL BTN lot C Cone. E of N
Branch Talbot Road and Cone. D Southwold, Part Lot A, B, C, 41
Cone. SENBTR Southwold, Part Lot 3 Cone. D Southwold, Part
Lot D Cone. SENBTR Southwold as in D-892 (aka County Road
#26 Bostwick Line and Ed eware Road Southwold
Section 52 of the Municipal Act allows for this transfer to occur with a County by-law.
. CONCLUSION:
The Township of Southwold has made a request to transfer a portion of Ford Road that
is under the ownership of the County of Elgin to the township.
Subsequent to a search completed at the land registry office, it was determined that the
County of Elgin owns other portions of Ford Road. All of these sections should be
transferred to the Township of Southwold with the exception of a 27 foot widening
along the west side of Wellington Road.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT the County of Elgin transfer portions of Ford Road under the ownership of the
County of Elgin to the Township of Southwold described by Property Identifier Numbers
35167-0184 (LT), 35168-0211 (LT) and 35160-0242 (LT) ; and also,
THAT the County of Elgin be transferred a 27 foot widening where Ford Road intersects
Wellington Road from the Township of Southwold; and also,
THAT all costs to transfer the properties from the County of Elgin to the Township of
Southwold be borne by the County of Elgin; and also,
THAT all costs to transfer the 27 foot widening to the County of Elgin be borne by the
Township of Southwold.
Respectfully Submitted
~
f- Clayton Watters
fo Director, Engineering Services
CORRESPONDENCE - DECEMBER 13. 2007
Items for Consideration
1. Pat Vanini, Executive Director, Association of Municipalities of Ontario, with invoice for
AMO OMERS Support Fund for 2008. (ATTACHED)
2. Janice Willett, MD, FRCSC, President, Ontario Medical Association, requesting a
resolution of support from Council for a ban on smoking in cars transporting children.
(ATTACHED)
.t:te
Association of Municipalities of Ontario
Association of
Municipalities of Ontario
November 22, 2007
Attention: Accounts Payable
Attached is the invoice for the 2008 instalment of the AMO OMERS Support
Fund. The invoic(3 is based on employee data submitted to OMERS by the
municipality. We look forward to your timely remittance and thank you for
your municipal assistance. Our OMERS work is important - it is now a $48
billon pension plan that is built on joint contributions of employers and
employees.
An update on our sponsorship role was recently forwarded to your Head of
Council and Municipal Administrator. A copy is attached for your own
reference. Again, thank you for your municipality's support. If you have any
questions about the invoice, please contact Nancy Plumridge, Director of
Administration and Business Development (nplumridge@amo.on.ca).
Yours truly,
;?~:
Pat Vanini
Executive Director
Ene!.
200 University Ave., Suite 801 Toronto ON M5H 3C6 Canada 1 E-mail: amo@amo.on.ca 1 www.amo.on.ca .
Tel: (416)971-98561 Fax: (416) 971-61911 Toll-free in Ontario: 1-877-426-6527 fi
..bJe
Association of Municipalities of Ontario
AMO OMERS SUPPORT FUND
Accounts Payable
Invoice No.: 2008-0-10707
Invoice Date: November 20, 2007
Due Date: December 20, 2007
County of Elgin
450 Sunset Dr.
S1. Thomas, ON N5R 5V1
BILLED TO AMOUNT
County of Elgin
# of OMERS Enrolled Employees*: 275
2008 amount: $5.72/employee 1,573.00
TOTAL: $1 ,573.00
* Data provided by OMERS based on information from your municipality.
This figure includes police service and transit employees where applicable.
. Please make cheque payable to: Association of Municipalities of Ontario
Please direct billing inquiries to: Anita Surujdeo, asurujdeo@amo.on.ca or 416-971-9856, Ext. 344
200 University Avenue, Suite 801, Toronto, ON M5H 3C6
Tel: 416-971-9856 Toll Free: 1-877-426-6527 Fax: 416-971-6191
OMERS: One Year Later...
I
I
I
Report to Municipal Employers on AMO's Sponsorship Role
-------,
I
I
AMO wishes to update members on its activities as the designated representative for municipal employers under
the new joint governance model for OMERS. The implementation of Bill 206, The Ontario Municipal Employees
Retirement System Act, 2006 began last June when the legislation took effect.
First... Backgrou ndRe mind er
The legislation removed the Province_ of Ontario as sponsor for the Plan and gives
that role to employers and employees. The Plan is a multi-employer pension
plan with almost 900 employers and over 350,000 active retired members and net
investment assets exceeding $48 billion. Employers include municipal governments,
school boards, Children's Aid Societies, Go Transit, MPAC, boards of health, local
electricity distribution corporations, among others. AMO is named in the legislation as
sponsor for municipal governments paying into the pension plan. Toronto is similarly
named. CUPE is the largest employee representative.
Last year, AMO held a special meeting of OMERS municipal employers to seek
input on a proposal to appropriately represent their interests at both the Sponsors
Corporation (SC) and the Administration Corporation (AG). At the core of the
discussion was the question - how critical is it to municipal employers that their
interests be fully and effectively represented and supported on an on-going basis and
if critical, are you willing to fund the necessary work on an on-going basis.
Over 300 participants at that special meeting ackn()wledged that with devolution,
municipalities must rely on qualified pension expertise, strong legal counsel, qualified
representatives and a united voice to ensure that municipal employers' interests are
reflected. MuniCipal governments' operating budgets are predominately labour-related
costs, so the work of both the SC and AC is of significance in terms of benefits and
contribution rates. -
It was recognized that the employee groups have been well resourced for quite some
time and if AMO is to represent the interests of municipalities, then it needed to be
resourced to protect the interests of municipalities as employers. AMO received
overwhelming support on its proposal to implement a special fund based on a yearly
per employee amount. .
Rising to the Challenge
AMO has been extremely active in its sponsorship role.
The yearly special fund allows us to retain qualified legal
and pension expertise and actuarial assistance. As is
evident from activities to date, those outside resources
provide in~depth expert advice.
It was certainly important as we provided feedback
to OMERS AC's proposals for the Supplemental Plan
design. AMO was very concerned with the lack of
disclosure through. the consultation process on many of
the Plan's design elements and similarly concerned with
Joint Employer/Employee
Governance
The Sponsors Corporation
is responsible for plan
design, with the exception
of the initial deSIgn work
for Supplemental Plans.
This means that the
SC determines benefit
improvements, contribution
rate adjustments, and any
amendments to change
the reserve to stabilize
contribution rates.
The Administration
Corporation acts as. the
administrator of the pension
plan and trustee of the
pension funds.
The bylaws of the
Corporations set out voting
requirements.
those that were disclosed. Our response was detailed,
focusing on benefit levels, past service and inflation
protection. We pointed out where the plan design went
further than needed and positioned legal action as a
potential response. The AC has completed its work and
the Supplemental Plan has been-registered with the
Regulator.
Details of AMO's response to the proposed Supplemental
Plans can be found on the AMO website.
NOVEMBER 2007, VOL. 1
Rising to the Challenge
Continued.. .
AMO has participated in a number of presen!ations
on the impact of supplemental plans to a vanety of
municipal employer gatherings including Mayors and
Chairs groups (MARCO and LUMCO) as w~1I ~s
Ontario Municipal Human Resources Association and
the Ontario Municipal Administrators Association.
OMERS recent presentation at the Count~es,
Regions and Single Tier Conference provided
examples of benefit and costing information for
the five supplement plan provisions (Le., 2.33%
accrual rate, 80 factor, 85 factor, "BesHour" and
"Best five" earnings). A copy o~this presentatio~ .
is also available on AMO's webslte. OMERS costing
confirmed AMO's position during hearings on Bill 206
- the costs of supplemental plans are very high and
will be substantial for both employers and employees
if negotiated locally. At the time of writin~, AMO ..
is unaware of any supplement plans having been
negotiated.
One of the SC's early decisions was to proceed with
a Co-Chair structure with a municipal representative
'(Marianne Love, AMO) and an employee .
representative (Brian O'Keefe, CUPE Ontano).
Bill 206 set out the initialSCcomposition and
. provided a default structure should a byl~w not
. be negotiated before June 1, 2007. Dunng the
discourse of the bylaw, it became apparE?ntthat
the legislation provided some hurdles to future
composition. Municip.al representati~es sought
advice and were provided Ideas on different features
and approaches to the various bylaws. After a great.
deal of legwork, the SC has adopted. its first roun~
of bylaws - indemnification, composition, borro~lng
and banking authority, general corporate operating
matters and advisory committees of the SC.
Five proposals for plan design chang.es that pre:
date Bill 206 are with the SC. Of particular note IS
a proposal to move paramedics to NRA 60. While
the Income Tax Act (federal) adds paramedics to
Emergency Occupations, it has to be recognized by
the SC before it can be negotiated at the local level.
AMO undertook research to help its representatives
deal with this proposal.
LATE BREAKING NEWS
Employer representatives at the SC were successful
in turning the NRA 60 proposal away. More details
will come forward in our next newsletter.
Pension Benefit Act Review
AMOappeared before the Ontario Expert Commission
on Pensions. The Commission is examining the
legislation that governs the f~nding of d~fined be.nefit
pension plans the rules relating to pension defiCits and
surpluses and matters related to security, viability and
sustainability of the pension system in Ontario. AMO's
submission is posted on its website.
New Approach at AMO
AMO's Board of Directors recently directed that a new
governing structure be established to deal with AMO's
mandated representative role as sponsor.
Why a separate corporation? First, it separates AM9's
normal advocacy and policy ~evelopment role fr?m ItS
OMERS sponsorship obligations. It also recognlz~s
the importance and permanency of that sponsor~.hlp .
responsibility. As well, it strengthens accountability. by
recognizing that not all municipal government~ o~ AMO
members are OMERS Plan members. The pnnclples of
accountability, fairness and representation are a?hiev~~
through a separate corporation. Th~ structure Will faCIlitate
the participation of other designated employer groups (e.g.,
Toronto, police service boards, school boards) Y"ho may see
the benefit in pooling resources to support the Interests of
employers.
Incorporation is proceeding and the new corporation (name
to be confirmed) is expected to operational by January
1 with the responsibility for the support fund and relat~d
budget. Work is to be transferred to the new corpora~lon
along with recruitment of future OM.ERS repres~nt~tlves.
Stay tuned for more details on the new corporation In the
next issue.
OMERS Court Application
Bill 206 sets out that the AC will provide reasonable
administrative and technical support to the SC. Questions
concerning the proper interpret~t!on of Bill 206 a~d ,related
sections of costs have led to a JOint protocol that IS Intended
to resolve the uncertainty. The protocol was developed by
the employer and employee representatives on both the SC
and AC. The purpose of the court application is.to obtain
a judicial declaration in a proactive ~anner so !hat ,the A~
and SC can proceed with implementing the legislation With
assuredness.
NOVEMBER 2007, VOL. 1
-
OMA
Ont:ario
Medical
Associat:ion
525 University Avenue
Suite 200
Toronto, Ontario
M5G 2K7
Tel: 416-599-2580
1-800-268-7215
Fax: 416-599-9309
www.oma.org
November 29,2007
DEe ~~ gi 2007
The Honarable Lynn Acre
Mayor of County of Elgin
450 Sunset Dr.
St. Thomas, ON N5R 5Vl
Dear Mayor Acre:
Ontario's doctors believe that all steps should be taken to ensure the health and well-being of
our children. As you may know, the Ontario Medical Association (OMA) has been advocating
for a ban on smoking in cars transporting children to help protect them from the negative health
impacts of Second-Hand-Smoke (SHS). The recent passing of such a bylaw in Wolfville, Nova
Scotia is proof that local action can be taken. York Regional Council has already passed a
resolution asking the Government of Ontario to ban smoking in cars carrying children and the
City of London has formed a committee to investigate their options.
Research shows that vehicles can be a potent source of SHS, and that such exposure can be 23
times more toxic than in a house because air circulation is restricted within a small space. The
OMA's 2004 report "Exposure to second-hand smoke: are we protecting our kids?" highlights
the fact that children exposed to SHS are at a higher risk for respiratory illnesses including
asthma, bronchitis and pneumonia, as well as sudden infant death syndrome (SillS) and
increased incidences of cancer and heart disease in adulthood.
Protecting children from the negative health impacts of SHS is a critical public health initiative
and the OMA will continue to call for a province-wide solution to this problem. In the past,
municipalities have shown strong leadership in banning smoking in workplaces and public
spaces. That hard work eventually led to the Smoke Free Ontario Act, but in this case we believe
that the solution must be a provincial law. In our effort to build support for such legislation
we invite you to join us in calling for a provincial ban on smoking in vehicles where children are
present. Your personal support, and if feasible, a supportive resolution from your council would
be of great help in this matter. If you require any assistance, or background information, please
contact my office and OMA staff would be happy to help.
Sincerely,
r
w~-
Janice Willett, MD, FRCSe.
President
CORRESPONDENCE - DECEMBER 13. 2007
Items for Information (Consent Agenda)
1. Lorrie Minshall, Director, Source Protection Program, Lake Erie Source Protection
Authority, c/o Grand River Conservation Authority, announcing the members of the
Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee and advising of the inaugural meeting
to be held on Thursday, December 20,2007, 1 :00 - 3:30 p.m. (ATTACHED)
2. Kevin Ramchandar, MD, President, Professional Associations of Interns and
Residents of Ontario, Brad Sinclair, Executive Director, HealthForce Ontario,
Marketing and Recruitment Agency, with update on the transfer of operations of
HFOJobs to the Health ForceOntario Marketing and Recruitment Agency.
(ATTACHED)
3. OGRA/ROMA 2008 Conference, Registration Form and highlights of the Conference and
Companion Program. (ATTACHED)
4. Nancie J. Irving, Clerk, Town of Aylmer, supporting the County of Elgin's resolution
regarding the appointment of John Maddox as Meeting Investigator for a one-year term and
charging a $25.00 application fee upon submission of a request for investigation.
(ATTACHED)
5. Hon. Jim Watson, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, introducing himself and
presenting an update on the Provincial-Municipal Fiscal and Service Delivery Review.
(ATTACHED)
6. Debbie Zimmerman, Chair, MPAC Board of Directors, with an update on the Municipal
Property Assessment Corporation's activities for 2007. (ATTACHED)
7. Thank you card from The Hennessey Family. (ATTACHED)
Grand River Conservation Authority
400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729
Cambridge, Ontario N1 R 5W6
Telephone (519) 621c2761 -
Fax (519) 621-4844
Internet: http://www.gran~river.ca
November 22, 2007
Mr. Mark MacDonald, CAO
County of Elgin
450 Sunset Drive
Aylmer, ON N5R 5V1
Dear Mr.MacDonald,
Re: Notification of Source Protection Committee Membership for the lake Erie
Source Protection Region
As you are aware, conservation authorities across Ontario are finalizing the appointment
of Drinking Water Source Protection Committees (SPC), as required under Regulation
288/07 of the Clean Water Act, 2006. The regulation requires that the Lake Erie Region
Source Protection Committee have 21 members, representing municipalities, economic
sectors and the public, with an additional 3 seats 'aJlocated to FirstNations 'communities.
The selection process in the Lake Erie Regiohincluded atwo,month public call for
applications for economic sector and publiciinterest' seats from August 3 to October 4, '
2007. In addition, each municipality in the Lake Erie Region was arranged into one of
seven groups, and municipalities in each group were asked to jointly select one
representative for their group.
Having carefully considered all applications received, the Lake Erie Region Management
Committee recommended a list of members to the Grand River Source Protection
Authority on November 20, 2007. The Grand River SPA Board appointed the
Committee as recommended, and listed below:
Municipal Representatives:
Dale Murray
Janet Laird
Thomas Schmidt
Roy Haggart
'Jim Oliver
Howard Cornwell
Lloyd Perrin'
Wellington, Dufferin, Grey and Halton
City of Guelph
Region'of Waterloo
Brant, Brantford and Hamilton
Haldimandand Norfolk"
Oxford and Perth
Elgin, Middlesex,'3t. Thomas' and London -
@;:
INTERNATIONAL RIVERPRIZE WINNER
Fo!:' Excellence In Watershed Management
Sector Representatives:
Bill Ungar, Aylmer
Ralph Krueger, Caledonia
Ian Macdonald, Kitchener
Mark Wales, Port Bruce
Ken Hunsberger, Baden
David Parker, Belwood
Richard Seibel, Fergus
Business and Industry
Business and Industry
Business and Industry
Agriculture
Agriculture
Agriculture
Aggregate Industry
Public Interest Representatives:
Marguerite Ceschi-Smith, Brantford
Don Woolcott, Bright
Wendy Wright-Gascaden, Waterloo
John Harrison, Delhi
Mark Goldberg, Guelph
Andrew Henry, London
Public Interest
Public Interest
pubnc Interest
Public Interest
Public Interest
Elgin Area Primary Water Board
First Nations:
Chief Bryan LaForme, Hagersville Mississaugas of the New Credit
The appointment of 2 additional seats for First Nations was deferred until Six Nations of
the Grand River forward names of representatives to the Grand River Source Protection
Authority. An additional public interest appointment was deferred, awaiting a nomination
by the Nanticoke-Grand Valley Partnership.
The inaugural meeting of the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee will be held
on Thursday, December 20, 2007 from 1 :00 pm until 3:30 pm at the Grand River
Conservation Authority Head Office (400 Clyde Road, Cambridge). Source Protection
Cqmmittee meetings are open to th.e public.
If you have any questions regarding the appointment of Committee representatives,
please contact me.
Sincerely,
~~
Lorrie Minshall
Director, Source Protection Program
Lake Erie Source Protection Region
c/o Grand River Conservation Authority
. 400 Clyde Road, Cambridge ON, N1 R 5W6
Tel: 519-621-2763 ext. 2231
Iminshall@qrandriver.ca
2
(!). Ontario
~O_M.~
...~~Il!Ag",ll'
November 22,2007
Warden Lynn Acre
County of Elgin
450 Sunset Dr.
St. Thomas, ON N5R 5Vl
l
Dear Warden Acre,
i.I,
HFOJobs is on the move.
Beginning April 2008, PAIRO will transfer operation of HFOJobs to the HealthForceOntario Marketing and
Recruitment Agency where it will be housed within the Agency's Recruitment and Relocation department. .
As the newest member of the Agency team, HFOJobs will benefit from a seamless array of marketing, recruitment
and relocation resources offered by the Agency. This synergy means even greater service for Ontario's recruitment
sector as we continue to work for you and with you with new energy and purpose.
PAIRO - the professional association of Ontario's physicians-in training - is proud of the key role it has played in
the development and implementation of HFOJobs. Research shows that HFOJobs is reaching a vast audience with
its free and easy-to-use website and venue for posting community and facility profiles. Centralizing HFOJobs at the
Agency will further strengthen HFOJobs' position as Ontario's premier job portal for health care professionals.
The transition is going smoothly. As HFOJobs continues to evolve, we welcome your thoughts or comments on
this new relationship.
Sincerely,
Kevin Ramchandar, MD
President
Professional Association of Internes
and Residents of Ontario
(416) 979-1182
-7~cuJZ ~i2 . ' ~
/ ~!
Brad Sinclair
Executive Director
HealthForceOntario
Marketing and Recruitment Agency
(416) 598-5986
/4--:. ~~
Healthf'OI*C~:Ontario
285 Victoria street, 7th Fl.oor. 'Ibronto, Ontario Jo15B lWl
TelepltOlle; 1-80fHiOO-404.611IJlfIJiHmltllFcm:EOnta.rwJXt
Companions' Program subject to change.
:lE
0::::
o
u..
Zz
00
I- -
~~
I-e
~~
(!)Cii
w..
0::::0
W:I:
(.)~
ZO
W>-
o::::ca
W~
u..o:::
Z..
og
(.)E
C.=
w.f
Z.
aJCIO
:lEg
ON
(.) .....-
<(~
:lE~
O~
o::::ca
~~
(!)LL
o
ClO
o
o
N
U")
...J
'"
t:;
...J
Z
o
.u
C)
::>
'"
U>
U>
"iij
U>
:E
-0
'"
&
>-
"0
Q)
r::
r::
Q)
::.::
U")
U")
M
<0
",-
....
"c
::::J
~
o
~
z
o
~
o
o
c..>
w
c..>
z
w
~
W
LL
Z
o
c..>
c
w
z
iii
:iE
o
c..>
<(
:iE
o
~
<c
~
C)
o
.s
....
r::
Q)
E
>-
'"
c.
:E
.~
"0
r::
Q)
U>
"0
r::
'"
>-
-;::
'"
Q)
'0
....
r::
";:
c.
l5
Q)
c.
.?;>
Q)
U>
'"
Q)
c:
cii
z
o
i=
c..>
::::J
~
I-
en
~
Iii
::iE
<(
Z
I-
o
~
z
o
o
:Z
o
~
N
Z
<(
Cl
0::
o
>=
I-
:J
<(
a.
U
Z
::>
::iE
ci)
en
w
0::
o
o
<(
Cl
z
:J
<(
::iE
'"C
O~ ~
Wc.c
~g g
",,,,,,
(j';--.J
g5 .~ -E
~.~ 1
1-"0
W'"
::<:"0
02
- "
1--.;:;
LL -
og_
ffi ~I~
m rol c
:E.$ ro
::>~oo
Z.Q
t::.
~
~
~
t:: :s
.S! Q)
't; U>
t:: 0
.2 13
{: a:i
.::! en
<> w
.S w
(; LL
t::
.g
l!
~
.
w
:E
<(-
z"o
rnl!!
ZS
o.~
- Cl
z.,
<(~
a.~
:E-
O
o
~
'"
~
.... l!!
(I) Q)
(!) ..c
~ E
'" ~
.e c
l!! 0
1:: z
'"
s
E
~
o
(!)
.
.:J
<(
::iE
w
~
. Q) J!!
"Or::
~ ~ E
~ ~ E
'" '" Cl>
.<::t r:: >
~ .- 0
s ~ C)
r:t
~
o
0::
...
~
t::
'"
Q!i
(!)
o
.9
w
a.
~-
ZO
o~
_0
~:r;
~:$.
(5
w
l>:
<(
:iE l!!
o Q)
~..c
~ ~
C):iE
... 0
.l!!
~
rg
~ W $
~ 0- i
~ ~ ~
~ ~ I
ci) ~.g
~ ~ ~
:c: C9 g
w *
~:!!.
W
...J
I-
;::
~
IL
'"
(j)Jg
w:!;
~g
~,
wgJ,
...J "0
W'"
0.0
LLC
o~
w'"
:E~
<(0.
z'"
g
-0
'"
x
.l!!
'"
=..0
:~ ffi
-oU
.5Q Cl
c:o::
"'<
O-u
Eo::
8w
UI-
"'m
"'<
~::;:
~o
-0<
"'m
"'-
"'>
g1;-
~ '"
0--0
'" '"
..oE
0'"
c:~
ffi ffi
U E
li~!~
c: '"
c: 0 .
2 .~
~~:;;
.~ Eo
: i~s
.:J
w
I-
... -
..!!Q;~
5,~~
&! ~
:gCU0
~~C;;
1a~~
w
... -
..!!Q;~
5,~~
&! ~
"EQ)th
mOM
.2:''G:; c f2
~m~ a
... -
-5Cii~
g'~ fa
0:: -,
"EQ)U)
mOM
.a;. 'Q; c:
~m~
i!
'"
c..>
r::
o
Q)
E
DI~
'1*
C
~
<(
c..>
'r'rl'rl
@)
L!')
o
<D
<>7
L!')
<D
L!')
<>7
Q;
1;j
c
~
"a.
x
w
o 0
u; c;;
<>7 <>7
o
m
-.-t
<>7
o 0
L!') L!')
-.-t N
<>7 <>7
c
,Q
~
(;)
'0,
Q)
0::
>.
ro
o
('")
<(
L!')
L!')
('")
<>7
L!')
L!')
('")
<>7
L!')
;:;;
<>7
L!')
;:;;
<>7
o
;:;;
<>7
o 0
r- r-
N N
<>7 <>7
o
m
N
<>7
o
m
N
<>7
o L!')
L!') N
~;;
10'
"0
C
o
:2'
>.
ro
"0
en
Q)
::s
I-
>.
ro
o
Q)
c
o
a:l
>.
ro
o
Q)
c
o
c..>
~
.a
'"
r::
C)
Ci5
a;-
U
C
~
.l!!
c
o
C>
"0
i I
~ 'OJ
<.9 E
o d>
.9 ::g
Q) . o.n
:n C"jJ
CO & ~
~e.~
::::J ~ ~-
~~i
DUi8
L!') L!')
m Ct:)
y;~
'"
:S
'"
o 0 ~
~ ~ ~
~
'"
<>
2
1XI
o
o -;'8
~ ~ ~
'i8
.S E
-g~
~ il
J2=a;
",....
.<::to;
a ~ 2
~ o.Q
~~
0>5
.S! CD
~a
o :::::co
m "'....
6'7 "'g;
-E~
l:D'7
t::co
o ~~
~(3)(
.5 oJ!
J€~
t::_
E~
.~ :;
'" ...
[~
~l
.ll!o
~~
Cia
.~ .s
~~
L!') L!')
L!') Ct:)
;;;.~
o
<D
<>7
L!')
Ct:)
w.
o
L!')
w.
o
<D
<>7
L!')
-.-t
W.
o
L!') 0
;;~
L!')
<D
<>7
o
L!') 0
y;~
o
L!')
w.
o
<D
<>7
>.
ro
"0
83
c
"0
Q)
$:
c
o
f:!
(;) en
"0, 05
Q) .""'-
0:: u
i=
c
o
Q)
.c
u
c
::0
...J
.l!l
Q)
.""'-
U
i=
(j)
::s
rr
c
ro
CO
>. c
ro 0
~I'I
c C>
..-:
d>
fijLr>~
2-::.ii:
-as ~-.~
~~J5
s~~
ij1.9E
.~~~
~~5-
~~&
:;:u..-
>-E<(
~eu;
o-~
~~~
"''''<
~.~ =>
g~~
('Qi=W
~'~u..
'6>~ ffi
*~I:i:
~o<
__cntn
ffi. 0-0 C
~ ~~~
~&tli
~cOa::
~~~
"
]i
.8
..0
:::0
(f)
II II
~<t
I ~
.. z
ic2
I- C)
en
(9
>Ii!.
fr
en
c
~
o
c..>
w
~
~
::::J
o
>-
~
o
LL
~
o
c..>
<(
w
::.::
<(
:iE
w
en
<(
w
...J
D..
e
Proud Heritage. Bright Future.
The Corporation of the Town of Aylmer
46 Talbot Street, West, Aylmer, Ontario N5H IJ7
Office: 519-773-3164 Fax: 519-765-1446
www.aylmer.ca
November 27,2007
County of Elgin
450 Sunset Drive
St. Thomas ON N5R 4V1
r ."
l\v \;
RE: Meetina Investiaator
At its meeting held on November 26,2007, the Town of Aylmer Council resolved:
Resolution No. 321-07
"That the Town of Aylmer supports the appointment of Mr. John Maddox as
Meeting Investigator for a one-year term to commence January 1, 2008 on
the understanding that the County will pay the retainer fee for the first year
of the program;
The Town of Aylmer agrees to charging a $25.00 application fee upon
submission of a request for investigation; on the understanding that the
fee will be refunded to the person should the investigation prove that a
closed meeting was conducted wrongly; and further,
That the County of Elgin and the municipalities within the County be so
advised."
Should you have any questions about this matter, please do not hesitate to
contact this office.
Yours truly,
~IJ~
Clerk, Town of Aylmer
cc Township of Southwold
Municipality of DuttonlDunwich
Municipality of Central Elgin
Municipality of Bayham
Township of Malahide
City of St. Thomas
Municipality of West Elgin
Ministry of
Municipal Affairs
and Housing
Offiee of the Minister
777 Bay Street, 1 ih Floor
Toronto ON M5G 2E5
Tel. (416) 5857000
Fax (416) 585 6470
www.mah.gov.on.ea
Ministere des
Affaires municipales
et du Logement
Bureau du ministre
777, rue Bay, 17" etage
Toronto ON M5G 2E5
Tel. (416) 585 7000
Telee. (416) 585 6470
www.mah.gov.on.ea
1Ii
~
Ontario
07-2891
t- .......
, ..d
November 21 , 2007
Ms. Lynn Acre
Warden
County of Elgin
450 Sunset Drive
St. Thomas ON N5R5V1
Dear Warden Acre:
As Ontario's newly appointed Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, I would like to take this
opportunity to introduce myself and to acknowledge some concerns we share.
Since the beginning of our government's first mandate, I have been working closely with
Premier Dalton McGuinty and my colleagues in Caucus to deliver positive change to the people
of Ontario. I am pleased to continue advancing this work as the new Minister of Municipal
Affairs and Housing.
Currently, the Provincial-Municipal Fiscal and Service Delivery Review is hard at work
developing options fOLa sustainable provincial/municipal relationship. The Review partners -
the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, City of Toronto, and Province of Ontario - remain
committed to the process. The Review is considering a wide array of complex issues related to
infrastructure, services and funding arrangements.
One cannot presuppose the outcomes of the Provincial-Municipal Fiscal and Service Delivery
Review. The Review's important work will lead to the release of a consensus report in spring
2008. All participants in the Review are committed to taking the time to get it right.
Our two levels of government face many challenges, requiring us to work together to address
those matters that will strengthen Ontario's municipalities. The sustainability of social housing is
of particular importance for Ontario. Our government strongly believes that there is a need to
reach agreement with the federal government on strategies to protect the social-housing stock
and to improve outcomes for vulnerable Ontario households. We want to engage Ottawa in
discussions about new federal funding that is long-term and flexible for housing initiatives.
/2
- 2 -
Warden Acre
We also must be prepared for times of difficulty. Financial assistance for disasters in Ontario
and coordination of extraordinary costs related to disaster events have been very active areas
of federal/provincial/territorial collaboration over the past few years. The government hopes to
see progress on the Federal Disaster Assistance Initiative (FOAl) at the upcoming Emergency
Management Ministers' meeting in January - particularly in the area of recovery from non-
natural disasters.
Over the next four years, I look forward to further developing our partnership. I believe we can
continue the good relationShip our governments have enjoyed and can work collaboratively with
you and our other municipal partners across the province.
Please accept my best wishes as we continue to work together for the benefit of all Ontarians.
Sin e ely yo~
Jim Watson, MPP
Minister
~paC"
MUNICIPAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT CORPORATION
November 26, 2007
DEt
Warden Lynn Acre
County of Elgin
450 Sunset Drive
St. Thomas ON N5R 5Vl
Update on MPAC Activities
Dear Warden Lynn Acre:
I am pleased to provide you with an update on the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation's
activities to date for 2007. Our efforts to improve the products and services we deliver to
municipalities and the taxpayers of Ontario are continuing. Of particular note:
· Our new Integrated Property System (IPS) was implemented in April providing
capabilities we require to meet the expectations of municipalities and property taxpayers
that were not possible with the 25-year-old computer system we had been using; and
· Weare increasing the number of properties that we inspect in 2007 by approximately
40 per cent, providing information we need to generate more accurate values.
We continue to prepare for the province-wide assessment update in 2008 and are working to
ensure that the changes introduced in last spring's Ontario Budget, including the move to a four-
year assessment cycle with mandatory phase-in provisions, are implemented as smoothly as
possible. I would like to provide you with a more detailed update of our activities in the
following areas.
· Integrated Property System;
· Increased Property Inspection Program;
· Ombudsman's Recommendations;
· Enumeration;
· Stakeholder Outreach;
· Service Delivery; and
· Participation at the AMO 2007 Annual Conference.
Office of the Chair cj 0 Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
1305 Pickering Parkway, Pickering, Ontario L 1 V 3P2
T: 905.688.0990 ext 224 F: 905.831.0040
www.mpac.ca
Form No L5050A
Warden Lynn Acre
Update on MP AC Activities
November 26, 2007
Page 2 of5
Integrated Property System (IPS)
I am pleased to report that we have completed the roll-out of IPS and it is MP AC's core business
system. Our efforts are now focused on the successful delivery of information products from
IPS, such as Property Assessment Notices, Assessment Rolls and Tax Files, as well as system
enhancements. As with any new computer system, some changes have been required to internal
procedures. MP AC staff continue to work with your staff to ensure that the impact on
municipalities is minimized. We will deliver the 2007 assessment rolls on December 11, 2007 as
required by legislation.
Increased Property Inspection Program
We will inspect about 500,000 properties in 2007 compared to the 355,000 last year. These
additional inspections will allow us to confirm data that we currently have, make any revisions
and help ensure the accuracy of values.
I am also pleased to report that we have completed 99 per cent of our inspection of all 22,500
Northern Ontario properties affected by Provincial Land Tax reform. Once we have completed
the inspections, we will be able to finalize current value assessments for these properties for the
2008 assessment update.
Ombudsman's Recommendations
We have taken action on all 20 of the recommendations made by the Ombudsman that fall within
our jurisdiction. On September 10, 2007, as requested, we delivered our second Update Report
to the Ombudsman, which is available on our web site, www.mpac.ca.
In an October 1 speech to the Canadian Property Tax Association Annual Workshop, Gareth
Jones, ofthe Ombudsman's office, said that 2008 property tax assessment in Ontario would be
"fairer, more transparent and more accountable, thanks in large part to the cooperation we have
seen from MPAC and the government."
When the Ombudsman's report was released, we made a commitment to consult municipalities
before implementing three recommendations with significant cost implications. Weare now
reviewing the impact of the changes announced in the Provincial Budget before making a final
decision on consulting municipalities.
Office of the Chair c/o Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
1305 Pickering Parkway, Pickering, Ontario L1 V 3P2
T: 905.688.0990 ext 224 F: 905.831.0040 www.mpac.ca
Warden Lynn Acre
Update on MP AC Activities
November 26, 2007
Page 3 of5
Enumeration
I am pleased to report that MP AC completed the 2006 enumeration on time and within budget,
meeting or exceeding all of the statutory and operational requirements. In addition, a number of
new and improved products and services were made available to all municipalities and school
boards in the province.
Our 2006 Post-Enumeration Report to municipalities will be distributed to all Municipal Clerks
and posted on our website in the next few weeks. One issue identified in the report is a change
we introduced at the request of the Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of
Ontario (AMCTO) in which we included a new code with respect to citizenship status. While
this was not an issue in most communities, it created some concern in several municipalities.
In preparation for the 2010 enumeration, we have begun consulting stakeholders and will
continue to seek input on changes that will further improve accuracy and service. We will also
be consulting on the broader issue of the most appropriate entity for the carrying out of the
enumeration function in Ontario in the future and we would like your input on this important
matter.
MP AC also continues discussions with the Ministry of Government Services (MGS) for access
to birth and death information. Test files are being analyzed and a data sharing agreement is
being drafted.
Stakeholder Outreach
We continue to place emphasis on communicating with stakeholders, including municipalities
and property taxpayer groups, to increase their understanding ofMP AC's role in assessment.
Between January 1 and September 30, 2007, we held more than 700 meetings with our various
stakeholders, surpassing the 580 stakeholder meetings we attended in 2006.
Our Municipal Relations staff continued to meet regularly with municipal councils and staff and
attended many municipal conferences this year including the Association of Municipalities of
Ontario (AMO) Annual Conference in Ottawa in August.
Service Delivery
Supplementary/Omitted Assessments
We continue to make significant gains in meeting our target of assessing all new buildings and
additions within six months of occupation. This year, we have added more than $18 billion in
new assessment to the rolls.
Office of the Chair c/o Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
1305 Pickering Parkway, Pickering, Ontario L1 V 3P2
T: 905.688.0990 ext 224 F: 905.831.0040 www.mpac.ca
Warden Lynn Acre
Update on MP AC Activities
November 26, 2007
Page 40f5
Requests for Reconsideration
MP AC's target is to process a Request for Reconsideration (RfR), for a given tax year within
45 days. The average year-to-date processing time in 2007 is 44 days compared to 84 days for
the same time period in 2006. Although our 2007 volume ofRfRs is not as high as we would
expect in an assessment update year, we also attribute our lowered processing time to
efficiencies gained from streamlining our business processes.
To date this year, MP AC has received 20,551 RfRs, which represents .45 per cent of the
approximately 4.6 million properties on the 2006 assessment roll.
Seasonal Campgrounds
As you know, the issue ofthe assessability oftrailers is under appeal before the Court of Appeal
for Ontario. The appeal was heard on October 15 and 16, and we are awaiting the decision. We
look forward to having this matter resolved and will be bound by any legal principle established
by the Courts. We will ensure that municipalities are aware of the impact of the decision.
Participation at the AMO 2007 Annual Conference
I attended the AMO Annual Conference in Ottawa with Carl Isenburg, our Chief Administrative
Officer. Both Carl and I participated with Diane Ross, Director, Property Tax Legislation and
Assessment Policy Branch, Ontario Ministry of Finance, in a concurrent session on August 21.
Diane spoke about the recent changes in property assessment policy. Carl and I discussed
implementation plans and reviewed some of our recent achievements and planned activities.
Copies of our presentation have been posted on the MP AC website at www.mpac.ca.
In conclusion, I want to assure you that we continue to strive to improve service and build
stronger relationships with municipalities, property taxpayers and other stakeholders. Our staff
takes great satisfaction in receiving positive feedback from our stakeholders and I take these
results to mean that we are on track in meeting our customers' needs and expectations.
Office of the Chair c/o Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
1305 Pickering Parkway, Pickering, Ontario L1 V 3P2
T: 905.688.0990 ext 224 F: 905.831.0040 www.mpac.ca
Warden Lynn Acre
Update on MP A C Activities
November 26, 2007
Page 5 of5
As always, I appreciate your interest in our activities. If you would like additional information,
please contact me at 905688-0990, extension 225, Carl Isenburg, President and Chief
Administrative Officer, at 905837-6150, Paul Galaski, Vice-President Customer Relations, at
905 837-6190 or Arthur Anderson, Director of Municipal Relations, at 905837-6993. Any of us
would be happy to answer your questions or discuss these issues with you in more detail.
Yours truly,
Debbie Zimmerman
Chair, MPAC Board of Directors
Copy The Honourable Dwight Duncan, Minister of Finance
Diane Ross
Municipal Clerks and Treasurers (via e-mail)
Municipal Liaison Group - Assessment (via e-mail)
Municipal Liaison Group - Enumeration (via e-mail)
MP AC Board of Directors
Carl Isenburg
Paul Galaski
Arthur Anderson
Office of the Chair c/o Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
1305 Pickering Parkway, Pickering, Ontario L1 V 3P2
T: 905.688.0990 ext 224 F: 905.831.0040 www.mpac.ca
. (ja'fret/ r
!!tf ~ ~
. \~ /). -(YYNJJ:
')...1/ (.". -J." ~
l . /f,'" /f'/ (; fAA' , . ..
/' . > 1'1/(1'1. t"p .
/tJl/(' J.Jl~.f~:< c/
~/ . ,'" ~.."'..,P/
' . / /.r,...;/, l,,1 .-e\0-
llJ/.z/' d!..(,}l;ep{:~l ,',,. .' . .
.I
~ <~d!~("{;
r.1: l~f'",,(}1f.. .#,{.e..<I....i;.__ .
/6.> {~f;Y7'''''' · ," .
~ ~~'L
r~nl~'J
CLOSED MEETING AGENDA
DECEMBER 13. 2007
Staff Reports:
1) Director of Human Resources - Labour Relations/Employee Negotiations -
Public Holidays
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:
Fax:
Phone:
Re:
Warden Acre and
County Councillors
Various
From:
Mark G. McDonald
mmcdonald@elgin-county.on.ca
Dec. 10,2007
7 including cover sheet
Additional Items for Council Agenda of
December 13, 2007
Date:
Pages:
cc:
Comments:
Correspondence for Consideration (attached)
1. Association of Municipalities of Ontario with 2008 membership invoice for $3,783.60.
2. Township of West Lincoln, Planning Department, requesting support for its concerns against the proposed
changes to the Regulatory Framework for Non-Agricultural Source Materials, and said support to be forwarded
to the MOE and OMAFRA.
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 PROBLEMS IN TRANSMISSION, PLEASE NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE.
.ble
Association of Municipalities of Ontario
Association of Municipalities of Ontario
2008 MEMBERSHIP INVOICE
Accounts Payable
County of Elgin
Invoice No.: 2008-M-10707
Invoice Date: December 5, 2007
Due Date: January 4, 2008
450 Sunset Dr.
. St. Thomas, ON N5R 5V1
BILLED TO AMOUNT
County of Elgin $ 3,783.60
Membership fee for the period: January 1 , 2008 - December 31 , 2008 GST EXEMPT
Membership Grouping: MUN / UPP
(fold bottom edge to this line)
At its meeting on November 30, 2007, the AMO Board passed the Association's 2008 budget which provided that membership fees
be calculated using the most current household data available from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and that a 3%
across-the-board increase be added to the calculated fee.
Your Municipality's fee was based on a total of 19,483 households as reported by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation.
Please direct inquiries to:
Anita Surujdeo at 41' 6-971-9856 Ext. 344
asurujdeo@amo.on.ca
200 University Avenue, Suite 801, Toronto, ON M5H 3C6
Tel: 416-971-9856 Toll Free: 1-877-426-6527 Fax: 416-971-6191
TOWNSHIP OF WEST LINCOLN
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
318 Canborough Street
P.O. Box 400
Smithville, Ontario LOR 2AO
Phone: (905) 957-3346
Fax: (905) 957-3219
December 6, 2007
Warden Lynn Acre
County of Elgin
450 Sunset Drive
S1. Thomas, ON N5R 5V1
D~JC
't,L
Dear Warden Lynn Acre,
SUBJECT:
Proposed Changes to the Regutatory Framework for Non-Agricultural Source
Materials
The Government of Ontario is proposing changes to the regulatory framework for non-
agricultural source materials (NASM). The complete document outlining the proposed changes
is posted on the Environmental Registry for viewing and comments
(htto://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/- entitled An Improved Regulatory Framework for
Non-Agricultural Source Materials). Comments are requested by January 5, 2008.
The Township of West Lincoln has several concerns about these proposed changes, which are
outlined in the attached staff report. Accordingly, the Township's Planning, Building and
Environmental Committee approved the following items at it December 3, 2007 meeting:
(1) That Report PD-161-07, dated December 3, 2007 regarding information about proposed changes
to the regulatory framework for non-agricultural source materials be received; and
(2) That staff be authorized to submit this report to the Ministry of the Environment as the Township's
response to the proposed changes to the regulatory framework for non-agricultural source
materials as posted on the Environmental Registry.
(3) That, this resolution and Report PD-161-07 be circulated to our local MPP, Mr. Tim Hudak, the
Agricultural and Environmental Critic of the Official Opposition and all rural municipalities within
the Province of Ontario for Support.
We believe this issue is important for all rural municipalities in Ontario and we feel that the
Ministry of Environment (MOE) and the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs
(OMAFRA) needs to be made aware of our concerns. Our concerns are outlined as follows:
1. There needs to be some mechanism for the public to provide comments or suggest
conditions on a proposal to apply NASM on farm land;
2. The fines and penalties for violation should reflect those of the Environmental Protection
Act;
3. There needs to be a provision to advise local municipalities of where proposals for the
application of NASM have been made and by whom; and C
4. There needs to be considerationgivento the appropriateness of placing the approval of
NASM (including the potential for material with high heavy metal content) under the
Nutrient Management Act.
We are asking for your support in voicing concern to the MOE and OMAFRA against the
proposed changes. We appreciate if you would take the time to review the draft posting on the
Environmental Registry and send any resolutions your outlining concerns with the proposed
changes to:
Kevin Webster
Senior Policy Coordinator
Ministry of the Environment
Waste Management Policy Branch
135 St. Clair Avenue West
Floor 7
Toronto ON, M4V 1 P5
Thank you for your support in this matter.
Yours truly,
Carolyn Langley
Clerk
Ene!. December 3, 2007 Staff Report
cc: Kevin Webster MOE; Tim Hudak MPP; Toby Barrett MPP; Laurie Scott MPP; Rural
Municipalities of Ontario
document1
REPORT TO PLANNING/BUILDING/ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE
December 3, 2007
TO:
Chair and Members of the Committee
RE:
Recommendation Report: Proposed Changes to the Regulatory Framework for
Non-Agricultural Source Materials as Posted on the Environmental Registry
FILE NO.:
1525-002
REPORT NO.:
PD-161-07
RECOMMENDATION
That Report PD-161-07, dated December 3, 2007 regarding information about proposed changes to
the regulatory framework for non-agricultural source materials be received; and
That staff be authorized to submit this report to the Ministry of the Environment as the Township's
response to the proposed changes to the regulatory framework for non-agricultural source materials
as posted on the Environmental Registry.
PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
This Report has been prepared to provide Council with information about proposed changes to the
regulatory framework for non-agricultural source materials. It will also provide Council with staffs
concerns about the proposed changes.
BACKGROUND
The Ministry of the Environment (MOE) and the Ministry of Agricultural, Food and Rural Affairs
(OMAFRA) are proposing changes to the Environmenta/ Protection Act and the Nutrient Management
Act that will affect how non-agricultural source materials (NASM) are regulated. Non-agriculture
source material (NASM) generally includes materials like pulp and paper biosolids, sewage biosolids
and any other material that is not from an agricultural source that is capable of being applied to
agricultural land as a nutrient These proposed changes have been brought to staffs attention
through an environmental watchdog emaillist and not by any provincial ministry.
Currently, in cases where a NASM is also considered a waste under Part V of the Environmenta/
Protection Act, there are overlapping approval requirements for non-agricultural source material under
the Nutrient Management Act and the Environmenta/ Protection Act related to the management,
transportation and land application, specifically transportation and land application requires
certificates and licences under both of the acts. The goal of the proposed framework for NASM is to
eliminate the overlapping approval requirements and develop and revise existing standards under the
Nutrient Management Act to focus on the quality of the materials.
At this time, there is a posting of the proposed changes to the framework on the Environmental
Registry website (included as Attachment 1 to this report). The posting of this proposal on the
Environmental Registry is the first step in a three step consultation process. Following this initial
posting, MOE/OMAFRA will be conducting stakeholder consultation followed by the third step of a
further posting of the draft regulation on the Environmental Registry.
PD-161-07 - Proposed Changes to the Regulatory Framework for Non-Agricultural Source Materials
Recommendation Report 2
PLANNING CONSIDERATION AND NEXT STEPS
Planning staff have reviewed the proposed changes. Many of the changes involve improvements to
the Nutrient Management Act which are designed to provide more stringent requirements for nutrient
management plans and strategies. Other changes are designed to eliminate overlapping approval
requirements under the Environmental Protection Act and the Nutrient Management Act related to the
management, transportation and application of non-agricultural source material on agricultural land.
These include certificates and licences issued by the MOE under the Environmental Protection Act
and licences under the Nutrient Management Act issued by OMAFRA. This will be achieved by
eliminating the need for Certificates of Approval under the Environmental Protection Act.
Currently, Part V of the Environmental Protection Act requires that an operator must obtain a
Certificate of Approval prior to using, operating, establishing, altering, enlarging or extending a waste
management system or a waste disposal site. This means that haulers are required to obtain an
approval to transport NASM. It also means that all farm fields where NASM is land applied require an
Organic Soil Conditioning Site Certificate of Approval under the Environmental Protection Act.
Currently, the Nutrient Management Regulation requires the following for operations that are involved
in NASM:
1. Approved nutrient management strategy and approved nutrient management plan for some
farm operations receiving non-agricultural source material;
2. Broker certificate for transportation and land application of non-agricultural source material on
some farm fields;
3. Prescribed materials application business licence for a person engaged in the business of
applying prescribed materials, including application of non-agricultural source material to some
agricultural land;
4. Nutrient application technician licence for a person applying materials that contain nutrients
including the application of non-agricultural source material to agricultural land.
While the Nutrient Management Act does provide a regulatory process for the transportation and
application of NASM, it does not provide for the opportunity to comment on a proposal through the
Environmental Bill of Rights in the manner that a Certificate of Approval does. This would also
eliminate the ability of the public to suggest conditions that may be imposed on a Certificate of
Approval. It is notable that the penalties under the Environmental Protection Act are considerably
more serious than those under the Nutrient Management Act (Attachment 2 summaries the penalties
under both Acts). Shifting the regulatory framework entirely to the Nutrient Management Act may
result in a loss in the ability to impose higher penalties.
It should also be noted that historically, at the request of the Township's Mayor, the MOE has
provided staff and Council with a copy of the Certificates of Approval that have been grated for the
spreading of NASM on farmland in West Lincoln. This notice will disappear as a result of the
proposed changes. Attachment 3 is an email from a staff person at the MOE with additional
information related to the proposed changes.
In summary, the purpose of the proposed changes is appropriate in that it attempts to make the
regulatory process of NASM more efficient by eliminating overlapping approvals. It also provides
increased protection by requiring all proposals to apply NASM on farm land to have an approved
nutrient management plan or strategy. However, there are some issues that need to be resolved.
Therefore, staff recommend that the following needs to be addressed:
u:\planning department\reports\projects\2007\miscellaneous\changes for regulation of nasm - info report ( dec 07 planning committee
meeting).doc
PD-161-07 - Proposed Changes to the Regulatory Framework for Non-Agricultural Source Materials
Recommendation Report 3
1. There needs to be some mechanism for the public to provide comments or suggest conditions
on a proposal to apply NASM on farm land;
2. The fines and penalties for violation should reflect those of the Environmental Protection Act,
3. There needs to be a provision to advise local municipalities of where proposals for the
application of NASM have been made and by whom; and
4. There needsto be consideration given to the appropriateness of placing the approval of NASM
(including the potential for material with high heavy metal content) under the Nutrient
Management Act.
In light of these concerns, staff recommend that the township advise the MOE and OMAFRA of our
interest and concern for the proposed changes. Staff further wish to put the Province on notice that
the Township of West Lincoln wishes to be actively involved and consulted on these or any other
proposed amendments relating to the regulation of NASM.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Outline of Proposed Regulatory Changes
2. Comparison of Penalties
3. Email from MOE
Prepared and Submitted by:
~~~ ~~
David Deluce, MCIP, RPP
Planner
Reviewed by:
~~
Brian Treble, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning
u:\planning department\reports\projects\2007\miscellaneous\changes for regulation of nasm - info report ( dec 07 planning committee
meeting).doc