March 25, 2008 Agenda
ORDERS OF THE DA Y
FOR TUESDA Y. MARCH 25. 2008 - 9:00 A.M
PAGE # ORDER
Meeting Called to Order
Adoption of Minutes - for the meeting of February 12, 2008
Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof
Presenting Petitions, Presentations and Delegations
DELEGATION
9:00 a.m. Sandra Datars-Bere, Director of Ontario Works and Social
Housing St. Thomas, 2008 Operating Budget (attachments)
Motion to Move Into "Committee Of The Whole Council"
Reports of Council, Outside Boards and Staff
Director of Financial Services - 2008 Budget Highlights Update (enclosed
separately)
[bring your budget binder with you]
7th Council Correspondence - see attached
163-176 1) Items for Consideration
177-212 2) Items for Information (Consent Agenda)
8th OTHER BUSINESS
1) Statementsllnquiries by Members
2) Notice of Motion
3) Matters of Urgency
9th Closed Meeting Items (see separate agenda)
10th Recess
11th Motion to Rise and Report
12th Motion to Adopt Recommendations from the Committee Of The Whole
213 13th Consideration of By-Laws
14th ADJOURNMENT
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
2-15
5th
16-162 6th
LUNCH WILL BE PROVIDED
NOTICE:
April 2, 2008
April 8, 2008
April 22, 2008
Elgin-Sl. Thomas Municipal Association 18th Annual Meeting and Banquet
Social Hour 6:00 - 7:00 p.m. Banquet 7:00 p.m. - Vienna Community Centre
9:00 A.M. - County Council Meeting
9:00 A.M. - County Council Meeting
ST. 'THOMAS
ST. THOMAS - ELGIN
ONTARIO WORKS
423 Talbot Street
St. Thomas, Ontario
N5P lei
nmCORPORATlON OPTI-ffiOlYOf
2008 Operating Budget
St. Thomas-Elgin Ontario Works Department
City of St. Thomas
Long Term Financial Planning Narrative
Introductorv Comments:
The St. Thomas-Elgin Ontario Works Department acts as the Service Manager for the provision
of social services in the City of St. Thomas and throughout the County of Elgin. Funding sources
to support the provision of services resuit from cost sharing arrangements with the Ministries of
Community and Social Services (Income Maintenance/Ontario Works and Employment), Children
and Youth Services (Child Care and Best Start) and Municipal Affairs and Housing (Social
Housing) as well as the County of Elgin. Municipal (City of St. Thomas) funding is also required,
depending upon established cost sharing arrangements, to augment and support the full cost of
specific program/service provision.
Part 1:
2007 Budaet Performance:
A. Overall Budaet Performance:
al Share
2007 A roved Bud et
16 055 834
22 985 020
6 929,186
2007 Actuals
$17 227 063
23 802 312
6 575 249
In 2007, the OW Department experienced an overall increase in revenues and a comparable
increase in expenses over budget(as will be discussed below). Notwithstanding, the
Municipal/City of St. Thomas share of operations /services actually reduced (overall) related to
funding being received from provincial sources that did not require cost sharing. The following
is an overview by OW Program Area:
Page 1 of 12
3/17/200811:28 AM
Program 2007 Budaet 2007 Actual
Area Revenue Expenses Municipal Revenue Expenses Municipal
Share Share
Income 8,392,195 12,893,598 4,501,403 8,597,841 13,221,189 4,623,349
Maintenance
Employment 885,318 1,029,141 143,823 847,740 963,224 115,484
Child Care 3,521,512 4,030,034 508,522 3,829,371 4,306,633 477,261
Social 3,256,809 5,032,247 1,775,438 3,952,110 5,311,265 1,359,155
Housina
Grand Total 16,055,834 22,985,020 6,929,186 17,227 063 23 802.312 6 575,249
The increase in municipal share for Income Maintenance is a result of a Significant increase in
Ontario Works Case load numbers - Average Caseload 2006: 808 vs. Average Caseload 2007:
876
Sianificant Differences:
The follOWing provides a synopsis of significant differences between 2007 approved budget
amounts and the actual expenditures incurred and revenues realized. The information will be
presented by Operating Budget Subgroup and budget/account line.
I. Administration / Allocated Administration Budaet: 61-1-01-0000
61-1-01-0-0000-5012: Building Maintenance/Repair Supply
Budgeted:
Expended:
$ 15,000
$ 8,656
Underexpenditure relates to reduced spending as a result of not moving forward on re-brandingj
renaming of department in 2007. It is the intention to move forward on this initiative in 2008.
II. Income Maintenance Budaet: 61-2-01-0000
A. Revenue
61-2-01-0-00-9040
Ontario Specific Grant DOE
Ontario Specific Grant Consolidated
Social Services Subject - MOH Homemakers
Page 2 of 12
3/17/200811:28 AM
Social Services Subsidy - DOM Hostels
Energy Emergency Fund Subsidy
Form V
Discretionary Expenses Subsidy
Mandatory Expenses Subsidy
. Revenues in each of the areas come from provincial (cost sharing) funding sources and
are received, for the most part, on estimates for service, which given the nature of
income assistance, is somewhat difficult to project. Once actuals are determined, the
province often performs mid and end year reconciliations to recover funds that will not
be used prior to municipal year-end.
. Despite the fact that the department budgeted an increase over 2006 for Income
Assistance/ Subsidy Amounts (Form V), the significant increase in the OW Caseload
resulted in a $185,066 increase in revenues from the Province.
B. Exoenses
61-2-01-0-0000-6810
61-2-01-0-0000-6850
Office Furniture Purchases
Office Equipment Purchases
Budget allocations were not fully expended in this area for fiscal 2007. Some of the
expected expenses were covered off by the Corporate ergonomics budget. That being
said, there continue to be a number of expenses that the Department will incur in 2008
and as a result, projected budget amounts remain unchanged.
61-2-01-0-0000-3011
Budgeted: $0
Expended: $87,170
Regular Part-time Wages
. Expenditure relates to 3 full time contract Social Service Workers hired in 2007 to replace
/ backfill maternity and sick leaves. There is a resulting underexpenditure in Regular Full
-time Wages which relates both to the contracts as well as a decision not to backfill one
of 4 leaves in an attempt to manage through vacancies reductions in Administration
Funding / Cost of Administration Funding from the province (cost share 50/50).
61-2-01-1-01-4040 Legal Fees and Expenses
Budgeted:
Actual:
$ 3,000
$ 7,144
Overexpenditure results from increased caseload as well as one significant case of client
misrepresentation ($40,000) which Department has had to argue, with the assistance of the
Page 3 of 12
3(17(200811:28 AM
City's Solicitor, at the Social Benefits Tribunal.
61-2-01-0-0000-4281 Staff Training and Development
Budgeted: $14,500
Expended: $11,379
61-2-01-0-0000-4281
Budgeted:
Expended:
$3,000
$4,625
Staff Training and Development
. Staff Training and Development budgets were almost fully expended this year due to
need to ensure that all new staff in Department (5) received SDMT training which is
mandatory in order to do work within the department. Overall, training and development
costs are less than total budget of $17,500.
61-2-01-2-0000-4340
61-2-01-3-0001-4370
61-2-01-4-0000-4311
61-2-01-4-0000-4312
61-2-01-4-0001-4311
61-2-01-4-0001-4320
61-2-01-4-0001-4325
OW Income Mtce Homemakers
Domiciliary Hostel
OW Allowances
Recoveries/Reimbursement Form V
ODSP Allowances
ODSP Benefits
ODSP Operating Expense
. All of these expenditures are somewhat difficult to budget given the nature of the
service/business that is being provided. Costs relate to number of individuals being
served as well as the recoveries made and costs accrued against the municipality by the
province. For fiscal 2007, the costs for ODSP and OW Allowances are greater than
budgeted, due fore mostly to the increase in the OW Caseload.
61-2-01-4-0002-4333
61-2-01-4-0002-4336
61-2-01-4-0002-4339
61-2-01-4-0002-4370
61-2-01-4-0003-4330
61-2-01-4-0003-4333
61-2-01-4-0003-4336
61-2-01-4-0003-4351
61-2-01-4-0003-4352
Prosthetic Appliances
Dental Services
Funeral
Other- Health/Non-Health Relate
Surgical Supplies and Dressing
Prosthetic Appliances for Dependent Children
Dental Supplies for Dependent Children
Diabetic Supplies
Medical Transportation
. Each of these line items was underspent in fiscal 2007. Due to the nature of the service
provision, however, it is somewhat difficult to project required budget allocations in each
of these areas which are required expenditures, if needs arise. As a result, budget
estimates for 2007 will remain the same, but will be monitored on an on-going basis to
review expenditures.
Page 4 of 12
3/17/200811:28 AM
III. EmDlovment Budaet: 61-3-01-0000
In 2006, the provincial government (Ministry of Community and Social Services) amended
the funding formula for employment services funding during fiscal 2006. The former "Levels
of Service" funding framework was replaced by "Outcome Based Funding". Fiscal 2006 was
viewed as a transition year and MCSS provided additional funding to support employment
activities. Fiscal 2007 was also a transition year with outcomes funding being established at
$725,342 and fully retained as outcome targets were achieved and the Ministry did not
recover any surplus.
Revenues and Expenses actuals were generally as projected with a resulting $87.84
underexpenditure.
IV. Child Care - 61-4-01-0000
A. Revenues
Overall Comments:
Total Budgeted Revenue:
Total Revenue Received:
$ 3,521,512
$ 3,829,371
Net Increase:
$ 307,859
. The 2007 proposed budget was developed to reflect the department's best estimates
of funding to be received across all funding lines (based on information provided by
the provincial government) as well as projected expenses. The provincial government
provided additional childcare funding in 2007 that was cost flowed to childcare
agencies in this community to support improvements to centres and to staff wages.
B. Expenditures
Overall Comments:
Total Budgeted Expenditures:
Total Actual Expenditures:
$ 4,030,034
$ 4,306,633
. As noted about increased revenues resulted in increased expenditures (flowthrough
to child care agencies)
Page 5 of 12
3/17/200811:28 AM
C. Municipal Share
Total Budgeted:
Total Expended:
$ 508, 522
$ 477, 261
. Despite an increase in both revenues and expenses, there was a reduction in the
municipal share, relating to the fact that the province provided additional funding
that did not require cost sharing
V. Social Housina : 61-5-01-0-0000
A. Revenues
Total Budgeted Revenue:
Total Revenue Received:
$ 3,256,809
$ 3,952,110
Net increase: $ 695,301
Increase relates mostly to an 2006 Audit adjustment
B. Exoenditures
Total Budgeted Expenditures:
Total Actual Expenditures:
$ 5, 032,247
$ 5,311, 265
Increases relate to increased subsidies to service providers including the Local Housing
Corporation which incurred a deficit of $163,221 (see below)
VI. Public Housina: 61-6-01-0-0000
Overall Comments:
. The City of St. Thomas is the primary shareholder for the Elgin St. Thomas Housing
Corporation. In as much as the corporation develops its own budget, which is approved
by its Board of Directors, the budget, which is a break- even budget, forms part of the
overall OW departmental budget.
Page 6 of 12
3/17/200811:28 AM
A. Revenues:
Total Budgeted Revenues:
Total Actual Revenues:
Net Decrease in Revenue
$ 3,036,666
$ 3,003,941
$ (32,659)
. Decrease in revenues relates fore mostly to a decrease in rental revenue collected
over budget projection. This is consistent with increases in OW and ODSP caseloads
as 40%. It is noted that 2006 Actual revenue was $3,087,745.
B. EXDenses:
Total Budgeted Expenses:
Total Actual Expenses:
Overexpenditure:
$ 3,036,666
$ 3,167,162
($ 130,496)
. Significant increases in the following areas:
. Bad Debt - $41,155 vs. $25,190(budget) (more skip outs and tenants not paying)
. Audit - $8,900 vs. $5,770 (increased audit costs due to new audit requirements)
. Consultants $4,852 vs. $1,500 (increased costs due to MPAC consultant)
. Building Maintenance - $480,052 vs. $422,396 (increased costs for replacement of
cracked furnace heat exchanges, required tree trimming (health and safety) as well as
additional costs to maintain units)
. City Taxes - $664,182 vs. $622,447 - LHC budgeted reduction in taxes pending positive
outcome of MPAC appeal - Appeal has not yet been heard or finalized
. Insurance - $55,603 vs. 47,847 - increase in premium
. Eiectricity - $319,029 vs. $271,446 - increased costs of electricity for all units
Overall Net Deficit - $163,221 that the LHC is requesting that the City cover.
Page 7 of 12
3/17/200811:28 AM
Part 2: 2008 Budget Overview and Service Level
Discussions
Overall Comments:
The proposed 2008 budget for the Ontario Works Department is presented in the attached
documents. Because of the nature of the service that is provided by this department, it is
somewhat difficult to exactly project both revenues and expenditures. In this regard, this
projected budget reflects the department's best estimate of expenses and revenues, based on
information (to date) from funders and the local economic situation.
For 2008, the Department is projecting an increase in Social Assistance Caseload that will result
in increase Social Assistance subsidies, 20% of which are municipally funded.
Caseload Projections are based on the following information:
2007 Average caseload - 876
Average last 12 months (Feb 2007 - January 2008) - 893
Average last 7 months - 911
Average last 3 months - 968
Estimate for 2008 - Average caseload 965
2008 will also see the beginning of the province's 3-year plan of uploading of ODSP costs. In
2008, at this point, it is understood that the municipality will be relieved of all costs related to
Drug for ODSP recipients. In 2007, the total costs for all benefits were $1,140,714. The majority
of these costs, with the exception of dental, vision and other benefits have been removed from
the budget. As a result, despite a projected increase in caseload, there is a projected overall
reduction to the proposed budget.
Proposed Budget:
Grand Total Revenue:
Grand Total Expenses:
Net Municipal Share:
$ 16,409[119
$ 23[0410659
$ 6[632[540
Special Note! Request re: City Overhead Costs:
In 2001/2002, the City implemented a City Overhead cost to the Ontario Works Department. In
2008, this cost across all program areas is as follows:
Page 8 of 12
3/17/200811:28 AM
62-2-01-8-0000-7045
61-4-01-8-0000-7045
61-5-01-8-0000-7045
Total
$212,237
$21,185
$14,183
$ 247,605
Up until this year, we have been allocating some portion of our provincial subsidy to these costs.
It was shown separately because we cannot include this amount in the cost share activities with
the county. The province, however, has cost shared this amount with the city.
As we move forward for 2008, we recognize that we have maximized the use of all of our
provincial cost shared funding with OW program costs and thus are recommending that the full
costs of City Hall Overhead be charged as a 100% municipal cost. Expenses projections for
Income Maintenance, Employment and Child Care programs reflect the expenses but the
budgets do not reflect any provincial cost shared revenue allocated against these costs.
Overview of 2008 Budaet - Identification of exoenditures - sianificant
increases/decreases:
I. Administration:
2007 Approved Budget:
2007 Proposed Budget:
Percentage Increase:
$681,690
$697,868
2.4%
Increase in costs relates to minimal increases in salaries as well as other supplies related to
increased caseload.
II. Income Maintenance:
Revenues
Ex enses
Munici al Share
2007 Approved
Bud et
8 392,195
12 893 598
4,501 403
% Difference
Decrease Increase
4.2%
-0.83%
10.2%
Page 9 of 12
3/17/200811:28 AM
. Projected increase in revenues related to increase in OW Subsidy(increase
caseload of which the province cost shares 80/20).
. Despite increase in case load and increase in accompanying expenses, ODB
upload wiii have a net effect of a slight decrease
. Municipal share wiii be decreased accordingly in this area by 10.2%
Significant variances/ requests:
. Increase in wages relating to Union Contract negotiations to be finalized
. Increase in empioyee benefit and OMERS costs
. Projecting increase in Legal fees resulting from continued SBT case
. Increase staff Training and Development - requesting $15,000 which includes council-
approved (Dec 2007) $10,000 deferred revenue carried over from 2007 (surplus from
Elgin ACL). This funding will be used to continue financial review and OW restructuring
activities.
III. Emolovment:
2007 Approved 2008 Proposed % Difference
Budaet Budaet Decrease Increase
Revenues 792.468 867.973 9.5%
Exoenses 936.291 1.041 404 11.2%
Municioal Share 143.823 173.431 20.5%
. We are projecting a similar increase in both provincial revenue and resulting
expenses in order to meet Outcome targets. We will be devoting significant time to
the Employment program this year so as to more fully meet the Ministry's expectation
as well as to enhance our program delivery as caseload increase.
IV. Child Care
2007 Approved
Bud et
3 521 510
$ 4 030 034
$ 508 525
2008 Proposed
Bud et
3 352,942
3 879 409
526 495
. The 2008 proposed budget and its accompanying fiscal projections reflect the
department's best estimates of funding to be received across all funding lines (based
on information provided by the provincial government) and reflects a decrease in
Page 10 of 12
3/17/200811:28 AM
projected revenues and expenses, although the municipal share rises due to use of
less 100% provincial funding.
. We are expecting less use of the Best Start Unconditional Funding this year as both
new childcare centre projects have been funded. The allocation projected reflects
possible assistance to another service provider to increase spaces within the
community, although this is yet to be confirmed.
V. Social Housing
2007 Approved 2008 Proposed % Difference
Budaet Budget Decrease Increase
Revenues 3,256,809 3.441,704 5.7%
Exoenses 5.032.247 5.334,054 6%
Municioal Share 1,775,438 1.892,350 6.6%
. Revenues and Expenditures for Social Housing and the resulting municipal share are
expected to increase this year, mostly because of the increased costs related to the
public housing portfolio (LHC) as noted below.
VII. Public Housing
2007 Approved 2008 Proposed % Difference
Budaet Budaet Decrease Increase
Revenues 3,036,666 3.155,278 3.9%
Exoenses 3.036,666 3.155,278 3.9%
Municipal 3,036,666 3,155,278 3.9%
Contribution
. The proposed 2008 budget for the Elgin St. Thomas Housing Corporation is
presented as a draft budget (as of February 18, 2007) to be approved by the Board
of Directors on February 19, 2007. As in previous years, the budget is a break-even
budget.
. The corporation is projecting a 3.9% increase in revenue and expenses over the
approved 2007 budget. The LHC is projecting a reduction in rental revenue of 2%
which is an estimate based on their current rental rates.
. The LHC has provided additional information under separate copy (hard copy
attached)
Page 11 of 12
3/17/200811:28 AM
Closing Comments:
The information provided in this narrative is to be used in support of the budget documents that
have been developed. As best as possible, the budget estimates being proposed refiect what
this department believes to be the actual costs of delivering the services that we provide
throughout the community. As always, we continue to maximize funding from our multiple
funding sources and monitor cost sharing arrangements to ensure appropriate municipal
contributions.
Original signed by:
Sandra Datars Sere
Director, Ontario Works and Social Housing
Page 12 of 12
3/17/200811:28 AM
Z Gl
m. ;
"
~
-l
o
"
m
-~
'"
~
m
i;i
m
"'
~
~
c.
00
00
o
o
I"
m
~
"'
~
~
"
m
Q, (>) Ol
t.l ::.. Cu
m ~ 0
'#. 'if. <f.
m
"'
~
00
m
o
o
m
il
~
\:
~
~
m
'"
i<l
\:
"
"
Sl
m
~
i:l
1. 0 ~
tv N tv
00 m 0
~ <P. ~
m
~
'"
'2
;.
~
o & ..f,..
Co N ~
~ 0 m
:::R <f. <f.
f
"
.
o
.
~
~
'"
2
'"
to
;;;
~
"'
3l
13
o
o
o
00
"
'"
is
;;;
~
"'
00
m
a
~
o
o
o
l;l
'5
'"
m
'"
\<
~
~
a
'"
'"
m
~
'"
~
m
m
-m
~
'"
\<
-'>
m
o
'"
RJ
if
Gl
"
"
~
~
~
o
.
o
~
1l
~
a
i:l
'"
~
00
a
ll:
'"
\<
o
o
:i
1l
~
'"
~
00
a
ll:
'"
~
~
o
o
00
-~
o
~
'"
"
m
;.
o
~
C.
'"
"
~
m
~
'"
00
":
~
/"
"
"'
t
"
o
~ 0 ,,[]
o 0 0 0
o 0 0 0
-l
~
r
'"
o
()
"
r
0:
o
C
'"
Z
Gl
'"
m
~
c.
't
'"
m
~
-~
~
o
o
!,
m
'"
m
~
'"
~
I"
o ~
m N
~ ~
'if. 'if.
~
;.
~
o
o
'"
is
'"
m
"
;;;
'"
~
~
~
~
~
m
"1
'"
;;;
m
i:l
"
m
~
':
~
m
t
~
~ 0 0
N 0 0
~ 0 0
~ 'if. ~
ii
~
~
m
z
'"
m
'"
m
~
'"
~
'-'
m
m
a
~
~
'"
~
~
o
o
~
~
00
'1
~
i;i
m
a
~
~
'"
~
o
o
m
l:l
~
"
m
":
m
m
'"
\<
"
't
:.
m
~
~
'"
o
::
m
m
o
o
'"
ii
;!
r
"
!1'
m
z
c
m
'"
o
()
"
r
0:
o
c
'"
Z
Gl
~
"'
RJ
c.
"
~
~
'"
m
m
'"
o
~
o
o
m
~
m
'"
~
o
~
"
'"
~
'"
~
'"
m
m
'"
o
~
o
o
~
;
'-'
~
'"
~
-;
'-'
o
~
o
~
i
'"
~
m
o
~
'"
g:
"
ii
~
()
0:
i";
~
m
~
~
~
m
o
00
'"
~
~
o
o
~
'"
m
o
'"
~
'" m
<.n :r.
~ ~
:::R ;f!.
!il
;.
~
'"
m
"
"'
~
~
'"
m
'"
ll:
"
~
~
'"
~
~
m
o 0 0
t.> b b
~ 0 0
~ <f. ~
~
"/; 0
--; 8
ii
;!
r
~
-0
m
z
'"
ill
~
'"
o
m
'"
1:1
~
~
~
a
~
o
"
\<
o
o
~
~
m
'"
~
~
'"
~
~
"
~
o
"
\<
o
o
~
~
~
;.
o
~
"
o
'"
'"
~
~
;.
o
~
"
o
m
o
'"
~
'"
o
ii
~
~
z
c
m
()
0:
i";
\l
~
-'"
13
-~
~
:i
'"
m
-'"
m
':1
g,
'"
o
o
'"
o
~
'"
!B
00
m
"
~
"
~
~
g,
'"
o
o
'"
~
RJ
"'
,:
m
m
~
~
~
"'
,:
ll:
m
_00
m
~
"
I;,
I"
i;!
'"
1.
'-'
~
'"
;;:
'"
'"
~
'"
o
o
Sl
~
'"
"
"-
't
"
E
Rl
'"
o
o
~
'"
-~
~
o
'-'
o
~
o
'"
~
"
m
~
'f
m
i;!
~
0;
"
~
'0
"? 0
ii
;!
r
~
-0
m
z
'"
m
'"
~
i:l
1l
~
o
~
~
~
o
o
'"
m
"1
m
'"
'"
'"
'"
~
'"
"
~
~
'"
o
o
'5
;.
o
~
o
o
"
'"
;.
~
o
o
;;;
'"
m
'"
o
o
~
'"
o
o
o
'"
ii
;!
r
"
~
z
c
m
m
"
-0
r
o
~
m
"i
00
~
i;'
~
00
00
~
~
00
o
o
!:l
~
ill
1.
t
"
00
00
~
~
00
o
o
00
m
~
"'
~
'"
'"
o
00
m
~
~
'"
o
~
t
~
o
'"
m
'"
o
o
o
'"
-l
~
r
Z
g
"
m
~
~
~
()
m
'"
~
"
~
'"
~
;.
o
'"
o
o
~
li:
o
'"
~
';
~
li:
o
'"
~
';
1.
~
c.
~
t;l
o
i1
'"
;;;
~
'"
~
'i/O
-i 0
;,/,.0
ii
~
~
-0
m
z
'"
ill
'"
~
00
~
'"
~
~
III
'"
'"
~
00
o
o
'"
"l
'"
'2
'"
~
~
i\;
'"
~
'"
~
'"
'"
~
00
o
o
~
;;;
m
'-'
'2
ill
~
;;;
m
'-'
'2
'"
00
o
m
'"
o
m
o
~
"
g:
"
1.
\<
'"
~
~
'"
~
I"
'"
~
"
-l
~
r
"
!1'
m
z
c
m
z
()
o
"
m
~
~
m
s;
z
()
m
o
m
'"
()
21
:!I
5
z
00
'"
~
~
~
'"
'"
,.
~()'"
-l0
CO
/'~
00
'"
is
c.
~
m
o
o
m
~c'"
00
GlO
!'I~
'"
o
~
'f
m
i;l
;;
~:$21
-"al;
()
m
~
'"
~
"
~
d~
()
m
00
'"
~
~
c.
~
~
o
o
m,.
cz",
oZo
GlcO
!'I/'~
00
i;'
m
'"
~
~
"
~
-0
m"
CO",
0-00
Gl ~~p;~
!'Igj
00
i;'
m
'"
"l
'"
~
m
C-o
g~M
m-oo
-lOa
~",oo
~m
-l0
.
~
'"
m
~
'"
'"
~
!:J
"-0
o ,
~m~
~&~l\)
IDg a. g
a.~g'co
G (il a.
.....g:<g
-"-~
~
~
'"
"
W~~
(il a 0
. . 00
. .
-"-0
i
'"
3l
'"
~
:\'
o
~ "
0-0
~ ~ ~ ~
)>oaio.o
alllroO:)
CO"
~ c8'
~
'-'
'"
'"
"
"'"
o "
a "
~ ~
o
~~
~ " '"
".0
0-"
"8 ~-.J
~o
~ if> 0 !l! z
0 :I: 0
0 ;= "lJ 0
" 0 r
~ ;:
r s; m
:I: ;:
0 ;0 m "
c: m "i z
00
z -{
m
G) <:;
z
0
m
~ 0
0
c
'" N "- 0
'" 10 12 "lJ
t;l <0 .1\\ it
'" ~ ~
::J ~ 00 t: " OJ
'" <0 co ~ '" 3
N in " ::J
'" '" <0 co
OJ
c
'" N ~
" ~ N '" S
<0 0 '" '>1 ~
!" " '"
0; " '" li ~ ~
0 '"
'" co co :: ...
'" '" '" ~ 3
'" co '" '"
" ~ N N co
... :... 1:; '"
in 0; '" ~
~ N ~ '" ~
i"; in '" '"
" 6 .::! '"
"
'" " N ~
<0 '" "-
N <0 <0 ... <0
'" '" '" 10 '" "
" ~ 00 '" ~
" '" " 3
Rl '" '" '" 8l S.
'" co N
OJ
C
~
'" N S
" ~ N f:l 5:
<0 0 '"
'" " '" ~ 3
0; " '" '" S.
0 '" co
in " in ~ &
<0 0 <0
N co ~ ~ co
;,. ;,. ~ " '"
'"
R! 0; '" '" I);
i< N '" ~ '"
co <0
"lJ b'
a c
iil 0
3
00
Of
'" N '" '" ro
<0 co '" '"
'" in tl '"
" 0 '"
<I' ""- ""- ""-
OJ
C
'" N ~
in 10 ~ " S
N :::j co " "lJ
<0 " N ~
" in " b> '"
'" ~ co '" 0
'" '" " " OJ
~ 2l 00 in N 3 ~.
'" co
OJ
c
~
S
'" N "
" ~
co ~ 0 3
N " co "
10 " " "oJ 10 S.
" co '"
co ~ co '" 0
in '" ~ i;J
'" '" N
REPORTS OF COUNCIL AND STAFF
MARCH 25. 2008
Staff Reports - (ATTACHED)
18 Manager of Economic Development - South Central Ontario Region (SCOR)
32 Manager of Economic Development - Tourism Summer Students
36 Chief Administrative Officer - County Land Use Planning
40 Chief Administrative Officer - Jury Recommendations from the Hipson Inquest
54 Ambulance & Emergency Management Coordinator - Execulink 911 Agreement
57 Ambulance & Emergency Management Coordinator - Request for Evacuation Site
59 Director of Senior Services - T/L, Manager of Programs and Therapy Services - "Volunteer
Elgin" Annual Event-County of Elgin Homes Participation
62 Director of Financial Services - Budget Comparison - December 31, 2007
67 Director of Financial Services - Appropriate Level of Unreserved Fund Balance
71 Director of Financial Services - Treasurer's Statement of Remuneration and Expenses - Coun
Council
72 Director of Financial Services - Treasurer's Statement of Remuneration and Expenses -
Outside Boards
73 Director of Financial Services - Statement on Convention Expenses
74 Purchasing Co-ordinator - Semi-Annual Information Report - Contract Awards (July 1,2007 to
December 31,2007) and Direct Negotiation Expenditures (Jan. - Dec. 2007)
Director of Financial Services - 2008 Budget Highlights Update (enclosed separately)
84 Manager of Cultural Services, Manager of Economic Development and Tourism Services-
Collaborative Partnership - The Arts & Cookery Bank
86 Manager of Cultural Services, Director of Cultural Services - Freedom of the County Update
89 Director of Cultural Services - Library Promotions Coordinator
91 Director of Cultural Services - Cultural Services Grant Funding
94 Director of Cultural Services, Curator of Elgin County Museum - Museum Advisory
Committee Appointees
96 Payroll & Benefits Coordinator, Director of Human Resources - Annual Benefit Renewal 2008
(Renewal Report available for viewing in Administrative Services)
103 Payroll & Benefits Coordinator, Director of Human Resources - Life and Accidental Death and
Dismemberment Insurance Coverage
105 Construction Technologist, Purchasing Co-Ordinator - Capital Project - Talbot Line
Rehabilitation, Contract #6200-06-03
107 Manager of Road Infrastructure - Mill Creek Culvert - Sparta
16
110 Director of Engineering Services - Road Master Plan
127 Director of Engineering Services - Accident Review on County of Elgin Roads - 2006
135 Director of Engineering Services - Municipal Infrastructure Agreement
157 Director of Engineering Services - Highway #3 Planning Study - Update
160 Director of Information Technology - 2008 IT Plans
17
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM:
Alan Smith
Manager, Economic Development & Tourism Services
DATE:
March 6th, 2008
SUBJECT:
South Central Ontario Region (SCaR)
CORPORATE GOAL(S) REFERENCED:
1. To ensure fiscal responsibility and accountability
2. To promote Elgin as "The Place to Live"
3. To forge community partnerships
4. To recognize and seize opportunities for improvement
INTRODUCTION:
In light of the decline in the production and processing of one of the regions primary
crops - tobacco - and the need to progress to a more sustainable economy,
municipal leaders from several rural municipalities have been strategizing to attract
additional provincial and federal government support for their communities (a
summary of these activities is outlined in appendix 1 ).
As a result of these meetings of Mayors and Wardens, a working group of economic
development staff from Elgin, Norfolk, Oxford, Brant and Middlesex prepared a joint
report entitled South Central Ontario Region (SCaR) Action Plan (see appendix 2).
The Plan describes the need for the development of a long-term regional economic
strategy combined with short-term strategic action items to promote economic growth
and diversification of the region. An assembly of Mayors, Wardens and municipal
staff reviewed the report on February 22, 2008. The Mayors and Wardens in
attendance endorsed the recommendations contained in the report (see appendix 3)
and prepared a resolution to be circulated to County Councils for endorsement.
DISCUSSION:
The goal of the SCaR Action Plan is:
To develop a strategy for the diversification ofthe rural regional economy
to meet and fill the void from the decline of the agricultural economy and
the demise of some of its traditional sectors. The plan will be a
partnership with aI/levels of government to set the stage for future long
term, sustainable growth within the Five Counties rural region. The
approach will include the development of a long-term regional economic
diversification strategy combined with short-term strategic action items to
kick-start the process.
The SCaR Action Plan provides details on the three major recommendations
proposed, which are:
A. Establish a Regional Partnership
B. Short Term Path - Strategic Investment Opportunities
C. Long Term Path - Regional Economic Diversification Strategy
The Short Term Path will seek to identify, prioritize and fund critical regional
investments to "jump-start" the process of economic recovery. Ideally, this would
include the establishment of an economic development diversification fund,
which would focus on investing in initiatives (such as infrastructure, commodity
and market adjustments, agriculture & agri-food innovations, and
entrepreneurship). While the other path, the Long Term Path will involve the
development and implementation of a longer-term regional economic
diversification strategy leading to sustainable economic growth in the region.
In order to move fOlWard with these initiatives, is dependent on the establishment
of a formal partnership by the five Counties of Elgin, Brant, Oxford, and
Middlesex. This identity would use the formal name "South Central Ontario
Region" and acronym of "SCaR" (see appendix 4). If the regional partnership is
endorsed by all five counties, staff will move fOlWard jointly in collaboration with
representatives from the provincial and federal government, in order to put
resources behind the SCaR Action Plan.
At the February 22 meeting, the Mayors and Wardens supported a request to
each County Council in the amount of $5,000, to fund ongoing initiatives for this
program.
If Elgin County joins this regional partnership, the Warden and staff will continue
to update County Council on progress and outcomes.
CONCLUSION:
A working group of economic development staff from Elgin, Norfolk, Oxford,
Brant and Middlesex prepared a joint report entitled South Central Ontario
Region (SCaR) Action Plan. On February 22, 2008, the Mayors and Wardens
who were in attendance from those communities endorsed the recommendations
contained in the report and prepared a resolution to be circulated to County
Councils for endorsement. The report contains recommendations to develop
strategies both short and long term in order to enhance economic growth and
diversification of the region. Consequently, County Council's participation in
"SCOR" may have positive economic benefits for those communities within the
County of Elgin.
RECOMMENDATION:
Whereas representatives of municipalities in Brant, Elgin, Middlesex, Norfolk and
Oxford, have been exploring a regional partnership over the past year to develop
community transition strategies for the economic growth and diversification of the
region in collaboration with provincial and federal representatives, be it therefore
resolved;
That the County of Elgin endorse the recommendations as contained in the
South Central Ontario Region (SCaR) action plan; and
That the County of Elgin provide seed funding of $5,000.00 from the Economic
Development and Tourism Services budget towards the initiatives contained
tIlerein; and
That the County of Elgin (and municipal staff) provide support to the initiatives
within existing staffing levels; and
That the March 6th, 2008, report entitled South Central Ontario Region (SCaR),
as submitted by the Manager, Economic Development and Tourism Services, be
forwarded to Elgin County's lower tier governments for information purposes.
Alan Smith
Manager, Economic Development
Appendix 1: Historical Development of "SCOR"
On January 17, 2007, municipal leaders from Elgin, Norfolk, Oxford, Brant and
Haldimand met with representatives of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers
Marketing Board then unanimously endorsed a resolution supporting the board's
efforts to negotiate a tobacco exit strategy. The Mayors also collectively called on the
provincial and federal govemments to meet with them by March 1, 2007, to discuss a
tobacco exit and community transition strategy.
The deadline passed and on March 28, 2007, the MayorslWardens met to
prepare a plan to encourage investment and support from the provincial and
federal governments during our collective economic transition. A discussion
paper entitled Proposals for Government Investment: Addressing Economic
Decline in Tobacco Growing Counties of Southwestern Ontario was prepared
and sent to Ministers and others. Mayors also scheduled appointments with
Ministers at conferences through the summer, and discussed the proposals with
them. As a result, the provincial government assigned staff liaisons.
In October 2007, provincial government staff met with the MayorslWardens of
municipalities in Norfolk, Oxford, Elgin and Middlesex Counties, and their economic
development staff. Provincial staff listened and indicated they were willing to continue
to work with the municipalities.
A working group of economic development staff from Elgin, Norfolk, Brant, and
Oxford met with the provincial staff again on November 29,2007, to explore aspects
of the offer of assistance from the province. Provincial staff indicated they had been
authorized to work on a regional economic development strategy with affected
municipalities.
In December, Chief Administrative Officers from the participating municipalities met
with their respective economic development staff and the provincial staff to discuss
next steps. Representatives of the federal government were also on hand at the
meeting to monitor the discussions so they may consider offering assistance in some
way.
As a result of the December meeting, it was agreed that a working group of
economic development staff from the five Counties meet to explore next steps and
make recommendations to a future meeting of a steering committee of Mayors.
On February 22, 2008, an assembly of Mayors, Wardens and municipal staff
reviewed the South Central Ontario Region (SCOR) Action Plan as developed by the
working group. The Mayors and Wardens in attendance endorsed the
recommendations contained in the report and prepared a resolution to be circulated
to County Councils for endorsement.
Appendix 2
SCOR Action Plan
ACTION PLAN
South Central Ontario Region (SCOR) Action Plan
February 22, 2008
Meeting of the Mayors and Wardens
Delhi, Ontario
Prepared by:
Heather Adams, Town of Aylmer
Mark Cassidy, Township of Norwich
Stephen Evans, Middlesex County
Clark Hoskin, Norfolk County
Cephas Panschow, Town of Tillsonburg
Eric Rowen, County of Brant
Alan Smith, County of Elgin
Our Story
The South Central Ontario Region has enjoyed almost a century of prosperity driven,
to a very large degree, by a prosperous crop-growing sector. Other agricultural
industries have been strong as well, with agri-food processing representing a
significant portion of the area's employment. Support industries and consumer-
oriented businesses have flourished in concert. Communities provided a high level of
services with low municipal tax rates.
Production of one of the region's primary crops has been in deciine for several years
and many of the food processing plants have left the area in the past two decades.
The local economy has diversified and now is less reliant on any single agricultural
sector and on locai employment. An increasing number of people are now travelling
to work in urban centres outside the region, or have moved to those centres.
The drive to diversification has not been easy and many individuais and famiiies have
suffered losses. Through three distinct diversification programs over the past three
decades, governments have encouraged and assisted growers to switch to
alternative enterprises with generally disappointing results.
Due to age and stage-of-Iife, a high percentage of farmers will not be in a position to
begin a new farming (or other business) enterprise, and neither will they be willing
to retrain to begin a new career. This group of individuals and families will need
targeted assistance that may be different from what other impacted people need.
Likewise, a significant number of farmers and owners of other businesses that wish
to make a transition will lack the capital and borrowing capacity needed to enter new
entrepreneurial ventures. This group will also have specific needs in order that they
may make a successful transition.
New development will be needed that will create employment opportunities for the
people of the South Central Ontario Region. New organizations and structures will
aiso be needed. Although there will be challenges ahead, the drive to diversification
will lead to new opportunities.
The Road Ahead
Agriculture will continue to play an important role in the economy of the South
Central Ontario Region, producing a very broad range of high-value horticultural
crops. Tobacco may continue as a viable crop, although the acreage may fall
substantially and growers remaining in this sector will likely focus on niche markets
that remain unaddressed by multinational tobacco manufacturers. As the acreage of
tobacco declines, the area of other high-value crops will be expanded. A managed
decline will greatly enhance the successful transition to alternative sources of income
for individuals, businesses and communities.
The region has a strong agricultural base that can be built upon. The sandy and
silt-loam soils are well suited to a variety of high-value horticultural crops. It is
geographically iocated close to a huge consumer market that includes the urban
areas of Buffalo, Boston, New York, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Detroit, Montreal, and
Toronto. When one crop declines, as tobacco is now and tomatoes have in the past,
other crops rise in importance. Although farmers can adapt to production of other
crops, commercialization and marketing are limiting factors. Marketing
research and marketing organizations will be important catalysts to improve the
prospects for transition in the region.
Many high-value horticultural crops are grown now in many parts of the South
Central Ontario Region. Some of these will be expanded in the future as new
marketing and/or processing opportunities are developed or existing facilities
expanded. Changes in production technology, such as greenhouse production of
traditional field crops, will continue to provide opportunities for enhanced profits.
Transgenic uses for various crops will provide opportunities as commercial
applications are discovered. New niche enterprise opportunities will continue to be
important as well. Functional foods and nutraceutical crops, especially, show real
promise for the future. These newer crops and new technologies will require ongoing
research, but will provide significant returns.
Livestock enterprises have declined in importance In the region, but may find their
way back. The suppiy-managed poultry industry, for instance, provides marketing
stability and has interested some tobacco growers. New technology that converts
manure into methane fuel may revolutionize concerns about manure storage on
sandy soils.
The sandy soils present challenges, too, as they need careful management and
extensive irrigation, and are susceptible to ground water contamination. This places
some limitations on industrial development and intensive livestock operations in
some parts of the region.
The South Central Ontario Region is a treasure trove of natural attractions,
waiting to be developed into tourist destinations. This presents a very real
opportunity to people in the area, if they choose to develop that opportunity. A well
researched and planned cooperative effort will be needed to make strides with the
tourism industry. Careful attention must be given to preserving the natural
environment while developing the tourism opportunities, as has been done
successfully in other communities.
Transportation access is key to growth for much of the South Central Ontario
Region. Industrial development, especially, is becoming increasingly concentrated on
or near major highway corridors as clusters have developed around magnet plants.
Major upgrades in the local infrastructure are needed, in order to attract new
Industrial plants and provide better connections to the NAFTA super highway.
Proposed Lake Erie ferry projects provide very attractive opportunities for enhanced
freight, passenger, and highway access to the region.
The greatest potential for economic development lies with the region's existing
businesses. Research has shown that 80% of economic growth comes from
businesses that are already established in a community. These must be retained and
assisted wherever possible. Many local businesses will need to change their focus as
the economy changes around them, and should be encouraged and assisted to do so.
With the region's past prosperity, some municipalities have been able to afford the
luxury of being highly selective with its development. As a result, the region is
known for Its excellent quality of life standard. There is a growing realization,
however, that much greater emphasis must be placed on economic
development in order that people can maintain this standard of living and lifestyle.
Outmigration is a real concern as young people and young families, especially, follow
the job and business opportunities to more urban areas. The region's population is
expected to age considerably, leading to an erosion of community-based services
such as in education and recreation.
In the South Central Ontario Region, the status quo is not an option. Small urban
and rural communities will either fall behind or move ahead. Attempts to hold on to
the past will be an impediment to progressing to a new, more sustainable economy.
There are no ready solutions to the economic woes associated with the decline of
some sectors of agriculture. Studies in the area have identified several opportunities
to be explored and many actions that should be taken. However, these may not fully
replace the level of incomes In the economy that have been enjoyed In the past.
Without a concerted emphasis on economic development, the region will regress as
jobs and people move away and municipalities will be unable to afford the services
wanted by all. With a well-planned and well executed strategy, having a strong
development emphasis, the people of the region will be able to maintain a high
quality standard of living and lifestyle. This will require the strong political will of
local decision makers with assistance from the Governments of Canada and Ontario,
and innovative entrepreneurship by farmers and other business owners to be
successful.
Recent Progress
Early In 2007, municipal leaders in South Central Ontario Region prepared a plan to
encourage investment and support from the provincial and federal governments. A
discussion paper, entitled Proposals for Government Investment: Addressing
Economic Decline in Tobacco Growing Counties of Southwestern Ontario, was
prepared and sent to Ministers and others. Mayors also scheduled appointments with
Ministers at conferences through the summer, and discussed the proposals with
them. As a result, staff liaisons were assigned by the provincial and federal
governments.
By late in 2007, a working group of economic development staff from Brant, Elgin,
Middlesex, Norfoik and Oxford met with the provincial staff to explore aspects of the offer
of assistance from the province. Provinciai staff indicated they had been authorized to
work on a regional economic development strategy with affected municipalities. Chief
Administrative Officers from the participating municipalities met with their respective
economic development staff and the provincial staff to discuss next steps.
Representatives of the federal government were also on hand at the meeting to monitor
the discussions so they may consider offering assistance in some way.
As a result of the December meeting, it was agreed that a working group of
economic development staff from the five Counties will explore next steps and make
recommendations to a future meeting of a steering committee of Mayors.
Recommendations to Steering Committee
Goal
To develop a strategy for the diversification of the rural regional economy to meet
and fill the void from the decline of the agricultural economy and the demise of some
of its traditional sectors. The plan will be a partnership with all levels of government
to set the stage for future long term, sustainable growth within the Five Counties
rural region. The approach will include the development of a long term regional
economic diversification strategy combined with short term strategic action items to
kick start the process.
Recommendations
Further work is intended to take a dual path approach. One path, the Long Term
Path will develop and implement a longer term regional economic diversification
strategy leading to sustainable economic growth in the region. The other path, the
Short Term Path will seek to identify, prioritize and fund critical regional investments
to "boost" or jump-start the process of economic recovery.
It is anticipated that a formal regional partnership among the participants is
required. This would include an allocation of resources to support the ongoing work
of the partnership and the development of an operating agreement including a
process for administration, decision making and oversight.
The working group of Economic Development officials from the South Central Ontario
Region makes the following recommendations to the Steering Committee.
A: Estabiish a Reoional Partnership
The establishment of a formal partnership among the participants is required in order
to demonstrate the region's willingness to work together in support of regional
strategic economic recovery strategies. This partnership would provide a mechanism
to formalize agreements and plans with each other and senior levels of government,
provide an administrative mechanism to guide the strategic planning exercise, to
manage the strategic investment of funds in both the short and longer term, and
create a widely known identity for the region.
Specific requirements include the need to clearly identify all of the participant
entitles, confirm the region as geographic area of the five counties, solidify political
support for the initiatives, obtain and manage resources for the process, determine
priorities and determine and administer a cost-sharing formula.
The adoption of a name and logo for the partnership would also be important to
support the development of a recognizable identity both within the region and with
our partners in the senior levels of government. A proposed concept for an identity
is the use of the formal name "South ,Central Ontario Region" and acronym of
"SCOR". A design for letterhead using this concept is attached for consideration.
B: Short Term Path - Strateaic Investment Opportunities
There is an urgent need for strategic investment in infrastructure to sustain the
region as it struggles, particularly in the agricultural sector, through this period of
economic transition, as evidenced by the demise of the markets for some of its
commodities.
Early in the process, the Mayors' group developed a list of proposals for investment
opportunities in the areas of infrastructure, commodity and market adjustments,
agriculture & agri-food innovations, building entrepreneurship and shifting the
economic base. A process is required to identify the three or four top priorities which
could be funded in the short term which will support the ongoing recovery efforts and
build capacity for future diversification.
Ideally, this would include the establishment of an economic development
diversification fund which would focus on investing in initiatives required to support
economic diversification and the development of a long term sustainable economy.
The fund would be sustainable through a regular allocation of funds administered by
the funding partners through a regional partnership organization and guided by the
economic development strategy for the longer term.
C: Long Term Path - Reaional Economic Diversification Strateav
Develop and implement a longer term regional economic diversification strategy
leading to sustainable economic growth in the region. The work would include:
developing a regional data base and Identifying the region's current
competitive advantages and disadvantages - businesses, labour force,
resources, life style, etc. and the region's potential
analyze data and identify the region's potential for future development as
well as the supports, resources, key infrastructure required to achieve
success
develop a cohesive regional economic development strategy which
identifies the priorities for action, investment
outline the stakeholders, their programs, timelines, roles and
responsibilities
determine a critical path for moving forward including deliverables, target
dates and ownership.
Next Stees (bv Aeril 1):
1. Present the proposal to the Mayors/Wardens and CAOs group at a joint
meeting on Feb. 22 - COMPLETED
. At the Feb. 22, 2008 meeting, the Mayors/Wardens Working Group
endorsed the SCOR Action Plan and approved a formal resolution for
endorsement by municipal councils
2. Request that the Mayors'/Wardens' group
a. ensure political support from each of the upper or single tier
municipalities in the five county region
b. define the process to determine municipai participation
c. confirm the proposal
d. meet with provincial Minister Pupatello at OGRA!ROMA (Feb 25)
e. meet with federal Minister(s)
5. EDO's to work with Ministry reps to confirm the path forward.
Next Stees (bv June 1):
1. Prepare a Terms of Reference, in cooperation with provincial and federal
government staff; negotiate contract with MEDT for facilitation support.
2. Identify the players who need to be at the table as part of facilitated
discussions: Mayors/Wardens, EDOs, community/business leaders, leading
farmers, Ministry representatives (MEDT, OMAFRA, MNR, MOE, MTO, MIR,
MTR, etc.), CFDCs, federal departments (Industry Canada, AAFC, etc.)
3. Hire a facilitator to develop a regional economic diversification strategy.
4. Hire a facilitator to coordinate a meeting or series of meetings with
representatives of the five-County participants to:
a. Review, identify and prioritize common strategic directions and actions
in the individuai municipalities' strategic plans;
b. Review, identify and prioritize the Mayors' list of suggestions
contained within the Proposal for Government Investment
document; and
c. Select and support top-priority pilot projects for immediate
provincial and/or federal funding aimed at public infrastructure
Improvements, financial incentives for the private sector, and
other projects
5. Announce the initiative in a joint media conference invoiving Mayors/Wardens
and provincial and federal ministers.
Appendix 3: February 22. 2008 Resolution
RESOLUTION
That the representatives assembled on February 22, 2008 in Delhi endorse the
draft documentation of the SCOR action plan and that the resolution as prepared
by the working group be approved and forwarded to the 5 Counties for adoption.
Moved by:
Steven Molnar
Seconded by:
Dennis Travale
Carried unanimously
Appendix 4: SCaR Loqo
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM:
Alan Smith
Manager, Economic Development & Tourism Services
DATE:
February 26th, 2008
SUBJECT:
Tourism Summer Students
CORPORATE GOAL(S) REFERENCED:
1. To ensure fiscal responsibility and accountability
2. To promote Elgin as "The Place to Live"
3. To forge community partnerships
4. To provide innovative and collaborative quality service
6. To recognize and seize opportunities for improvement
INTRODUCTION:
As of December 31st, 2007, the St. Thomas Elgin Tourist Association (STETA)
has been dissolved. Delivery of tourism services is now the responsibility of the
County's Economic Development and Tourism Services department. One of the
key functions or services that STETA provided was the staffing of tourist
information booths throughout various parts of the County and the City of St.
Thomas. The Economic Development and Tourism Services department plans
on continuing this important service. However, with the transition from STETA, a
non-profit organization, to the County there are differences in operating
procedures that may hinder the hiring of Tourism Services summer staff.
Recognizing that hiring of Tourism Services summer staff will be an annual
occurrence requires County Council making minor adjustments to human
resource procedures enabling the Chief Administrative Officer and the Deputy
Clerk to have signing authority of grants and contracts.
DISCUSSION:
Historically, under STET A, three summer students (the third being a partnership
with the Military Museum) have staffed the tourist booths in St. Thomas, Port
Stanley and Port Burwell as follows: Jumbo Caboose - seven days per week;
Port Stanley - Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays; and Port Burwell Lighthouse -
Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays (as an added complement to the
Municipality of Bayham). Students also receive experience in the business office
over the course of the summer. All students work a total of 40 hours per week.
Students are hired in May and work through until Labour Day.
In order to assist with the costs of staffing the booths the following grants have
been used by STET A:
. Ontario Ministry of Tourism: minimum wage for 35 hours per week for
seven weeks - full funding for one student
. Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities (MTCU): (formerly
Service Canada) up to 40 hours per week for up to 10 weeks - full funding
for one student
. Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing - Rural Summer Jobs
Service Funding: $2.00 per hour for hours not covered by other grants.
For the past several years, STET A applied for two students, annually, under the
MTCU program. However each year, STETA only received funding approval for
one summer student. The Elgin Military Museum also applies annually for two
students under the MTCU program. If STETA only received funding for one
student, the Military Museum would use the grant they received to staff the
Jumbo Caboose in St. Thomas with STETA paying the difference between the
grant and the actual cost. This has been a tremendous partnership, which
allowed STETA staff to keep requests from both Councils for funding for summer
students at a consistent level.
Like STET A, the County of Elgin will continue to apply for two students under the
MTCU program. If successful, this would give Tourism Services the option of
hiring an extra individual to augment the summer student complement in West
Elgin (Backus Page House) and Sparta in Central Elgin (Forge and Anvil
Museum) both of who already receive student grants. The increased cost of this
"extra" student is not considered in the proposed 2008 budget
The Economic Development and Tourism Services department plans on
continuing the hiring of summer students to staff the various tourist booths as
described above. Applying to the above mentioned grants would also continue as
will the partnership with the Elgin Military Museum. It should be noted that the
County is not eligible for full funding from MTCU unlike STET A, which had "non-
profit" status. Instead the County is eligible for 50% of the minimum wage (for up
to 40 hours per week for up to 10 weeks).
For 2008 it is anticipated that total summer student expenses will be $12,961.00.
Anticipated grants are expected to provide revenue of $5,613 leaving a balance
of $7,348 of which the City of St. Thomas pays 40% leaving a net to the County
of $4,409. However, it must be stressed that this budget amount in 2008 and
future years may change, as revenue (grants) is dependent upon other
government agencies and partnerships. The worse case scenario is that grants
are no longer issued and established partnerships are no longer possible which
would be reflected as an increase in the approved department's operating budget
of that particular year. Therefore, there are some uncertainties with the revenue
stream when considering the hiring of summer student staff.
Although there is budgetary uncertainty with respect to the receiving of grant
monies and the number of staff that might be obtained under a grant situation,
operating tourist booths is an integral part of the delivery of tourism services in
Elgin County and in the City of St. Thomas. If the appropriate staffing levels are
not maintained this could hinder the quality of our tourism product and our
competitive position. Therefore, staff are requesting that the hiring of temporary
summer students to staff tourist information booths be recognized by Council as
part of the regular operational and staffing component of the Economic
Development and Tourism Services department; and the level of service (staffing
of summer students) be at the discretion of the Manager of Economic
Development and Tourism Services.
Having the hiring of Tourism Services temporary summer student staff being
recognized as a regular yearly occurrence by Council will also assist in the hiring
of individuals in a time sensitive situation. With tourism now being delivered by a
County department rather than a non-profit organization like STETA there is
some differences in hiring procedures - even for temporary summer staff. Usually
County Council would provide direction to the appropriate signing officers, the
CAO and the Deputy Clerk to sign funding applications/contracts. However, grant
applications for summer student staff must be completed in February each year.
If and when the grants are approved, little time is available to undertake the
hiring process and select eligible candidates and actually hire before the students
are needed to staff the tourist booths. Post secondary students, who actively
seek employment, are interviewed as early as March Break. Having to return to
County Council each time for the hiring of temporary summer student staff
including the signing approval of grants and contracts may hinder the hiring and
eventual operation of the various tourist booths. Therefore, staff is
recommending that authority be given to the CAO and/or Deputy Clerk to sign for
grant applications and contracts for Visitor Services temporary summer students
on an annual basis. An information report will be provided to County Council
each year updating Council on the status of Tourism Services summer students.
CONCLUSION:
Over the past several years STETA have hired summer students to operate
tourist booths in various parts of the County and the City of St. Thomas. A variety
of grants and partnerships have been used to reduce the incurred costs. The
County's Economic Development and Tourism Services department plans on
continuing this practice as tourist information booths play an integral role in
promoting tourism within the region. Consequently, the process of hiring
individuals to staff the booths will be an annual undertaking by Tourism Services.
This recognition of a continuing annual service does have some budget
uncertainty as grants for these temporary positions can not be fully relied on.
Furthermore in order to provide this service to the public in an efficient and
effective manner requires minor adjustments to the County's human resource
procedures by enabling staff (CAO and/ or Deputy Clerk) to have signing
authority with respect to grants and contracts pertaining to Tourism Services
summer staff. This change in procedure will provide staff the flexibility to meet
the tight time lines that are required for application and hiring purposes.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the hiring of temporary summer students to staff tourist information booths
be recognized as part of the regular operational and staffing component of the
Economic Development and Tourism Services department as described in the
February 26th, 2008, report submitted by the Manager of Economic Development
and Tourism Services; and
That on an annual basis the level of staffing of tourist information booths be at
the discretion of the Manager of Economic Development and Tourism Services in
consultation with the Director of Human Resources; and
That the Chief Administrative Officer and/or the Deputy County Clerk be
authorized to sign grant applications and contracts for Visitor Services summer
students on an annual basis beginning in 2008.
Respectfully Submitted
Alao~M--
Manager, Economic Development
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM:
Mark G. McDonald,
Chief Administrative Officer.
DATE:
March 6, 2008
SUBJECT:
County Land Use Planning
CORPORATE GOAL/5) REFERENCED:
. To ensure fiscal responsibility and accountability
. To promote Elgin as "The Place to Live"
. To forge community partnerships
. To provide innovative and collaborative quality service
. To recognize and seize opportunities for improvement
. To build and maintain an efficient, affordable, effective and safe
transportation network that accommodates the diverse needs of our
communities and is able to support economic development and
sustainable growth
Introduction:
County Council, at its February 2008 meeting, directed staff to investigate the
feasibility of establishing a County land use function and report back. This report
examines the proposition of establishing said function with a recommendation.
Discussion:
Current Planning Functions:
Every Municipality within the County of Elgin has an Official Plan and each
Municipality purchases professional planning services through various
arrangements. Committees of Adjustment are used for minor variances and the
County provides Land Division services. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and
Housing is the planning approval authority for Official Plans, Official Plan
Amendments and for Plans of Subdivision/Condominiums.
The Planning Act sets out the rules for land use planning and determines how
land use may be controlled and by whom. The Act is complimented by Provincial
Policy Statements which are designed to ensure that Provincial interests are
upheld. Under the Provincial umbrella, local planning administrations are
established, the rights of citizens to be notified are determined and provisions are
2
made for appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). The Province promotes
Provincial interests such as protecting farmland, natural resources and the
environment. In addition, the Province provides comments and advice on
planning matters for municipalities.
The local role is to make planning decisions that determine the future of the local
community, and to prepare planning documents such as Official Plans and
Zoning By-laws.
In counties, or upper-tier planning sectors, broad planning matters are
addressed, especially ones that cross municipal boundaries. A County Official
Plan is developed and counties may be granted authority to approve local Official
Plans, Plans of Subdivision and Condominium Development. Without an
approved Official Plan an upper-tier municipality's planning authority is limited to
a commenting capacity on planning related matters, which in Elgin tends to be
limited to transportation issues respecting County roads.
It is interesting to note from a 2005 survey of counties that three have planning
functions limited to Land Division only; three have no planning function at all; and
sixteen counties have full planning functions using a variety of approaches.
What is a Countv Official Plan?
A County Official Plan is a strategic planning document related to future land use
and the physical development of a municipality over a twenty year period. It
establishes a policy framework to give guidance to local municipalities in the
preparation of their local Official Plans and Zoning By-laws. The upper-tier
Official Plan sets out a framework for coordination and cooperation amongst the
local municipalities and the County on planning and development issues that
transcend local boundaries. While local Official Plans are required to conform to
county plans, in practice the policies of upper-tier Official Plans tend to provide
broader coordination, leaving detailed policies to be provided locally.
Whv Adopt a Countv Official Plan?
Once the authority is delegated to the County from the Province, approvals take
on a local flavour, where decision-making takes place at the municipal level
rather than provincially. The County Official Plan is based on local policies with
input from local councils and ratepayers. It would focus on areas of growth
management, transportation, economic development and municipal services, to
name a few. The County Official Plan could establish an "urban buffer", that
being services that would enable the logical expansion of the service
communities where there are cross-municipal interests in abutting areas. A
County planning function would work hand-in-hand with economic development
3
by compiling statistics on population breakdowns and projections; on labour force
numbers; and on community services and facilities. These are all tools for
economic development.
How Would County Planninq Benefit Local Municipalities?
More local accountability would be generated since approvals would not be made
at the Province. A coordinated strategic direction on cross-jurisdictional matters
would be developed allowing for orderly progress. The symbiotic relationship
between planning and economic development would be enhanced as each
function would compliment the other. County planning would help present a
single coordinated voice in addressing the Province on new and emerging policy
matters. More streamlined decision making would occur which translates into
quicker turn-around times for development approvals thereby minimizing delays
in realizing new assessments. In addition, the County could provide additional
resources for local planning decisions such as by providing statistical information,
trends in development and economic analysis.
The Approach:
One approach is to establish a very basic County planning function staffed by a
Planner, a Planning Assistant and secretarial support. The department would
spearhead the development of a County Official Plan and be responsible for
approving local Plans of Subdivision, local Official Plans and amendments. Local
municipalities would continue to be responsible for local planning similar to what
they do today. The role of the County Land Division Committee could remain
unaltered or it could eventually be devolved to the Lower-Tier, depending on the
will of Council.
The Process:
Once a County planning function is established, the new Planner would
investigate the development of a County Official Plan. That Plan must eventually
be approved by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing before being
implemented. Once a draft Official Plan is written, at least one public meeting
must be held to review public input. Community and local council input is critical
to its development. Once approved, Municipal Official Plans and Zoning By-laws
must conform. If a conflict exists between the County Plan and the local
Municipal Plan, then the County Plan shall prevail. The trade-off is that more
local planning control will be exercised thereby addressing municipal concerns to
a greater extent than if the Province was the decision-maker. The potential to
effect quick planning decisions may be improved as well, thereby accelerating
development and the collection of revenue from tax assessment.
4
The Budqet:
On a full-year basis, a fully operational County planning function consisting of
one full-time qualified Planner, a Planning AssistantlTechnician and a part-time
secretary would entail approximately $175,000 in wages and benefits.
Operational expenses are estimated at $15,000 per year not including furniture,
computers and other office related needs. Therefore, the department should be
able to operate for approximately $200,000 annually. However, by the time a
County Planner position is advertised and filled, the function likely could not
commence before July 2008, therefore a budget representing half of the year
would suffice (approximately $100,000).
Council should be made aware that the development of a County Official Plan,
which is largely done by consultants, will cost somewhere near $300,000 to
complete. This would not be issued until sometime in 2009 and because it
represents a one-time cost it could be funded from a Reserve Account.
Conclusion:
County planning can be considered an arm of economic development, in that it
helps accelerate planning decisions, provides a coordinated approach to
development and offers a vision for planning that transcends municipal
boundaries.
Recommendation:
That the report entitled County Land Use Planning dated March 6th, 2008 from
the Chief Administrative Officer be approved; and,
That a County Planning function be established commencing on July 1st, 2008;
and,
That the 2008 Composite County Budget be adjusted ($100,000) to
accommodate this new service commencing on July 1st, 2008.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
Mark G. Mc Id,
Chief Administrative Officer.
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM:
Mark G. McDonald,
Chief Administrative Officer.
DATE:
March 6, 2008
SUBJECT:
Jury Recommendations from the Hipson Inquest
CORPORATE GOAL/5) REFERENCED:
. To ensure fiscal responsibility and accountability
. To recognize and seize opportunities for improvement
. To build and maintain an efficient, affordable, effective and safe
transportation network that accommodates the diverse needs of our
communities and is able to support economic development and
sustainable growth
Introduction:
As Council is aware from previous discussions and a summary explanation from
the County Solicitor, the jury for the Michael Hipson Inquest (crane accident)
passed a verdict on November 22nd, 2007. That verdict was then forwarded to
the Office of the Chief Coroner for Ontario for approval. The revised verdict
explanation is attached for Council's information.
The Chief Coroner has asked the County to respond to recommendations 8
through 10 of the verdict by first self evaluating its response by November 2008
and then providing a more complete response within two years of the verdict.
The purpose of this report is to recommend a process, timeline and budget to
address the County's obligations in this matter.
Discussion:
The inquest into the death of Michael Hipson has produced a number of
recommendations for a variety of organizations to help improve communications
and system operations. The challenge is to address these recommendations in a
proactive and meaningful manner for the betterment of all who travel the road
system. In addition, the review offers an opportunity to examine both
maintenance and capital requirements.
-2-
The maintenance agreement with the lower-tier municipalities commenced on
January 15t, 1998, whereby each municipality was "contracted" to perform
maintenance activities on County roads within their respective jurisdictions,
based on a payment schedule. Those arrangements and costs have been
adjusted from time to time in an effort to improve the system. Given that the
system has been in operation for ten years and in light of the need to examine
the recommendations of the Hipson Inquest, it is time to conduct a
comprehensive review and analysis of current arrangements.
Furthermore, the capital needs of the County road infrastructure should be
reviewed in conjunction with a maintenance analysis because of the symbiotic
relationship of capital needs to maintenance requirements. Both items are
interrelated, each having an impact on the other.
It is important to conduct these analyses in a systematic, unbiased and
comprehensive manner. A third party, professional service or services should be
engaged to ensure that information is accurate and objective and that the final
analysis is presented in an unfettered manner.
Unless otherwise directed by Council, the studies shall assume the continuation
of the two-tier maintenance system of governance and administration. That is,
the focus will be on recommending improvements to the existing system
including best practices but will not venture into other delivery models such as
single-source delivery under a one-tier government model; contracting out to
another party; or some other variation thereof.
As the author of the road maintenance agreement with municipalities, the lead
member with standing at the Inquest and having considerable knowledge of the
road system, the County Solicitor may be in the best position to manage the
review. This would effectively remove County and lower-tier staff from any direct
supervisory responsibilities over chosen project consultants, thereby making the
consultants answerable to the Solicitor. The Solicitor would then be answerable
to County Council. Maintaining an arms length relationship with the professional
assistance would also add credence to the review and encourage objectivity and
candid responses from stakeholders. It is further suggested that the County's
insurance advisor be consulted during the process for input and advice.
Rough estimates of the maintenance review and the capital needs study,
including the Solicitor's time as lead consultant, is approximately $200,000. As
previously discussed with Council, since this is a one-time project, the funds
could be allocated to the Millrate Stabilization Reserve. These estimates will be
adjusted based on the actual costs submitted through the County's purchasing
system. Of course, this figure does not include implementation costs of any of
-3-
the recommendations which may emanate from the studies. It is anticipated that
both reports shall be completed on or before the end of the year.
Conclusion:
After ten years of tweaking the road maintenance system, it is time to conduct a
comprehensive review of the current arrangements in an effort to make
improvements, particularly in view of the recommendations from the Hipson
Inquest. It is suggested that the entire road infrastructure capital needs be
examined concurrently to provide the full range of information required to make a
complete determination of system needs and improvements. In an effort to
ensure the integrity/confidentiality/objectivity of the review and given the
specialized knowledge required, the County Solicitor should act as the lead
manager of the review.
Recommendation:
That, in response to the recommendations from the Hipson Inquest and the
desire to review the road maintenance system after ten years of operation,
County Council authorize and direct that a comprehensive review of the County's
road maintenance system be conducted; and,
That, concurrently, a capital needs study be commissioned; and,
That the County Solicitor be engaged as lead manager of the projects; and
further,
That the cost of these studies, including those of the County Solicitor, be
allocated to the Millrate Stabilization Reserve; and,
That the County Solicitor report back to Council at appropriate junctures during
the review process.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
Mark G. aid,
Chief Administrative Icer.
Office of the Chief Coroner
26 Grenville Street
Toronto ON. M7A 2G9
Telephone: (416) 314-4000
Facsimile: (416) 314-4030
Bureau du Coroner en Chef
26 Rue Grenville
Toronto ON. M7A2G9
TelEiphone: (416) 314-4000
Telecopieur: (416) 314-4030
January 17,2008 .
ii~~-~'J{ tF~~: ~,~k;, :;-'~~ ~~, ,r
Mr. Mark McDonald
Chief Administrative Officer
County of Elgin
Administration Building
450 Sunset Drive
St. Thomas, Ontario
N5R 5V1
JAN 2 J 2008
:
>, """'t."t~ ii l.,..
'1'1<n:,
" ':~ c_~'"
Re: Inquest into the death of Michael Hipson
deceased January 23.2006. Our file Q2007-52.
Dear Mr. McDonald:
Please find enclosed a copy of the Coroner's verdict explanation, verdict, and
recommendations of the Coroner's jury from the inquest into the death of Michael
Hipson. We are also attaching, for your information, a list of the recipients that have
been asked to respond to the recommendations.
The jury has indicated that your organization may be in a position to implement
recommendations 8 to 10. I would appreciate your response to these
recommendations as well as any others that you feel your organization may be in a
position to implement.
For assistance in the preparation of your response, please refer to the attached chart.
You are requested to complete the chart by self-evaluating your response according
to the coding provided.
If you feel the recommendations have been assigned incorrectly, your suggestions
as to where to direct the recommendations would be greatly appreciated.
Please be advised that your response and the attached chart will be considered
public documents and may be released to interested parties upon request.
"
Page 2
The Office of the Chief Coroner will be preparing a report on inquests. The analysis
of inquest responses may be included in that report. To facilitate this process please
submit your response by November 2008.
Sincerely,
~ ;5;/~
Bonita M.B. Porter
B.Sc., Phm., M.Sc., M.D., CCFP
Chief Coroner for Ontario
BMBP:pc
Encl.
Respcmses Recommendation Number(s)
Recommendation has been
implemented
Recommendation will be
imolemented
Alternative recommendation has
been implemented
Alternative recommendation will be
implemented
Under consideration
Unresolved issues
Reiected
Rejected due to flaws
Reiected due to lack of resources
Not applicable to aaency assigned
No resoonse
Unable to evaluate
FOR IMPLEMENTATION:
Chief Administrative Officer, County of Elgin, Administration
Building, 450 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas, Ontario N5R 5Vl
(Recommendations - 8 to 10)
Clerk, Municipality of Bayham, 9344 Plank Road, Staffordville,
Ontario NOJ 1 YO
(Recommendation -11)
Deputy Minister, Ministry of Transportation, 3rd Floor, Ferguson
Block, 77 Wellesley Street West, Toronto, Ontario M7A lZ8
(Recommendations - 4, 6, and 7)
Deputy Minister, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, 1 ih
Floor, 777 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario M5G 2E5
(Recommendations - 2 to 5)
Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations Division, Ministry of
Labour, 14th Floor, 400 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M7A
1T7
(Recommendation -12)
President, Ontario Good Road Association, 6355 Kennedy Road, Unit
2, Mississauga, Ontario L5T 2L5
(Recommendation -1)
,HE COHONt:R'S ACT - PROV1NCE OF Otn-'\R!0
VERDICT OF CORONER'S JURY
We, 'John Van Eyk
of
Robert Forsyth
of
Etlina Hartemink
of
Jess Mcquiggan
of
Jeannie Weber
of
the jury serving on the inquest Into the death of:
Surname _Hipson Given Names ~Michae)
aged _42_, held at _Best Western, Stone ridge Inn
on
13.22
days of ~November
2007
by D,-
Stanborough
Coroner for Onlano, having been duly sworn, having inquired into
and determined the following:
1.
Name of Deceased:
Michael Hipson
2.
Date & Time of Death:
January 23, 2006, 5:05pm
3.
Place of Death:
london Health Sciences Center
4.
Cause of Death:
Hypothermic Drowning
;l;rv A"'"'~LI~!?b;;'"'
:/' Signature of Foreperson cr-./t" /;:."." /!
/7 /,(1 '
. t::bl~/'f/'
/
Signalure of Jurors
This verdict was received by me this
..I
))'~
day of
IL.tt..~n'\{.'{~
,2007
r-;'71d?;~~~" y
h
cc010 (rev16f90)
Verdict must be forvlarded to the Chief Coroner and a copy to the Crown Attorney
Office of the Chief Coroner
26 Grenville Street
Toronto ON. M7A 2G9
Telephone: (416) 314-4000
Facsimile: (416) 314-4030
Bureau du Coroner en Chef
26 Rue Grenville
Toronto ON. M7A 2G9
Telephone: (416) 314-4000
Telecopieur: (416) 314-4030
February 20, 2008
-'<I"~.'j'" l'-"?:'S ft~ WN :<-1 V b ~i:.'>;l iW~\.
$,<",;:i t;~:lttdj tj~;, ~ ~~~1 ~~~~. ~, Jl
FEB ? G Z003
Mr. Mark McDonald
Chief Administrative Officer
County of Elgin
Administration Building
450 Sunset Drive
St. Thomas, Ontario
N5R 5V1
t~,~';: t;;'it'\";ij
1..,:, L(HI~\II'
'.- ~'-i,~?r:V(;'i'I:--~J n-"ltf!'. ':F{".1.f1f"""
.rUiti'H{~:(j.~ ,'J)~ ~ n~.::.; b~';i -i tL.l~~.'ti.
Re: Inquest into the death of Michael Hipson
deceased Januarv 23.2006. Our file Q2007-52.
Dear Mr. McDonald:
Enclosed please find a revised verdict explanation concerning the above inquest.
Sincerely,
c-~ I ~--.-<J
Dr. W.J. Lucas, MD, CCFP
Associate Deputy Chief Coroner for the Province of Ontario
WJL:pc
Enc!.
Gf,,(,v TO CL..t4Y'ibi-.> U).
",j /0"- /"p
Verdict Explanation: Michael Hipson Inquest
I intend to give a brief synopsis of the issues presented at this inquest and explain in some
detail the reasons for the jury's recommendations. This explanation will be by interpretation of
the evidence and of the jury's reasons. The sole purpose of the explanation is to assist the
potential reader to understand more fully the verdict and the recommendations. The reader
should not consider the contents of this explanation as the actual evidence presented at the
inquest, nor do I intend to replace the jury's verdict.
The inquest opened on November 13th, 2007 and sat for 9 days, the jury coming to their verdict
on November 22nd, 2007.
Participants:
Coroners Counsel:
Elizabeth Maguire, Crown Attorney, Elgin County
Investigating Officer:
Cst. Brent Nolan, (Elgin OPP Police Force)
Coroner's Constable:
Cst. Douglass Maguire, (Elgin OPP Police Force)
Recorder:
Donna Sloan, D.J.S. Reporting Services, St. Thomas
Parties with standina:
Counselor Aaent
Hipson Family
Mrs. Colleen Hipson
Municipality of Bayham
Counsel Mr. Barry Card, London
Elgin County
Counsel Mr. Stephen Gibson, St. Thomas
White Construction Co.
Counsel Mr. Trevor Lawson, Toronto
Black & MacDonald Co.
Counsel Mr. Graham Walsh, Toronto
Amec Construction Co.
Counsel Mr. Graham Walsh, Toronto
Ministry of Transportation
Counsel Mr. John Petrosoniak, Downsview
Sterling Crane (Formerly Cooper Crane)
Counsel Mr. John Judson, London
Crane Rental Association of Ontario
Counsel Mr. John Judson, London
Hydro One
Counsel Ms. Rosalind Cooper
Ministry of Labour
Counsel Mr. Tom Schneider, Toronto
Union of Operating Engineers
Counsel Mr. James Robbins, Toronto
HIPSON Verdict Explanation
2
Medical Cause of Death: Hypothermic Drowning
Manner of Death: Accident
Date of Death: January 23, 2006
Place of Death: London Health Sciences Center
Summary of Circumstances:
This was a mandatory inquest pursuant to section 10 of the Coroners Act, which states:
(5) Where a worker dies as a result of an accident occurring in the course
of the worker's employment at or in a construction project, mining plant or mine,
including a pit or quarry, the person in charge of such project, mining piant or
mine shall immediately give notice of the death to a coroner and the coroner shall
issue a warrant to hold an inquest upon the body.
This 42-year-old male was employed as a crane operator working for Cooper Cranes Rentals
Ltd. based in Ontario. Cooper Cranes was subcontracted to assist in the building of a vast
project entitled the 'Erie Shores Wind Project". This endeavor was a thirty-two mile stretch of
windmills constructed to generate electricity and consisted of sixty-six distinct units along the
north shore of Lake Erie. The project was several years in the design and the actual
construction phase lasted from the summer of 2005 until the fall of 2006.
In the morning of January 23, 2006 Mr. Michael Hipson was the crane driver involved in a
convoy traveling from the east side of Bayham Township to a tower erection site on the west
side. At approximately 08:00 the convoy was traveling down the Erie Line and passed three
Hydro One trucks parked on the north side of the road. The crane stayed on the road but
crossed over into the eastbound lane in order to pass the trucks. The Road was witnessed to
'settle' under the crane before giving way, causing the crane to roll over into a collection of
water on the south side of the road.
Attempts to reach Mr. Hipson were unsuccessful and the recovery effort took approximately two
hours. The deceased was extricated once the crane was righted and transported by air
ambulance to the London Health Sciences Center arriving around noon. Aggressive
resuscitative efforts were commenced, including rewarming with cardio-bypass. Efforts were
recognized to be futile and the death was pronounced that same day at 17:05.
An autopsy was performed the following day and concluded that hypothermia was material in
the death. Toxicology examinations for drugs and alcohol revealed no significant findings
relevant to the accident or the death.
The inquest jury heard from 23 witnesses and reviewed 24 exhibits over nine days of evidence.
HIPSON Verdict Explanation
3
Explanation of Recommendations:
1. Ontario Good Roads Association should recommend all road
supervisors/superintendents become Certified Road Supervisors, as a mandatory
minimum qualification of their employment.
Coroner's Comments:
The inquest heard that road supervisors had varied levels of training and expertise.
2. Mandatory annual attendance at "Road School" by the Municipality and County roads
superintendents. Other road employees should be given the opportunity of attending.
Coroner's Comments:
The inquest heard that continuing education and upgrading of knowledge and skills is
sporadic and inconsistent.
3. That the Ministry of Municipal Affairs recommend that on large, multi jurisdiction
construction projects, 1 or more qualified local government official be designated to deal
with issues/questions that may arise (permits/road issues/regulations etc.) relating to the
project.
Coroner's Comments:
The inquest heard from company officials that local rules and regulations are different
from site to site and that communication breakdown with local officials is a frustration
and a problem.
4. The Ministry of Transportation should give consideration to amending S. 110 of the
Highway Traffic Act to require that all Municipalities make over dimensional vehicle
permits mandatory. All Municipalities should be educated on the regulations for over
dimensional loads/equipment. The Ministry of Transportation should consider providing
assistance when requested.
Coroner's Comments:
Permits at the County and Municipal level are sometimes viewed as discretionary and
the inquest heard that local officials are often confused about the implementation of
such a system.
5. That the Building Code Act and/or it's Regulations be amended to include a requirement
that each building Permit include a check box indicating all relevant permits have been
applied for and granted. Copies of those permits should be attached.
Coroner's Comments:
The inquest heard that there is essentially no 'reminper system' in place to ensure that
permits have been requested.
6. That the Province consider amending the Minimum Road Standards to give
consideration to periodic inspections for the structural integrity of roads and to include a
requirement to maintain construction details and maintenance records. This should also
include records of visual inspections.
HIPSON Verdict Explanation
4
Coroner's Comments:
The inquest heard that road construction and maintenance records were not available
as these are currently not required.
7. That permits obtained 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.
Coroner's Comments:
The inquest heard that the Erie Line Road involved in this death was inn poor condition
as a result of the overweight vehicle traffic, but that the integrity of the road was not
being assessed.
8. The County of Elgin create and utilize a standardized maintenance report to be
completed on a regular basis.
Coroner's Comments:
Self-explanatory.
9. Quarterly County of Elgin inspections to be conducted with the Municipal Road Official.
Coroner's Comments:
The Municipality is doing Road maintenance, but the County owns the road.
Communication was a deficiency identified by the jury.
10. All Elgin Municipalities provide quarterly "Activity Reports" back to the County of Elgin.
Coroner's Comments:
Similar to the comment made for recommendation #9, the communication issue is
focused on.
11. Bayham Township should implement a permit system immediately.
Coroner's Comments:
Self-explanatory.
12. Crane manufacturers should consider changing the designs of future cranes to include
at least 2 escape exits.
Coroner's Comments:
Although an extra escape route was not material in this death, the inquest heard that
some newer cranes have an additional exit as a safety mechanism and that workers in
the crane industry felt that this is a wise design feature.
HIPSON Verdict Explanation
5
In closing, I would like to stress once again that I prepare this document solely to assist
interested parties to understand the jury's verdict. It is not the verdict. Likewise, my comments
about the evidence are my personal recollections and are not put forth as the actual evidence.
If anyone feels that I have made a gross error in my recollection or in a conciusion drawn by the
jury I would appreciate it greatly if my error could be brought to my attention and I will correct it.
J. S anborough MD, FP(EM), FCFP
Inquest Coroner
6~.
. ,
. .
o
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM: Larysa Andrusiak, Ambulance & Emergency Management Coordinator
DATE: March 10,2008
SUBJECT: Execulink 911 Agreement
Corporate Goals:
To provide innovative and collaborative quality service.
To recognize and seize opportunities for improvement.
INTRODUCTION
Execulink Telecom wishes to enter into an Agreement with the County of Elgin for the
Provision of E911 Emergency Calling Service within the area of Belmont in Elgin County.
This Agreement is the same Agreement signed with Rogers Telecommunications for the
provision of 911 services as approved by Council in September of 2005.
DISCUSSION:
Execulink Telecom is expanding into the hard-line telephone service business via
telephone line and Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP) within Middlesex, Huron, Brant,
Oxford, Kitchener-Waterloo, and Lambton Counties as well as Elgin County, to date - only
in the Belmont area.
The CRTC has mandated that all local telephone service providers must provide routing of
911 dialed calls to the Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP). Therefore all local
telephone service providers must enter into agreement with the incumbent telephone
provider (Bell) and the municipalities where it intends to offer local telephone service.
The agreements have been developed by a CRTC working group with the goal of ensuring
that 911 services are delivered regardless of which company provides local telephone
service and providing a framework permitting municipalities and local carriers to work
together in a consistent and efficient manner to support 911 service. The Agreement
represents no cost to the municipality.
Currently Middlesex, Brant and Oxford Counties have signed this agreement with
Execulink.
LeQal Review
This standard Agreement was provided to County legal council for review when a similar
proposal from Rogers Telecommunications was considered in September of 2005. A
summary of the review included:
. The Agreement contains the types of clauses one would and should expect in this type
of service contract with a municipality.
· The initial term of the Agreement expires on September 1, 2011, subject to automatic
renewal for five-year periods.
· The Agreement can be terminated by either party on six months' written notice; and
there is a clause which outlines automatic termination in two instances - if the 911
service provider (Bell) ceases to provide a 911 emergency calling service to the
municipality, or if the local telephone service provider provides its own 911 emergency
calling service rather than going through Bell. The automatic termination would limit
financial liability of the service provider.
. Except with regard to physical injuries, death or damage to property occasioned by
negligence, the liability of the service provider and the municipality is limited to $20;
monetary liability for contractual losses could be limited to $20 as well.
. The service provider and the municipality are obligated to maintain sufficient insurance
coverage during term of agreement.
. Not unexpectedly, the Agreement favours the service provider, particularly in the
following areas:
. Inclusion of descriptive caveats as to effectiveness/reliability of communication services
dependant upon satisfaction of municipal obligations (in the provision of 911 services in
the County),
. Vague liability limitations,
. Automatic termination, without monetary liability
County legal counsel goes on to say that the Agreement, however, does include the type
of clauses appropriate for this type of contract and service and that there is no specific
term or absence of term which would prohibit approval and execution of the agreement by
the municipality. Further, Council should consider whether the above observations offset
the obvious benefits achieved by a 911 emergency communication system and presuming
that Elgin County can satisfy its obligations it was felt that Council would likely be in a
position to approve the agreement.
CONCLUSION:
This request to enter into an Agreement by Execulink represents the expansion of the
marketplace by telecommunication companies within the County, providing additional
choice to the consumer. Execulink informs the County that its telephone services are
currently available to residents of Belmont, and as such 911 services are already being
provided for its users.
It would appear that the requested agreement is a formality to assure Elgin County and the
CRTC that 911 obligations are being met.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Warden and CAG be authorized and directed to sign an Agreement for the
Provision of E9-1-1 Emergency Calling Service with Execulink Telecom commencing on
the date of signing of the parties and expiring on September 1, 2011.
Respectfully Submitted
Approved for Submission
cjfcw;r~ (h\c\IlCLo \ wL
Larysa Andrusiak, Ambulance
& Emergency Mgt. Coordinator
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM: Larysa Andrusiak, Ambulance & Emergency Management Coordinator
DATE: March 10,2008
SUBJECT: Request for Evacuation Site
Corporate Goals:
To forge community partnerships.
To promote innovative and collaborative quality service.
INTRODUCTION
The Forest Ave. Child Care Centre Inc. located at 2 Shaw Valley Drive has requested the
use of the Shaw Valley Ambulance Base as an evacuation site if needed in an emergency.
DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION:
The Forest Ave. Child Care Centre will be moving into their new premises at 4 Shaw
Valley Drive in late May of 2008. Through their licensing requirements by the Ministry of
Community and Social Services/Ministry of Child and Youth Services they are required to
name an evacuation site in case of emergency.
The Child Care Centre has approached Thames EMS with a request to use the Elgin-St.
Thomas EMS Shaw Valley base located next door as that site. The Child Care Centre
indicates that this would be used as a temporary site in an emergency until parents could
come to pick their children up.
In discussion with the contracted ambulance service provider and property Lessee,
Thames EMS, there doesn't appear to be any issue with this request. It is anticipated that
this use would be rare and in the event of an emergency.
As the owner of the Shaw Valley ambulance base property, the County is requested to
consent to the above request as it represents an additional use of the premises. If the
County wishes to provide consent for this additional use, it should be made clear that the
Liability and Indemnity Clauses in the Lease Agreement would apply and the County shall
not be liable or responsible in any way for any injury as a result of this use.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council provide consent to Thames EMS for the additional use of the Ambulance
Base premises located at 31 Shaw Valley Drive as an emergency evacuation site for the
Forest Ave. Child Care Centre and
That the Liability and Indemnity Clauses in the Lease Agreement are in force and effect
with regard to this use and the County shall not be liable or responsible in any way for any
injury of any kind as a result of this use.
Respectfully Submitted
Approved for Submission
c7f 0v;\?,,=..(A\d~~ l ~
Larysa Andrusiak, Ambulance
& Emergency Mgt. Coordinator
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM: Rhonda L. Roberts, Director of Senior Services, Terrace Lodge
Tanya Noble, Manager of Programs and Therapy Services
DATE: March 6, 2008
SUBJECT: "Volunteer Elgin" Annual Event-County of Elgin Homes Participation
CORPORATE GOAL{S) REFERENCED:
1. To promote cultural services
2. To nurture and support dignified long-term care
3. To be recognized as a desired employer
4. To promote Elgin as "The Place to Live"
5. To forge community partnerships
6. To provide innovative and collaborative quality service
7. To recognize and seize opportunities for improvement
INTRODUCTION:
The County of Elgin Homes plan annual appreciation events for Volunteers as a
show of gratitude for his/her generosity. In partnership with Volunteer Elgin, the
Elgin County Homes will participate in the Volunteer Elgin Appreciation Event at
The North American Railway Hall of Fame. The Celebration will occur in
conjunction with National Volunteer Week April 27 to May 3, 2008.
DISCUSSION:
The Volunteer Elgin annual appreciation event serves as a community wide
event which serves to appreciate volunteers in a variety of participating agencies.
All participating agencies must take part in the planning committee as well as pay
a participation fee of $150.00. The Elgin County Homes will cost share as
participation is considered as one agency.
The event will take place on April 25, 2008 from 3:00pm - 7:00pm formatted as
a drop in. The event will feature entertainment, hotdogs, coffee, tea cake and
alternate beverages and a small token of thanks. As the event is taking place at
the North American Railway Hall of Fame, historical tours of the facility will also
be offered.
CONCLUSION:
The participation of the County of Elgin Homes for Senior's in this community
based appreciation event will serve to further our commitment to community
development and partnerships.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT, the report titled; "Volunteer Elgin" Annual Event-Count of Elgin Homes
Participation be received and filed.
Respectfully Submitted
u1luA~~JM~
Rhonda L. Roberts
Director of Senior Services-TL
Approved for Submission
1lJno"J
Chief Administrative Officer
ALL ABOARm!!!!
The County of Elain Homes for S
Invites you to:
"Celebrate Volunteers Through the Years"
Friday, April 25th, 2008
Between 3:00 p.m. and 7:00
, A Drop-In Even
, North America Railway Hall 0
Talbot Street, St. Thomas (behind Giant Tiger)
Please RSVP,@ 519-631-0620 ext. 222 or tnoble@elain-countv.on.ca Before April 15. 2008
, "This is a partnership effort through Volunteer Elgin member rganizations."
Please bring this invitation with you '
(This invitation entitles the bearer to bring one guest)
ALL ABOARm!!!!
The County of Elain Homes for Seniors
InvItes ypu to:
"Celebrate Volunteers Through the Years"
,Friday, April 25th, 2008
Between 3:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m.
A Drop-In Event
North America Railway Hall of Fame
Talbot Street, Sf. Thomas (behind Giant Tiger)
Please RSVP:@ 519-631-0620 exf. 222 or tnoble@elain-countv.on.ca Before April 15. 2008
"This is a partnership effort through Volunteer' Elgin member organizations."
Please bring this invitation with you
(This invitation entitles the bearer to bring one guest)
ALL ABOARm!!!!
The County of Elain Homes for Seniors
Invites you to: ' '
Volunteers Through the Years"
riday, April 25th, 2008
Between 3:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m.
A Drop-In Event
North America Railway Hall of Fame
Talbot Street, Sf. Thomas (behind Giant Tiger)
f'lease RSVP,@ 519-631-0620 exf. 222 or tnoble@elain-countv.on.ca Before April 15. 2008
, I'This i$' a partnership effort through Volunteer' Elgin member organizations."
Please bring this invitation with you
(This invitation entitles the bearer to bring one guest)
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM:
Linda B. Veger, Director of Financial Services
DATE:
March 11, 2008
SUBJECT:
Budget Comparison - December 31, 2007
Corporate Goal Referenced:
To ensure fiscal responsibility and accountability.
Introduction:
Attached is the budget comparison to December 31, 2007 for the County operating
departments.
Discussion:
The year end report reflects an overall surplus for the operating departments.
Warden & Council - 14,680 - this positive variance comes from a number of accounts over or
under budget. There are positive variances in the Warden's Recognition - 2,800 and
Professional Development - 4,200.
Administrative Services - 11,355 - from wages and benefits.
Human Resources - 24,716 - the department was re-structured. Wages and benefits were
over estimated.
Administration Building - 31,136 - positive variances in benefits - 8,062 and utilities - 17,435
and a negative variance in repairs and maintenance - (6,579). Various other positive and
negative variances make up the balance.
Engineering Services - 61,995 - railway protection - 22,866 - less than anticipated at budget
time. Revenues greater than expected - 30,262.
Overall the three Homes are in a positive position - 227,524. The increases in revenues
started flowing in April. Effective September 1st 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.
Library - 141,434 - a report is being presented that recommends projects for the surplus' in
Cultural Services.
Information Technologies -18,412 - Consulting fees under budget - 38,509 however support
and maintenance are over budget - (45,526). License fees also under budget - 12,190.
Ambulance Services - 81,412 - contractor payments lower than expected at budget time.
These lower payments lead to lower payments from the City of Sl. Thomas.
Collections - (44,358) - loss of employee had a significant effect on the level of collections.
Recommendation:
THAT the report titled Budget Comparison - December 31, 2007 and dated March 11, 2008
be received and filed.
Respectfully Submitted
~h,~p~-u
Linda B. Veger
Director of Financial Services
Approved for Submission
Mar Donald
Chief Administrative Officer
COUNTY OF ELGIN
Departmental Budget
Comparisons
For The Year Ending December 31, 2007
Total YTD YTD Variance %OF
Budget Budget Actual () Budget
Warden & Council
Wages 178,520 178,520 174,945 3,575
Benefits 8,000 8,000 7,312 688
Operations 72,000 72,000 61,582 10,418
Total 258,520 258,520 243,840 14,680 94.32%
Administrative Services
Wages 270,450 270,450 260,722 9,728
Benefits 59,500 59,500 56,363 3,137
Operations 15,600 15,600 17,110 (1,510)
Total 345,550 345,550 334,195 11,355 96.71%
Financial Services
Wages 305,968 305,968 311,776 (5,808)
Benefits 73,891 73,891 68,095 5,796
Operations 16,200 16,200 16,159 41
Total 396,059 396,059 396,030 29 99.99%
Human Resources
Wages 320,000 320,000 310,368 9,632
Benefits 85,200 85,200 70,937 14,263
Operations 16,800 16,800 15,980 820
Total 422,000 422,000 397,284 24,716 94.14%
Administration Building
Wages 180,000 180,000 178,012 1,988
Benefits 45,000 45,000 36,938 8,062
Operations 96,500 96,500 67,810 28,690
Total 321,500 321,500 282,760 38,740 87.95%
Corporate Expenditures
Insurance 263,500 263,500 257,330 6,170
Telephone 30,000 30,000 34,056 (4,056)
Legal & Professional 95,000 95,000 122,738 (27,738)
Retiree Benefits 25,000 25,000 17,155 7,845
Other Expenditures 87,990 87,990 79,570 8,420
Total 501,490 501,490 510,848 (9,358) 101.87%
Engineering
Wages 259,000 259,000 262,530 (3,530)
Benefits 59,000 59,000 57,500 1,500
Operations 80,100 80,100 28,493 51,607
Maintenance 2,586,850 2,586,850 2,574,432 12,418
Total 2,984,950 2,984,950 2,922,955 61,995 97.92%
Agriculture
Fees Revenue 0 0 (420) 420
Operations 32,953 32,953 32,643 310
Total 32,953 32,953 32,223 730 97.79%
Elgin Manor
Revenues (4,585,470) (4,585,470) (4,690,720) 105,250
Wages 4,106,768 4,106,768 4,139,854 (33,086)
Benefits 1,032,002 1,032,002 996,722 35,280
Operations 969,361 969,361 917,535 51,826
Total 1,522,661 1,522,661 1,363,392 159,269 89.54%
Terrace Lodge
Revenues (5,172,542) (5,172,542) (5,265,220) 92,678
Wages 4,093,056 4,093,056 4,399,921 (306,865)
Benefits 1,166,521 1,166,521 1,052,668 113,853
Operations 982,404 982,404 894,977 87,427
Total 1,069,439 1,069,439 1,082,345 (12,906) 101.21%
Bobier Villa
Revenues (2,927,060) (2,927,060) (2,981,009) 53,949
Wages 2,883,810 2,883,810 2,956,682 (72,872)
Benefits 723,980 723,980 665,478 58,502
Operations 718,602 718,602 677,020 41,582
Total 1,399,332 1,399,332 1,318,171 81,161 94.20%
Museum
Wages 84,681 84,681 90,617 (5,936)
Benefits 20,977 20,977 18,511 2,466
Operations 25,300 25,300 24,068 1,232
Total 130,958 130,958 133,196 (2,238) 101.71%
Library
Wages 1,108,648 1,108,648 1,141,377 (32,729)
Benefits 267,944 267,944 252,575 15,369
Collections 239,500 239,500 256,759 (17,259)
Operations 243,173 243,173 67,121 176,052
Total 1,859,265 1,859,265 1,717,831 141,434 92.39%
Archives
Wages 85,358 85,358 103,422 (18,064)
Benefits 22,193 22,193 25,595 (3,402)
Operations 51,800 51,800 27,678 24,122
Total 159,351 159,351 156,695 2,656 98.33%
Land Division
Wages 57,640 57,640 53,571 4,069
Benefits 9,610 9,610 9,810 (200)
Operations (67,250) (67,250) (63,124) (4,126)
Total 0 0 256 (256) 0.00%
Emergency Measures
Wages 5,300 5,300 5,300 0
Benefits 1,375 1,375 1,375 0
Operations 9,000 9,000 5,554 3,446
Total 15,675 15,675 12,229 3,446 78.01%
Information Technologies
Wages 197,525 197,525 196,978 547
Benefits 49,381 49,381 43,867 5,514
Operations 299,749 299,749 287,397 12,352
Total 546,655 546,655 528,243 18,412 96.63%
Provincial Offences
Grant (75,045) (75,045) (64,257) (10,788)
Fines Revenues (700,000) (700,000) (921,307) 221,307
Shared Revenues - Municipal 381,655 381,655 583,786 (202,131)
Wages 146,275 146,275 146,152 123
Benefits 32,200 32,200 34,194 (1,994)
Operations 185,975 185,975 184,907 1,068
Total (28,940) (28,940) (36,525) 7,585 126.21%
Ambulance Services
Province of Ontario (3,097,692) (3,097,692) (3,157,902) 60,210
City of SI. Thomas (1,476,139) (1,476,139) (1,443,565) (32,574)
Contractor Payments 6,590,990 6,590,990 6,561,340 29,650
Wages 67,817 67,817 67,884 (67)
Benefits 17,972 17,972 14,379 3,593
Operations 35,300 35,300 14,700 20,600
Total 2,138,248 2,138,248 2,056,836 81,412 96.19%
Collections
Revenue (305,000) (305,000) (235,003) (69,997)
Shared Revenues - Municipal 147,919 147,919 159,860 (11,941)
Wages 47,520 47,520 28,884 18,636
Benefits 12,545 12,545 7,897 4,648
Operations 34,300 34,300 20,003 14,297
Total (62,716) (62,716) (18,358) (44,358) 29.27%
Economic Development
Grants (90,000) (90,000) (104,400) 14,400
Wages 106,390 106,390 115,947 (9,557)
Benefits 18,260 18,260 21,334 (3,074)
Operations 127,200 127,200 106,080 21,120
Total 161,850 161,850 138,961 22,889 85.86%
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM:
Linda B. Veger, Director of Financial Services
DATE:
March 7, 2008
SUBJECT:
Appropriate Level of Unreserved Fund Balance
CORPORATE GOAL(S) REFERENCED:
To ensure fiscal responsibility and accountability.
INTRODUCTION:
Staff was directed to investigate the appropriate level of reserve balances. There are
no hard and fast rules that set out exactly what level the reserves should be. However,
the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA), with chapters in the US and
Canada, does suggest two options.
DISCUSSION:
There are typically two types of reserves:
. Reserved funds - funds whose use has been designated by Council - as
example the Road Maintenance reserve - set aside specifically for extraordinary
expenditures.
. Unreserved funds - funds that are available for spending - as example the Mill
Rate Stabilization Reserve.
The fund balance (unreserved reserve balance) is a measure of the financial resources
available in a government fund. It is essential that governments maintain adequate
levels of fund balance to mitigate current and future risks and to ensure stable tax
rates.
GFOA recommends, at a minimum, that governments maintain unreserved fund
balance of no less than five to fifteen percent of regular operating revenues (option 2),
or no less than one to two months of regular general fund operating expenditures
(option 1).
A number of municipalities include information on their web sites pertaining to levels of
reserves. Most of the information reviewed pertains to American municipalities with the
majority reporting 10% as a minimum level.
A calculation of the two options based on the 2008 proposed budget follows:
Option 1 - total 10% of General Fund 10% of 4,922,903
Revenues Budget
Option 2 2008 Proposed 49,229,034
Budget
Less: Capital (6,450,328)
Less: Proposed (916,250)
Reserves - Budget
Total 41,862,456
Option 2 - total Two Months of 16.67% 6,978,471
Expenditures
In order to compare this to the current and anticipated levels of reserves some
adjustments must be considered:
Reserve Balance Proposed Proposed Exclude Unreserved
at Dec Addition Balance from Fund
31/07 to Balance - Balance
Reserve considered
reserved
funds
(1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Donations Elgin 20,854 20,854 20,854 0
Manor
Donations Terrace 7,150 7,150 7,150 0
Lodge
Donations Bobier 0 0 0
Villa
Alma College 9,933 9,933 9,933 0
Alumnae Donations
Social Committee 2,175 2,175 2,175 0
Working Funds 500,000 500,000 500,000 0
Mill Rate 1,189,398 150,000 1,339,398 1,339,398
Stabilization
Staff Training 70,346 70,346 70,346
Library 46,838 46,838 46,838
Strategic Planning 22,860 22,860 22,860
Insurance 273,213 31,250 304,463 245,700 58,763
Deductibles
Emergency 509 509 509
Measures
Tree Planting 6,379 6,379 6,379
OMPF One Time 1,959,001 1,959,001 1,959,001 0
Funding
Bobier EI Premium 9,040 9,040 9,040 0
Museum 300 300 300
Terrace Lodge 414,446 350,000 764,446 764,446 0
Tourism 36,000 36,000 36,000
Performance 23,773 5,000 28,773 28,773
Excellence
Orthodontics 11,741 5,000 16,741 16,741
Road Maintenance 254,260 254,260 254,260 0
WSIB Schedule 2 743,170 250,000 993,170 993,170 0
Archives 96,785 96,785 96,785
Amb. Severance 209,858 209,858 209,858
Woodlot 11,635 11,635 11,635
Police Services 2,650 2,650 2,650
International Plowing 125,000 125,000 125,000
Match
Total 5,922,313 916,250 6,838,564 34,768,379 2,070,185
A number of reserves have been excluded from the comparison for various
reasons:
. The donation accounts are not actual reserves but simply a method of holding
the funds until needed.
. The reserve for working funds allows for cash flow.
. The insurance deductibles holds funds recovered from the insurance company
for the West Lome library fire. A report will be presented shortly regarding those
funds.
. The OMPF reserve is set up to smooth the transition if and when the County's
OMPF grant is reduced.
. The Bobier EI premium is a fund taken over from the previous Bobier Villa and
expenditures are recommended from the Bobier Villa staff.
. The Terrace Lodge funds are being set aside for the eventual rebuild of the
home.
. The road maintenance reserve was set to assist the municipalities should there
be extraordinary circumstances that require the municipalities to approach the
County for additional maintenance funds.
. The WSIB reserve is set up to cover the actual costs incurred from WSIB.
. The police services reserve was set aside by the board from surplus funds.
There are other reserves that could be considered reserved funds. Including or
excluding the reserves is very subjective. This unreserved fund list could certainly be
higher or lower, depending on interpretation.
As a comparison:
Unreserved funds as above - column (5) 2,070,185
Reserve per option 1 4,922,903
Reserve per option 2 6,978,471
CONCLUSION:
From the comparison above, the County should increase its reserve balances. With
option 1, the reserves should increase approximately $2.8 million and with option 2, the
reserves should increase approximately $4.9 million.
Staff suggests that option one would be the preferred option - 5% to 15% of regular
operating revenues with 10% being a reasonable percentage to strive to reach. Staff
also recommend that a policy be developed setting out the calculation and delineating
designated and undesignated reserves.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT staff be directed to develop a reserve policy to be presented to Council later in
2008.
Respectfully Submitted
Approved for Submission
~~~~~
Linda B. Veger
Director of Financial Services
TREASURER'S STATEMENT OF REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES
March 25 Session, 2008
To the Warden and Members of the Elgin County Council,
The following is a statement of the remuneration, mileage, and expenses paid to each
member of the Elgin County Council for the period of January 1,2007 to December 31,2007.
REMUNERATION and MILEAGE
COUNCIL. COMMITTEES and OUTSIDE BOARDS
ACRE, LYNN
HABKIRK, ROBERT
HOFHUIS, SYLVIA
MARKS, TOM
MciNTYRE, JAMES
MENNILL, DAVID
VOWEL, BONNIE
WARWICK, GRAHAM
WILSON, JOHN
TOTAL
44,063.57
17,768.41
19,179.44
17,770.82
17,838.25
17,668.50
17,986.66
18,621.53
17,837.28
188,734.46
By-Law 05-12, By-Law 05-13 and By-Law 05-45.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Approved for submission.
'-1w[tv.A.ha ,{/'
inda B. Veger
Director of Financial Services
TREASURER'S STATEMENT OF REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES
March 25 Session, 2008
To the Warden and Members of the Elgin County Council,
The following is a statement of the remuneration, mileage, and expenses paid to persons
appointed to Outside Boards for the period January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007 as
authorized by the following By-Laws:
LAND DIVISION COMMITTEE (Bv-Law 06-26\
ENS,
FAULDS,
McPHAIL,
VAN BRENK,
WALTERS,
TOTAL
PAUL
PAUL
DUNCAN
RIEN
BILL
ELGIN ST. THOMAS HEALTH UNIT
MCINTYRE,
VOWEL,
WILSON,
TOTAL
TOTAL
JAMES
BONNIE
JOHN
3 HRS
8
7
8
ALL which is respectfully submitted.
~w0~~dt~
in a B. Veger ,j
Director of Financial Services
3+HRS
2
6
2
MEETINGS
968.00
1,658.00
968.00
TRAVEL
216.00
524.80
220.00
Approved for submission.
2,739.36
3,292.60
1,787.40
2,149.75
2,740.59
12,709.70
1,184.00
2,182.80
1,188.00
4,554.80
17,264.50
Mark G. Mc ~
Chief Administrative Officer
DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES STATEMENT ON CONVENTION EXPENSES
FIRST REPORT
To the Warden and Members of the Elgin County Council,
the following is an itemized statement of the conventions attended and expenses paid to
each Member of Elgin County Council, during the calendar year ending
31-Dec-07
2007 CONVENTIONS
1 2 3 4 5 TOTAL FOR
COUNCILOR ROMA/OGRA OSUM AMO OANHSS ACRO COUNCILOR
Acre, Lynn 6,273.91 0.00 3,772.69 0.00 861.96 $ 10,908.56
Habkirk, Bob 1,203.99 0.00 2,359.39 0.00 0.00 $ 3,563.38
Hofhuis, Sylvia 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $
Marks, Tom 1,984.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ 1,984.84
Mennlll, Dave 2,045.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ 2,045.27
Mcintyre, James 0.00 0.00 1,848.11 0.00 0.00 $ 1,848.11
Vowel, Bonnie 1,406.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ 1,406.03
Warwick, Graham 1,043.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ 1,043.76
Wilson, John 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $
TOTALS $ 13,957.80 $ $ 7,980.19 $ $ 861.96 $ 22,799.95
All figures include G.S.T.
ROMA/OGRA
RURAL ONTARIO MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION
ONTARIO GOOD ROADS ASSOCiATION
ONTARIO SMALL URBAN MUNICIPALITIES
ASSOCIATION OF MUNICIPALITIES
ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF NON-PROFIT HOUSING FOR SENIORS
AMO COUNTIES AND REGIONS
OSUM
AMO
OANHSS
ACRO
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Approved for submission.
(;(~~.A..b,.eA/
Linda B. Veger (/
Director of Financial Services
Icer
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM: Sonia Beavers, Purchasing Co-ordinator
DATE: March 13,2008
SUBJECT: Semi-Annual Information Report - Contract Awards
(July 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007) and Direct Negotiation
Expenditures (Jan. - Dec. 2007)
CORPORATE GOAl(S) REFERENCED:
To ensure fiscal responsibility and accountability.
INTRODUCTION
As per the County of Elgin's Procurement Policy 10.1; " an information report
containing the details relevant to the exercise of delegated authority for all
contracts awarded that exceed $5,000 including amendments and renewals is to
be prepared and reported to Council on a semi-annual basis".
In addition, the County of Elgin's Procurement Policy 3.14 states;
"Any expenditure exceeding $50,000 for a one time purchase or over an annual
basis must be reported to Council".
DISCUSSION I CONCLUSION:
The Council of the Corporation of the County of Elgin delegated authority to the
Directors to award contracts as follows;
Value Report Status
Greater than No report to Council required if within 10% of the
$5,000 but less approved budget allocation
than $50,000
Greater than No report to Council required if within approved
$50,000 but less budget
than $100,000
However, Council also approved that a semi-annual information report would be
brought forward containing details of the award of contracts including
amendments and renewals. The details of the award of contracts is attached as
Appendix A.
The Council of the Corporation of the County of Elgin delegated authority to the
Directors to purchase goods and services using the Direct Negotiation method.
The Policy states as long as an attempt to purchase the required goods and
services has been made in good faith, the goods or services can be purchased
using the Direct Negotiation method. Purchases made using the Direct
Negotiation method will be reported to Council on an annual basis. In addition,
any expenditure exceeding $50,000 for a one-time purchase or over an annual
basis must be reported to Council. The details of the Direct Negotiation, one time
purchases and purchases exceeding $50,000 over an annual basis are detailed in
Appendix B.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT the Semi-Annual Information Report - Contract Awards, and Direct
Negotiation Expenditures Report dated July 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007 be
received and filed.
Respectfully Submitted
~~ \.<.~CI.U-.I
oma Beavers
Purchasing Co-Ordinator
Approved for Submission
vi 4
I/} '-1--<-4-0 ~( C{.../
Linda Veger
Direc lnanCla es
APPENDIX A
Purchases areater than $5,000 but less than $100,000
July 1. 2007 to December 31. 2007
Department Budget Project Award Bid Price
Allocation (includes
taxes)
Engineering Capital Electrical work for R.A. Barnes $ 9,142.50
Terrace Lodge
renovations
Engineering Capital Wallacetown Hydro One $ 30,796.45
relocate of hydro
poles on Main St.
Engineering Capitai Supply and Install Climate Control $ 68,820,50
down duct unit
with UV at
Terrace Lodqe
Engineering Capital Fabricate and Yarmouth $ 5,170.07
Install sidewalk Fabricators
safety rail at Elgin
Manor
Engineering Capital Supply 18 heat Carrier $ 34,285.50
pumps
Engineering Capital Architectural Paul Loreto $ 25,109.77
Services for 3rd Architect Inc.
Floor renovations
Engineering Capital HVAC Climate Control $ 34,768.00
modifications to
3rd floor
Engineering Operational Supply and Install Yarmouth $ 5,877.07
steel at Terrace Fabricators
Lodge for HV AC
system
Engineering Capital Build and install Yarmouth $ 25,800.01
gazebo with Hot Fabricators
Dip Galvanized at
Elgin Manor
Enaineerina Capital Supplv 3 HVAC Carrier $ 9,610.20
Engineering Capital Wood Doors Adm. SDH $ 14,006.17
Services
Engineering Capital Flooring and wall Gray's Flooring $ 13,592.70
tile
APPENDIX A
Purchases qreater than $5.000 but less than $100.000
Julv 1. 2007 to December 31. 2007
Department Budget Project Award Bid Price
Allocation (includes
taxes)
Engineering Capital Carpet and Floor Bernardo $ 7,547.20
Levelling -Adm.
Services
Engineering Capital Supply & Install Yarmouth Steel $ 7,569.79
Steelwork Roof
Units
Engineering Capital Engineering Fees Spriet Assoc. $ 21,405.62
for New Sarum
Bridqe
Engineering Capital Piumbing for 3rd Ambrose $ 5,546.50
fioor renovations
Engineering Capital Supply and install G&S $ 7,310.29
millwork for 3rd Woodworking
floor renovations
Engineering Capital Railroad - Main Municipality of $ 50,359.00
St. Reconstruction DuttonfDunwich
Engineering Capital Consultations - Golder $ 5,884.08
Dexter Line, Associates
Lakeshore Bluff
Slope, Road 42
Engineering Capital Replace Flasher Erie Thames $ 6,809.74
signal Pole at Services
Quaker road and
John Wise Line
Engineering Capital Asphalt for RR D. Peters Paving $ 8,618.86
tracks Elm St. Inc.
Aylmer
Engineering Capital King George Comstock $ 8,512.78
Bridge - Port
Staniey
Engineering Capital EPLOCK EPolycorp $ 5,504.15
installation
County Road # 55
Engineering Capital Reshape ditch on Van Gorp Farm $ 18,959.16
Belmont Road at Drainage
Blossom Ridge
APPENDIX A
Purchases qreater than $5,000 but less than $100,000
Julv 1. 2007 to December 31. 2007
Department Budget Project Award Bid Price
Allocation (includes
taxes)
Engineering Capital Design and Spriet Assoc. $ 7,431.04
prepare plans for
new heating
system Central
Garaqe
Engineering Capital Build new Streib Trucking $ 14,525.70
roadway to
sewage treatment
plant
Engineering Capital Engineering SPH Engineering $ 18,480.00
Services Aylmer
Ambulance
Station
Engineering Capital Repair Soft Spot Township of $ 8,883.23
on County Road Southwoid
18
Engineering Capital Storm Drain Township of $ 7,719.51
Repair Southwold
Engineering Capital Install Fire Alarm Forest City Fire $ 53,000.00
System at Terrace
Lodqe
Engineering Operational Review Sewage Conestoga $ 5,830.00
Treatment Plant Rovers
Operation
Enqineerinq Caoital Renovations BV CD Drvwall $ 6,571.26
Engineering Capital Renovations to 3rd CD Drywall $ 30,975.00
Floor
Engineering Capital Terrace Lodge CD Drywall $ 12,106.91
renovations
Engineering Capital Clachan Road Municipality of $ 39,948.43
construction 50% Chatham Kent
share
Engineering Capital Culvert Township of $ 17,712.37
Replacement Malahide
Putnam Road
APPENDIX A
Purchases greater than $5.000 but less than $100.000
Julv 1. 2007 to December 31. 2007
Department Budget Project Award Bid Price
Allocation (includes
taxes)
Engineering Capital Ductwork and Climate Control $ 20,737.50
Connections -
Adm building
Engineering Capital Maxinet and Fire Media Multicom $ 6,317.60
Alarm Client
Integration Elgin
Manor
Engineering Capital Asphalt and Municipality of $ 20,349.16
Milling at various West Elgin
locations
Engineering Capital Make changes to Johnson Controls $ 12,626.72
automation
system
Engineering Capital Window Phillips Dry $ 6)58.60
Coverings for 3rd Goods
Floor
Engineering Capital Architectural Murphy & $ 51,274.94
Design for 3 level Murphy
elevator Terrace
Lodqe
Engineering Capital Architectural Murphy & $ 10,464.86
Design for Fire Murphy
Alarm System and
Annuniciator
Panel for Terrace
Lodqe
Engineering Capital Architectural Murphy & $ 5,977.34
Design for Murphy
Kitchen, Servery
and Activation for
Terrace Lodge
Engineering Capital Architectural Murphy & $ 12,703.67
Design HVAC Murphy
Layout for
Terrace Lodqe
APPENDIX A
Purchases oreater than $5.000 but less than $100.000
July 1. 2007 to December 31. 2007
Department Budget Project Award Bid Price
Allocation (includes
taxes)
Engineerino Operational Drillino Graff Concrete $ 9,010.00
Engineering Capital Lawn Sprinkler Canadian $ 5,451.87
System Terrace Irrigation
LodCje
Information Operational Software goods Protek $ 6,338.40
Technolooy
Information Automation Licence - Rico High Criteria Inc. $ 5,073.00
Technology budCjet Reports
Information Capital and Hardware Protek $ 10,223.14
Technolooy Operational
Information Operational Goods and Kronos $ 6,309.59
TeChnology Service
Information Operational Goods Insight $ 6,324.09
Technolooy
Information Operational Service Citrix Systems $ 6,300.00
Technolooy
Information Capital Goods Protek Systems $ 9,275.04
Technoloqy
Information Operational Licence for Insight $ 6,324.09
Technology Insight
Information Operational Goods and Protek Systems $ 10,495.37
Technoloqy Hardware
LT. Department Capital Goods COW Canada $ 5,807.97
Cultural Services Insurance Displayers for Brodart $ 5,726.15
West Lome
Library
Cultural Services Insurance Shelying for West Brodart $ 7,775.62
Lome Library
Cultural Services Automation Computer Ontario Library $ 8,322.06
Budget Resources Cost Consortium
Sharing
ACjreement
Cultural Services Operational Books Library Bound $ 8,827.48
Inc.
Cultural Services Operational Books Brodart $ 10.183.33
Cultural Services Operational Hardware NLE $ 9,637.00
APPENDIX A
Purchases qreater than $5.000 but less than $100,000
Julv 1. 2007 to December 31. 2007
Department Budget Project Award Bid Price
Allocation (includes
taxes)
Cultural Services Operational Books World Book $ 5,192.94
Educational
Products
Cultural Services Quality of Life Folders and Aylmer Express $ 6,641.64
Fund Bookmarks
Cultural Services Quality of Life Copier for Port Ricoh $ 8,132.76
Fund Stan lev Library
Administrative Capital Furniture for 3rd POI $ 24,404.27
Services Floor
Administrative Operational Oct-Dee 2007 KCCA $ 8,618.04
Services Contract with
KCCA
Administrative Operational Annual Monitoring Grey Island $ 7,800.00
Services Services for 10 Systems
Ambulance Units
Administrative Capital Allied Rack Allied Medical $ 8,459.49
Services Systems for
Ambulance
Administrative Capital Defib. Batteries Zoll $ 5,244.00
Services
Human Operational Benefits for staff Manulife $ 70,765.56
Resources for Dec. 2007 Financiai
Human Operational Benefit Carrier for Acclaim $ 47,842.14
Resources Auq to Dec. 2007
Human Operational Professional Fees Gazda, Houlne $ 5,406.00
Resources and Project and Assoc.
Expenses for
Survey of
Compensation &
Orqanization
Human Operational Professional Fees Gazda, Houlne $ 6,216.00
Resources for Market Survey and Assoc.
of Council
Renumeration
Bobier Villa Capital New Beds (36) Styker Bertec $113,296.00
APPENDIX A
Purchases oreater than $5.000 but less than $100.000
July 1. 2007 to December 31. 2007
Department Budget Project Award Bid Price
Allocation (includes
taxes)
Bobier Villa Capital Closet Doors SOH $ 11,131.39
Bobier Villa Donation Stain Glass Janet Medlyn $ 11,400.00
Account Window Studio
Terrace LOdge Capital Dining Room Table and Chair $ 8,732.40
Chairs Company
Terrace Lodge Operational Warming Cabinets Stevens $ 6,122.34
Economic Operational Professional Fees Millier, Dickison $ 13,125.00
Development Marketing and and Blais
Brandinq Strateqy
All Buildings Operational Office Products Lyreco $ 14,783.70
for 2007
All Buildings Operational Paper Products Swish $ 20,473.93
for 2007
All Buildings Operational Snow Plowing for Dave $ 39,363.00
2007 Chesterfield
Ken Sproul
Dave Lilley &
Dave Simmons
All Buildings Operational Lawn Westelaken $ 45,262.38
Maintenance for Yardworks, Dave
2007 Chesterfield,
Jims Lawn Care
APPENDIX B
Expenditures exceeding $50,000 for a one time purchase or over an annual basis
Januarv 1. 2007 to December 31. 2007
Department Goods or Service Supplier Total
Purchased Expenditure
Homes Incontinent Products SCA - Futuremed $ 111,275
Homes Raw Food SySCO $ 605,089
Homes Linen Service Brite Linen & LHLS $ 233,198
Homes Nursing Supplies Futuremed, Medical $ 89,669
Mart and Stevens
All Painting Contract Klassen Construction $ 66,968
Departments
All Electrical Contract R.A. Barnes Electric $ 64,035
Departments
All Plumbing Ambrose Plumbing $ 62,320
Departments
Engineering Cleaning Service for J&A Cleaning Solutions $ 72,574
Administration Buildinq
Engineering Garbage Collection Green Lane $ 24,155
Environmental
Enqineerinq HVAC Maintenance Hitchman Chalmers $ 64,044
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM:
Brian Masschaele, Manager of Cultural Services
Alan Smith, Manager of Economic Development and
Tourism Services
DATE:
February 28th, 2008
SUBJECT:
Collaborative Partnership - The Arts & Cookery Bank
CORPORATE GOAL(Sl REFERENCED:
To promote cultural services;
To forge community partnerships.
INTRODUCTION:
Staff have been approached about forming a collaborative partnership with the
"The Arts & Cookery Bank", a new initiative taking shape in West Lome. This
report outlines the nature of this proposed partnership and recommends that staff
be authorized to proceed as a collaborative partner.
DISCUSSION:
Staff have been involved in initial discussions to support a non-profit initiative in
West Lome called "The Arts & Cookery Bank... A Community Heritage Centre".
The project involves the redevelopment of the former Bank of Montreal building
in West Lome into communal use as both a photographic gallery and cookery,
with a particular focus on local images and produce drawn from a catchment
area of West Elgin, Dutton/Dunwich, Newbury and Southwest Middlesex.
The Manager of Economic Development and Tourism Services, the Manager of
Cultural Services and the Museum Curator have all been approached about
lending support to this emerging project. Staff feel that this project has tourism
and cultural development potential for the western portion of the County and
therefore wish to lend it more formal support. This support would be in-kind only
and would take the following forms:
. Tourism, economic development and marketing support;
. Interpretive support and content for the development of heritage
displays according to policies and procedures of the County's museum
and archives.
The proponents are currently in the process of applying for grants and engaging
in fundraising efforts, efforts which often benefit from the ability to reference
collaborative partnerships. Staff are recommending that the County be listed as
such a collaborative partner for this endeavour provided that the scope of
involvement does not exceed the forms outlined above, that such collaboration
does not expose the County to liability or risk of any kind, and that the
partnership remains sustainable within the staff and resources available to the
County. It should be noted that the municipalities of West Elgin, Dutton/Dunwich,
Newbury and Southwest Middlesex have already agreed to enter into such a
collaborative partnership for this project.
In closing, staff can assure Council that offers of such partnerships extend to any
non-profit organization in the County which has as its goal the promotion of
economic development, tourism or the preservation and promotion of the
County's rich heritage, especially if such initiatives do not compete with already
established public or private interests. Staff feel that this particular project meets
all of these objectives. However, its merits will be reviewed on an annual basis
and Council can expect further reports should the status of this partnership
change.
CONCLUSION:
This report recommends that Council support a collaborative partnership with
"The Arts & Cookery Bank" under development in West Lome.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT the County of Elgin enter into a collaborative partnership with the "The Arts
& Cookery Bank... A Community Heritage Centre" in West Lome through the
provision of in-kind support in the areas of economic development, tourism,
marketing and heritage interpretation;
AND THAT this partnership be reviewed by staff on an annual basis with any
change in status reported to County Council.
Respectfully Submitted
&kS:L
Brian Masschaele
Manager of C ltural S
Approved for Submission
~~oald ~--
Chief Administrative Officer
Alan Smith
Manager of Economic Development
and Tourism Services
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM:
Brian Masschaele, Manager of Cultural Services
Cathy Bishop, Director of Cultural Services
DATE:
10 March 2008
SUBJECT:
Freedom of the County update
CORPORATE GOAL(Sl REFERENCED:
To forge community partnerships.
INTRODUCTION:
This report updates County Council on plans for the "Freedom of the County"
event taking place on April 19th, 2008 in partnership with the 31st Combat
Engineer Regiment (The Elgins).
DISCUSSION:
Staff informed County Council at the November 2yth, 2007 session that a special
ceremony will be taking place with the 31st Combat Engineer Regiment (The
Elgins) to convene upon the Re~iment "Freedom of the County". The event will
take place on Saturday, April 19 h, 2008. The Warden and staff have been
working closely with the Regiment to plan this event: The following is an update
on plans to date:
. The entire ceremony will take place at the Elgin County Administration
Building. There will be no events at lower-tier municipal offices as
originally reported due to the logistics involved;
. The Regiment will be transported to and from the building aboard a Port
Stanley Terminal Railway train. The train is expected to arrive shortly
after 2:00 with approximately 180 troops participating;
. Troops will march upon the front of the building via Karen Street and
Sunset Drive. The Municipality of Central Elgin has been informed of the
need to issue a parade permit for this event;
. After "Freedom" is granted to the Regiment by the Warden, and pending
Council's approval, Council is being asked to host a private reception for
up to 80 people in the County Building involving dignitaries from the
Regiment and the County. The Archives and Museum will create a small
exhibit honouring the regiment that will be on display during this reception.
. The train will return to the armoury at approximately 4:00 pm in order to
prepare for the S1. George's Dinner taking place that evening at 7:00 pm.
The Regiment will be briefing the Warden on protocol for the ceremony. Lord
Elgin has confirmed attendance and they also have initial confirmation that the
Government of Canada will be represented by the Minister of National Defence.
All members of County Council are encouraged to attend the reception in full
County dress. The public is also welcome to attend the outdoor portion of the
parade and ceremony.
The first recommendation of this report contains the specific wording that the
Regiment has requested in order to grant freedom.
CONCLUSION:
This report updates County Council on plans for the "Freedom of the County"
event taking place on April 19th, 2008.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT the County of Elgin hereby confers upon 31 Combat Engineer Regiment
(The Elgins) "Freedom of the County"; And the Right to march throughout the
County of Elgin with bayonets fixed, drums beating and Colours flying in
perpetuity. This privilege is granted in grateful recognition of the special trust
earned as a result of long and faithful service in South Africa, Italy, North-West
Europe, the Balkans, the Middle East, and Afghanistan by 31 Combat Engineer
Regiment (The Elgins) and its predecessors.
Further, it recognizes the historical association of the Regiment with the County
of Elgin and the debt the County and Canada owe to those sacrifices so willingly
and unhesitatingly made in the cause of freedom.
This Freedom is to be exercised in memory of all ranks who served and earned
for their comrades and the soldiers who stand in their places, the honours now
secured to them by their fellow citizens and here recorded.
AND THAT "Freedom of the County of Elgin" be granted to the 31st Combat
Engineer Regiment (The Elgins) on Saturday, April 19th, 2008;
AND THAT a reception be held at the Elgin County Administration Building on
that afternoon in honour of this occasion with members of County Council
attending in full County dress with funds drawn from Cultural Services 2008
budget.
Respectfully Submitted
~.~O/
rlan Masschaele
Manager of Cultural Services
Approved for Submission
'tel",ld~
Chief Administrative Officer
~c6J.
Cathy shop ~
Director of Cultural Services
---...,
6.~;.
, .
. .
o .
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM:
Cathy Bishop
Director of Cultural Services
DATE:
March 5, 2008
SUBJECT:
Library Promotions Coordinator
CORPORATE GOAL/S) REFERENCED:
1. To ensure fiscal responsibility and accountability
2. To recognize and seize opportunities for improvement
INTRODUCTION:
County Council approved a one year contract position for Library Promotions
Coordinator position for the library starting September 4, 2007 to September 4,
2008. This position was funded through various grants received by the library.
Staff is asking Council's permission to continue the contract position for an
additional one year expiring September 5, 2009 to assist with the development
and re-designing of web pages for all County departments. This report outlines
the nature of the position and how it can be funded.
DISCUSSION:
The Elgin County Library web pages are in the process of being re-designed to
accommodate the full range of services the library now provides, specifically the
full functionality of the library's catalogue. The re-design of the library homepage
is complimentary to promoting the Community Access Program in each branch
library.
The re-designed Elgin County Library home page and its functionality were
demonstrated at the Management Team meeting. Staff was very impressed and
saw the benefit for other departments to follow suit.
As Council is aware, the Library has received a number of one-time grants from
the Ministry of Culture in 2007. Staff is proposing that $41,000 from the unspent
grants be used to continue the Library Promotions Coordinator contract from
September 5, 2008 to September 5, 2009.
CONCLUSION:
Staff is seeking Council's approval to continue the current contact for the Library
Promotions Coordinator position to engage in the re-design of County
department's web pages.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT the Human Resources Department proceed with developing a contract for
the Library Promotions Coordinator position from September 5, 2008 to
September 5, 2009 and;
THAT the position assist with re-designing County Department web pages.
Respectfully Submitted
C~
Director of Cultural Services
Approved for
'on
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM:
Cathy Bishop
Director of Cultural Services
DATE:
March 10,2008
SUBJECT:
Cultural Services Grant Funding
CORPORATE GOAL(SI REFERENCED:
1. To ensure fiscal responsibility and accountability
2. To recognize and seize opportunities for improvement
INTRODUCTION:
The Cultural Services Department (Library) has received a total of $261 ,388 in
grants in 2007 as listed below. To date staff has made purchases in the amount
of $124,155. This report is requesting Council's approval to purchase the
following capital and operational items from the remaining library grants in 2008
and 2009.
CULTURAL SERVICES I LIBRARY GRANTS
2007 2007
BALANCE
GRANT RECEIVED SPENT REMAINING
Carried
Over
Ministry of Culture - From
Literacv Funds 2006 $80,360 $30,155 $50,205
Ministry of Culture -
Qualitv of Life $108,000 $50,00 $58,000
Community Access
Funds $46,628 $39,000 $ 7,628
Service Ontario $26,400 $5,000 $21 ,400
Total $261,388 $124,155 $137,233
The Cultural Services Department was fortunate to have received a number of
one-time library grants in 2007. Due to time constraints, staff changes, and the
West Lome Library fire rebuild, staff were unable to spend all of the grant monies
in 2007. Out of the $137,233, remaining grant funds Council previously
approved $15,000 from the library grants to be spent on updating the Council
pictures, $28,000 for the existing contract for the Library Promotions Coordinator
position until September 4, 2008 and $40,000 for the Dutton Library renovations.
For a total of $83,000 committed funds with a balance of $54,233 remaining.
COUNCIL APPROVED EXPENDITURES
2008
Library Grant Funds Remaining - 2007 $137,233
Council Pictures (2008) $15,000
(previously approved by Council)
Library Promotions Coordinator (2008) $28,000
(previously approved by Council Jan. 1, 2008 to Sept. 4,
2008)
Dutton Library Renovations (2008) $40,000
(previously approved by Council)
Balance - Library Grant Funds $54,233
Staff is seeking Council's approval for the remaining Ministry of Cultural library
grant funding to be allocated for the following operational and capital items in
2008 and 2009.
Proposed Expenditures for the Ministry of Culture Grant
Funds
Library Promotions Coordinator (2008 & 2009)
Sept. 5, 2008 to Dec. 31, 2008 - $13,000
Jan. 1, 2009 to Sept. 5, 2009 - $28,000
Staff is suggesting extending the contract for another year from
September 5, 2008 to Sept. 5 2009 to assist with re-designing
other County Department webpage's.
(a follow up report on this proposal will be presented to
Council)
Coloured Photocopier/Fax/Scanner - Main office (2009) $18,000
Canon Solutions has brought to attention of the library staff that
the photocopier in the main office is ten (10) years old and parts
are getting very difficult to locate. Staff is suggesting that the
copier is replaced in 2009 before it ceases to function.
Total $59,000
The difference of $4,767.00 for the proposed expenditures will be absorbed in
the 2008 operation budget.
CONCLUSION:
Cultural Services (Library) was fortunate to have received a number of grants
from the Ministry of Culture in 2007. Due to circumstances staff was unable to
spend all of the funds in 2007. Staff is proposing that $13,000 be allocated to
fund the Library Promotions position from September 5, 2008 to December 31,
2008, $28,000 be allocated to fund the position from January 1, 2009 to
September 5, 2009 and $18,000 to allocated to purchase a coloured
photocopier/fax/scanner.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT $13,000 be allocated to fund the Library Promotions Coordinator position
from September 5, 2008 to December 31, 2008 and;
THAT $28,000 be allocated to fund the Library Promotions Coordinator position
from January 1, 2009 to September 5, 2009 and;
THAT $18,000 be allocated to purchase a coloured photocopier/fax/scanner for
the library administration office in 2009 and;
THAT the funds be drawn from the library reserve.
Respectfully Submitted
Approved for Submission
~~O",ld ~
Chief Administrative Officer
-----
.~~
Cathy . op
Director of Cultural Services
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM:
Cathy Bishop, Director of Cultural Services
Mike Baker, Curator, Elgin County Museum
DATE:
10 March 2008
SUBJECT:
Museum Advisory Committee Appointees
CORPORATE GOAL/S) REFERENCED:
To promote cultural services;
To forge community partnerships.
INTRODUCTION:
Two individuals have been proposed for appointment to the Elgin County
Museum Advisory Committee to replace members representing organizations or
groups whose terms have expired. The report recommends appointment of these
two individuals under the terms of By-law No. 05-44.
DISCUSSION:
In 2007, the following were appointed to the Elgin County Museum Advisory
Committee: Mr. Bob Habkirk (on behalf of County Council), Mr. Perry
Clutterbuck (on behalf of the SI. Thomas-Elgin Tourist Association), Ms. Joan
Mansell and Ms. Luella Monteith (on behalf of Women's Institutes), Ms. Bertha
Vickerman (on behalf of lODE), Ms. Marie Nancarrow (at large member) and Ms.
Carol Judd (on behalf of County museums).
With the exception of the County Council appointee, terms of varying lengths
were assigned to the members to provide continuity for the committee in the
future. The two one-year terms have now come to an end and two new
appointees are recommended:
Ms. Lynda Hunter (representing the lODE)
Ms. Leta West (representing the museums of Elgin County)
Both will serve a three-year term.
CONCLUSION:
This report recommends the appointment to the Elgin County Museum Advisory
Committee of Ms. Lynda Hunter and Ms. Leta West, each to serve a three-year
term beginning in February, 2008.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT Ms. Lynda Hunter (representing the lODE) and Ms. Leta West
(representing the museums of Elgin County) be appointed to the Elgin County
Museum Advisory Committee for a three-year term beginning in 2008;
Respectfully Submitted
Approved for Submission
C;~1{~4
Cath ' ishop
Direc) r of Cultural Services
Icer
~/.~.
Mike Baker
Curator, Elgin County Museum
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM:
Dorothy Schaap - Payroll & Benefits Coordinator
Harley J. Underhill- Director of Human Resources
DATE:
March 25, 2008
SUBJECT: Annual Benefit Renewal 2008
CORPORATE GOAL(SI REFERENCED:
To ensure fiscal responsibility and accountability.
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:
The annual renewal report for the County of Elgin and member
municipalities from Mosey and Mosey, Benefits Consultants was received
on February 26, 2008. The report summarizes their analysis of the group
benefits renewal action required by Manulife, effective April 1 , 2008.
DISCUSSION:
Please refer to the attached Executive Summary prepared by Dawn
Hoskins, Vice-President of Marketing and Sales from the firm of Mosey and
Mosey.
Points of Emphasis:
1. Mosey & Mosey has a preferred arrangement with Manulife Financial
due to their large block of business. As a result of this partnership,
insured rates remain competitive and the clients' overall costs are
reduced.
2. For rating purposes, the County of Elgin and member municipalities
consortium plan have been regarded as one large group in order to
attain the best rates, allowing participating lower-tier members the
benefit of increased purchasing power that is available through pooled
insurance. Membership currently includes Central Elgin, Bayham,
Malahide, Dutton/Dunwich, Aylmer and Southwold.
3. The Extended Health Care benefit has a pooling arrangement currently
in place designed as added insurance to cover against the possibility of
catastrophic claims in excess of $10,000 per year per person for drug
claims. Manulife normally charges 3.3% of premium for this pooling and
once again, due to the large block of business Mosey has with Manulife,
a fee of 1.5% of premium is reflected in the extended health care
renewal rating analysis. This represents annual savings of
approximately $14,000 for all the County of Elgin and member
municipalities. This year there is a pooling credit of $51,902 due to
claims exceeding the $10,000 limit.
4. The Dental Care benefits are underwritten on a fully experience-rated,
non-refund accounting basis. Rates are established based on the
financial results generated by the paid premium and paid claims
experience.
RENEWAL OVERVIEW
The table below summarizes the 4-year history of renewal rate action, by
benefit line:
Benefit 2005 2006 2007 2008
Renewal Renewal Renewal Renewal
Life +5% +7% -4.2% -2.4%
AD&D No No No No
change change change change
LTD +4.5% +13.0% -5.4% -5.9%
WI No No Not Not
change change applicable applicable
EHC +6.5% -5.6% 6.2% 11.2%
Dental -11%+ -12.3% + 2.1% 24.1%
ODA fee ODA fee ODA fee
guide guide guide
increase increase increase
Overall +2.9% -2.0% 1.7% 8.4%
The annual increase of 8.4% for the County of Elgin's plan in dollars is
$6,060 monthly or $72,720 annually compared to Manulife's proposed
renewal of 13.9%. Mosey's negotiations with Manulife resulted in monthly
savings of $4,126 or $49,512 annually. The claims experience for dental is
very high for the review period of November 1, 2006 to December, and
therefore a significant increase in the premium for 2008.
CONCLUSION:
Staff are pleased with the outcome of the renewal and recommend acceptance of
the negotiated renewal rate adjustments with Manulife Financial effective April 1 ,
2008.
A copy of the report, in its entirety, is available at the County Administration
Services Office on the third floor.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT County Council approve the negotiated renewal rate adjustments with
Manulife Financial for the County of Elgin and the Elgin Member Municipalities,
effective April1, 2008.
Approved for Submission
Harley er
Director f Human Resources
Mark Mc ~Id
Chief Admimstrati
I~~~
Dorothy Schaap
Payroll & Benefits Coordinator
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
We are pleased to be presenting at this time the renewal report for the County
of Elgin employee group benefits program underwritten by Manulife Financial
and RBC Insurance. This benefits program normally renews every year on March
1 st; however. in order to conduct a thorough review of the benefits program and
the insurer's proposed rate action, we asked Manulife to agree to an April 1st,
2008 renewal rate effective date without pro-rating the rates. Manulife agreed,
as a result we are pleased to inform you that renewal rates will change effective
April ]5t, 2008 without pro-rating the rates. At this point in time, we want to
suggest perhaps changing the renewal effective date to April 1st permanently,
so that we have the time needed to review the insurer's proposed rate action,
negotiate the renewal with the insurer and complete our report to the County.
Manulife underwrites the Employee Group Life, Long Term Disability (LTD), Health
and Dental benefits. RBC Insurance underwrites the Accidental Death and
Dismemberment (AD&D) benefit. All benefits are underwritten on a non-refund
accounting basis. Liability for these benefits rests fully with the insurer.
Outlined in the table below are the proposed and negotiated renewal rate
adjustments effective April 1, 2008 for the County of Elgin and member
municipality consortium plan. Section 2 of this report discusses our evaluation of
your carrier's proposed renewal rate adjustments.
Benefit
Group life
AD&D
Long term disabilify
Total Pooled:
Extended Heallh Care
Travel
Dental Care
Total Experience Rated:
County of Elgin and Member Municipalities
Current
Renewal
$1l,718
$693
$30,949
$43,360
64,038
I, 103
23,081
8B,222
Proposed Renewal
Monthly Rate
Premium Adjustment
$13,955 19.1%
$693 0.0%
$29,123 -5.9%
$43,772 0.9%
73,451
I, 103
31,551
106,105
14.7%
0.0%
36.7%
20.3%
Negotiated Renewal
Monthly Rate
Premium Adjustment
$11,442 -2.4%
$693 0.0%
$29,123 -5.9%
$41,258 .4.8%
71,211
1,103
28,643
100,956
11.2%
0.0%
24.1%
14.4%
Total Overall: $131,582 $149,877 $142,215
8% PST $10,527 $11,990 $11,377
Overall Premium $142,108 $161,867 13.9% $153,592 8.1%
$ Adjustment Over Current $ 19,759 $ 11,484
Our renewal report will show the overall cost and rate summary comparison
which illustrates your pre-renewal, proposed renewal and negotiated renewal
costs by benefit for the County of Elgin.
Proposed and negotiated monthly premium amounts for the County of Elgin
only are illustrated below. Please note the overall adjustment for your group
varies slightly in respect to the overall adjustment indicated above due to the
different volumes applicable to each participating division. Please also note
that each of the County of Elgin and member municipality consortium program
all receive the same renewal rate adjustments by line of benefit.
County of Elgin
Proposed Renewal Negotiated Renewal
Current Monthly Rate Monthly Rate
Benefit Renewal Premium Adjustment Premium Adjustment
Group Life $5,285 $6,289 19.1% $5,161 -2.4%
AD&D $218 $218 0.0% $218 0.0%
long term disability $15,239 $14,340 -5.9% $14,340 -5.9%
Total Pooled: $20,741 $20,847 0,5% $19,719 .4.9%
Exlended Heallh Care 32,931 37,771 14.7% 36,619 11.2%
Travel 539 539 0.0% 539 0.0%
Dental Care 12,222 16,708 36.7% 15,168 24.1%
Total Experience Rated: 45,692 55,017 20.4% 52,325 14.5%
Total Overall: $66,433 $75,865 $72,044
8% PST $5,315 $6,069 $5,764
Overall Premium $71,748 $81,934 14,2% $77,808 8.4%
$ Adjustment Over Current $ 10,186 $ 6,060
Summary and Recommendations
For rating purposes only, the County of Elgin and member municipalities
consortium plan have been regarded as one large group In order to attain the
best rates. Information is also provided in this report as it pertains to the County
of Elgin only.
Mosey&Mosey has a large block of business with Manulife Financial and a good
business relationship with the insurer. As a result, we were able to negotiate
better overall renewal costs for the County of Elgin and participating
municipalities. We feel that the insured rates remain competitive based on the
criteria used by the Insurer for pricing the plan for the County and the
participating municipalities and recommend acceptance of the renewal. We
would also like to reiterate that based on the current funding method the insurer
is completely liable for these benefits. If the County were to test the market
place, prospective insurers would base their proposed rates on the County's
experience, just as Manulife has done. We feel Manulife has made some
concessions with their final rate action position to try to avoid a marketing of the
plan. If service concerns continue to be an issue then this is another reason for
considering a marketing.
The overall negotiated renewal rate increase for the County of Elgin and
member municipalities will be +8.1%, compared to the insurer's proposed
renewal rate adjustment of + 13.9%. As a result of our independent audit of
Manulife's renewal, this year the County of Elgin and member municipalities will
pay an overall increase in monthly premium of $11,484, or $137,808 annually.
Manulife had proposed the overall monthly premium should increase by $19,759
or $237,108 annually. Our negotiations resulted in monthly savings of $8,275 or
$99,300 annually. Delaying the renewal by one month without pro-rating the
rates means further savings of approximately $1 0,000 annually for the entire plan.
For the County of Elgin alone, because of our negotiations with Manulife, instead
of paying a monthly premium increase of $10,186, your current monthly premium
will increase by $6,060 or $72,720 annually. Our negotiations with Manulife
resulted in monthly savings of $4,126 or $49,512 annually. Delaying the renewal
by one month without pro-rating the rates means further savings of
approximately $8,000 annually for the County of Elgin alone.
We are pleased with the outcome of this renewal and recommend acceptance
of the negotiated renewal rate adjustments with Manulife Financial effective
April 1, 2008. Should you want to consider a marketing due to service issues, this
can be addressed separately after acceptance of the renewal.
Our report will follow with more details of our audit and the County's claims
experience analysis.
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM: Dorothy Schaap - Payroll & Benefits Coordinator
Harley J. Underhill - Director of Human Resources
DATE: March 25, 2008
SUBJECT: Life and Accidental Death and Dismemberment Insurance
Coverage
CORPORATE GOAL'S) REFERENCED:
To ensure fiscal responsibility and accountability.
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:
Select employees have Life Insurance and Accidental Death and
Dismemberment (AD&D) coverage in the amount of two times their annual
earnings as part of their benefit package.
DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION:
As salaries continue to increase annually, it is necessary that Life Insurance and
AD&D also be increased automatically to provide adequate coverage as
indicated in the employees benefit package.
RECOMMENDATION:
That as salaries continue to increase annually, coverage's for Life, L TD and
AD&D be automatically increased as well.
Approved for Submission
uman Resources
ifldc L #- ~f2
Dorothy Schaap
Payroll & Benefits Coordinator
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM: Meredith Goodwin, Construction Technologist
Sonia Beavers, Purchasing Co-Ordinator
DATE: March 4, 2008
SUBJECT: Capital Project - Talbot Line Rehabilitation, Contract # 6200-06-03
Coroorate Goal Referenced
To build and maintain an efficient, affordable, effective and safe transportation network
that accommodates the diverse needs of our communities and is able to support
economic development and sustainable growth.
Introduction
As part of the Capital Budget, Requests for Tenders were issued as per the County's
Purchasing Policy and sealed bids were received until Thursday, February 21, 2008 for
the supply of all labour, equipment and materials for the Rehabilitation of Talbot Line,
also known as Elgin County Road # 3) from Dunborough Road to the County limits
(McPherson Road). The length of the project is 17.2km.
Discussion / Conclusion
Formal Tenders were retained and bids were received as follows:
Company
Hen He ink Construction Limited
Birnam Excavatin Limited
EI in Construction
Bid (includin taxes)
$ 2,091,600.00
$ 2,116,476..45
$ 2,445,234.49
Henry Heyink Construction Limited submitted the lowest bid for the rehabilitation of
Talbot Line, County Road # 3, at a total price of $ 2,091,600.00 (including taxes). The
bid includes all labour, material and equipment required to complete the project as
specified in the Tender Document.
This project forms part of the Talbot Line Rehabilitation project scheduled over a four
year period and to be completed in 2010. A reserve has been established utilizing the
Move Ontario Provincial Grant and Federal Gas Tax Revenue to fund this project. The
lowest bid is within the budget estimates.
Recommendation
THAT Henry Heyink Construction Limited be selected for the supply of all labour,
material and equipment required for the Rehabilitation of Talbot Line for at the quoted
price of $ 2,091,600.00 (including taxes); and
THAT the Warden and Chief Administrative Officer be directed and authorized to enter
into an agreement with Henry Heyink Construction Limited to complete the
Rehabilitation of Talbot Line, County Road # 3, from Dunborough Road to McPherson
Road, - Contract # 6200-06-03.
Respectfully Submitted,
~-
~
Meredith Goodwin
Construction Technologist
~ ~ ~LA ~
oma Beavers
Purchasing Co-Ordinator
Approved By,
a1lUl1W~
Clayton Watters
Director, Engineering Services
~ ~~
Chief Administrative Officer
6\.'!:o
. .
. .
.
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM: Peter Dutchak/ Manager of Road Infrastructure
DATE: March 7/ 2008
SUBJECT: Mill Creek Culvert - Sparta
CORPORATE GOALS:
To build and maintain an efficient/ affordable/ effective and safe transportation network
that accommodates the diverse needs of our communities and is able to support
economic development and sustainable growth.
INTRODUCTION:
A culvert failure has occurred on Quaker Road (County Road #36) on Mill Creek/ just
north of the main intersection in Sparta.
DISCUSSION:
The culvert under Quaker Road just north of Sparta Line in Sparta has failed near its
outlet and a large sink hole has appeared on the east road bank. The existing culvert
consists of a stone arch approximately 1.2m in span and height. It is assumed that this
part of the structure dates back to the 1800/s. The ends have been extended with
concrete sections before 1950. The concrete ends are in good condition/ however/ as
can be expected/ the original stone arch has failed and is deteriorating.
The existing culvert conveys flows from a 525 hectare watershed area and is
undersized. Using a 25 year storm return period/ the culvert should be a 2900mm (9.5
foot) diameter pipe instead of the present 1200mm (4 foot) pipe. Because the existing
end area is grossly undersized/ slip lining the existing culvert as a repair option is not
available.
Engineering staff has consulted a drainage engineer and a contractor to review repair
options. It has been determined that any repair would be a temporary solution only
and last between 2 and 10 years. Existing steep slopes/ constant water flow/ existing
utilities and confined spaces contribute to repair costs that are estimated to be at least
$40/000.
Engineering staff have therefore concluded that the most appropriate solution is to
replace the culvert with a new 70m length 2900mm diameter pipe. The project would
allow the existing steep road slopes to be flattened and the road drainage infrastructure
and road surface to be repaired in this area as well. Both are in poor condition.
Fortunately, the temporary diversion pipe used in the replacement of the New Sarum
Bridge in 2007 was a 48m long, 2900mm diameter pipe. This pipe was purposely
salvaged and stored at White's Station for future use and can be utilized as part of this
replacement, thereby reducing costs.
The total project cost to install the new culvert and restore the roadway is estimated at
$300,000.00. These funds are not included within the 2008 Capital Budget and
therefore another 2008 project must be deferred to accommodate this work. Staff
recommends to defer the Buck's Bridge Deck Rehabilitation Project until 2009 and
utilize these funds for the Mill Creek Culvert Replacement.
Council should be aware that deferring projects will create other ramifications in the 5-
year capital plan. Destructive rehabilitation projects are able to be deferred without
jeopardising the integrity of the infrastructure so long as the road's condition remains
safe. This cascading affect will delay destructive rehabilitation projects such as the
proposed rehabilitation of Furnival Road.
The project will necessitate that Quaker Road north of Sparta Line be closed for 8
weeks and the work will be restricted to occur between June 15111 and September 15th.
CONCLUSION:
An existing 1.2m diameter culvert on Quaker Road in Sparta has failed. The existing
culvert's original section is a stone arch likely dating back to the 1800's. Mill Creek has
a watershed area of 525 hectares and a 2900mm diameter culvert is required to convey
these flows.
Repair options have been discussed and have been determined to cost at least $40,000
and will be a temporary solution. Therefore, staff is proposing to replace the culvert
with a new 2900mm pipe. The culvert pipe used in the New Sarum Bridge construction
detour may be utilized in part of the new replacement to reduce costs. The project will
also improve the storm drainage, curb and gutter and road surface in this section of
Quaker Road.
The total project cost is estimated at $300,000 and wili require Quaker Road to be
closed immediately north of Sparta Line for 8 weeks during the summer of 2008.
Staff recommends deferring the Buck's Bridge Rehabilitation project included in the
2008 Capital Budget and utilizing these funds for this project.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT the replacement of the Mill Creek Culvert in Sparta be completed during the
summer of 2008 and;
THAT the Buck's Bridge Deck Rehabilitation project be deferred and that these funds be
used for the replacement of the Mill Creek Culvert.
Respectfully Submitted
~
Peter Dutchak
Manager, Road Infrastructure
Approved for Submission
~~
Mark G. McDonald
Chief Administrative Officer
OhUJ6^fuArG
Clayton Watters
Director, Engineering Services
)
---
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM: Clayton Watters, Director of Engineering Services
DATE: February 27, 2008
SUBJECT: Road Master Plan
CORPORATE GOALS
To build and maintain an efficient, affordable, effective and safe transportation network
that accommodates the diverse needs of our communities and is able to support economic
development and sustainable growth.
INTRODUCTION
In 2007 County Council recognized the need and approved monies for the completion of a
Road Master Plan for the County of Elgin. Staff assembled the services of a transportation
engineer, land use planner and the solicitor for the County of Elgin to prepare a document
that would be reviewed and approved by County Council. Also, included was the hosting
of three public meetings to be held in: western, central and eastern Elgin County.
The Road Master Pian provides a basic framework for the long range planning of the
County road system. These polices will serve to establish the function of the County roads
and protect the right of ways for future improvements. The polices recognize the close
relationship between land use planning and transportation.
DISCUSSION
In 2006 a landowner appealed a severance application to the Ontario Municipal Board
(OMB). A major discussion during the appeal was the need for the County to Elgin to
increase the right of way on certain roads in the absence of a written plan. Both sides
gave evidence in regards to the case and the OMB decision was the County did not have a
documented plan on land acquisition, therefore the appeal was successful. This was the
catalyst for an Elgin County Road Master Plan, and in part the plan will state the desired
R.O.W. on different road classifications to avoid similar appeals in the future.
The basic goal of the plan is to establish a formal mechanism, adopted by the County,
within which planning decisions can be made with respect to road improvements, land
access and land development.
\
A draft Road Master Plan is attached for Council's consideration. A transportation engineer,
a land planner and county staff will be hosting three public information meetings. The
locations will be in the Malahide Township office (April 8), DuttonjDunwich municipal
offices (on April 9) and the County of Elgin Administration Building (April 10).
Shortly after the meeting, 30 days, all comments from the meeting and any written
submissions will be evaluated and the Road Master Plan will be changed to reflect any
relevant comments. The final draft will be forwarded to County Council for adoption.
Staff will be advertising the meeting in the local papers on two different occasions and to
the municipalities for their information of the upcoming meetings.
CONCLUSION
The Road Master Plan process is nearing completion and staff will be hosting three public
meetings in the western, central and eastern part of the County of Elgin. Staff will be
seeking input the public on the draft plan so that County Council can adopt a policy that
has the technical background and public input so that the policy can be endorsed by all
parties involved.
The public information meetings will be held at the Malahide municipal office on April 8,
the DuttonjDunwich municipal office on April 9 and the County Administration Building on
April 10. The information meeting will be from 7 till 9 pm.
RECOMMENDATION
That this report be received and filed.
Respectfully Submitted
~~J&-b~
Clayton D. Watters
Director of Engineering Services
Approved for Submission
~'Id ~
Chief Administrative Officer
FINAL DRAFT
COUNTY OF ELGIN
ROAD MASTER PLAN POLICIES
F.R. Berry & Associates
Kirkness Consulting Inc.
March, 2008
RECEIVED liAR 1 4 2008
DRAFT POLICIES FOR THE COUNTY ROAD MASTER PLAN
COUNTY OF ELGIN
The County Road network provides for the movement of people and goods into,
out of and throughout the County amongst the various lower tier local
municipalities. The following policies provide a basic framework for the long
range planning of the County Road network. These policies will serve to
establish the function of the County Roads and protect rights-of-way for future
improvements. The policies recognize the close relationship between land use
planning and transportation planning and recognize that these responsibilities are
primarily carried out by the lower tier local governments of the County.
1.0 Goals
1.1 To provide a safe, convenient and efficient County Road system for the
movement of goods and people throughout the County.
1.2 To provide a County Road system that is complementary to and
coordinated with Ontario Provincial Highways and Municipal Local Roads
and provides connections between the two road systems.
1.3 To recognize the strong relationship of transportation planning and land
use planning such that appropriate levels of service shall be provided to
employment centres, commercial nodes and residential communities of
the County that are so designated in local Office Plans as part of their
respective growth management policies and practices.
1.4 To provide a County Road system that is recognized as an integral part of
the overall transportation system in the County, and as such, must be
coordinated with other jurisdictions and modes of transportation.
1.5 To establish a program of continuing improvements to the County Road
system coordinated with other jurisdictions.
1.6 To complement the character and role of individual municipalities
throughout the County in accordance with their respective Official Plans.
1.7 To be consistent with the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement and
specifically section 1.6.5 on Transportation Systems and 1.6.6 on
Transportation and Infrastructure Corridors.
-2-
2.0 Objectives
2.1 To develop a hierarchical functional classification of roads that enables a
priority of improvements to be established.
2.2 To review road corridors in consultation with the Province of Ontario and
local municipalities to determine if a change in classification is necessary.
2.3 To establish an ongoing Road Network Improvement Program.
2.4 To assist in ensuring safe, convenient and visually attractive pedestrian
facilities through Settlement Areas.
2.5 To address potential cross-border traffic issues with adjacent and relevant
government jurisdictions.
2.6 To establish minimum geometric design and functional standards for each
class of County Roads.
2.7 To facilitate bicycle route development and the provision of pedestrian
facilities.
3.0 Policies
3.1 Functional Classification of Roads
The classification system of County Roads shall comprise five classes of
roads as follows:
Major Arterial Roads
Minor Arterial Roads
Collector Roads
Local Roads
Suburban Links
The basic determinants of each class are as follows:
Major Arterial - Average Daily Traffic more than 8 000 vehicles
Connect major urban centres and Provincial roads
Subject to significant growth pressures
Potential for widening to four lanes within ten years
-3-
Minor Arterial - Average Daily Traffic 2 000 to 8 000 vehicles
Connect smaller urban centres (15 identified)
Continuation of major arterials
Connect to Provincial roads
Highway 401 Emergency Detour Route
Collector - Average Daily Traffic less than 2 000 vehicles
Connect hamlets and activity centres (eg. Provincial
Parks)
Provide linkages to the arterial road system
Local - Average Daily Traffic less than 1 OOOvehicles
Total length less than 2 kilometres.
Potential for transfer to local municipalities
Suburban Link - Adjacent to or within urban centres
Relatively short length
Relatively high traffic volumes
Alternate or bypass route
Table 3.1 sets out the definitions and characteristics of each classification
including function, characteristics, speed and interconnections.
Schedule A contains a listing of County Road sections by classification.
3.3 Access to Adjacent Lands
3.3.1 Any new development proposed adjacent to a County Road will require
approval from the Director of Engineering Services.
3.3.2 For arterial classifications of roads, private driveway access shall be
strongly discouraged and strictly controlled. The impact of frequent
accesses on such roads is detrimental to the safe operation of through
movements of traffic.
Large space uses such as agriculture and industry are encouraged
because they generally do not require several access points. Residential
and commercial land uses are discouraged because of their frequent
access point needs. Joint access, limited turns access, window street
-4-
design and consolidation of accesses shall be some of the ways that the
number of accesses is controlled.
3.3.3 For local roads, collectors and suburban links, more opportunity for
individual access will be considered.
3.4 Land Development
The County will review land development proposals, including but not
limited to severance applications, and the following matters will be part of
the review:
3.4.1 Whether there should be a traffic impact study carried out by a qualified
traffic engineer/planner to determine the problems and concerns expected
from the proposed development and how the problems can be resolved.
The cost of such studies and mitigating solutions shall be borne by the
development proponent;
3.4.2 Whether there should be a road widening taking from the lands that are
the subject of development, and if so, the road widening amount shall be
in accordance with the right-of-way requirements of Table 3.1 and
conveyed at no cost to the County. Where the right-of-way is less than
these standards the dedication of a widening may be a condition of
approval;
3.4.3 In most cases, road widening shall be taken equally from both sides of the
road as measured from the centreline of the right-of-way;
3.4.4 Where topographic features or other cultural features necessitate a larger
widening on one side of the road, no more than 50 percent of the required
widening shall be required to be dedicated. Additional widening will be
acquired through negotiations with appropriate compensation.
3.4.5 Where the need for the road widening is not imminent, permission may be
granted for the private interim use of the widening parcel.
3.4.6 Widenings shall be taken when development applications pursuant to the
Planning Act permit.
-5-
3.5 Road Setbacks
3.5.1 Minimum setbacks shall apply where a building or structure is to be placed
on a lot adjacent to County Road;
a) for major arterial roads the setback shall be 32 metres from the
centreline of the right-of-way.
b) for minor arterial roads the setback shall be 26 metres from the
centreline of the right-of-way.
c) for collector roads the setback shall be 24 metres from the centre-
line of the right-of-way.
d) for local roads the setback shall be 22 metres from the centre line
of the right-of-way.
e) for suburban link roads the setback shall be 32 metres from the
centreline of the right-of-way.
3.5.2 The setback of buildings and structures within settlement areas, as
established in local Official Plans, shall be in accordance with the local
zoning bylaw.
3;6 Road System Improvements
3.6.1 County Council shall maintain a continuous program of improvements to
major intersections and to bridges and rail crossings. As conditions
warrant, improvements such as jog eliminations, installation of traffic
signals, lane channelization, road widening, and daylight triangles shall be
made.
3.6.2 Council may require a development proponent to contribute to ensuring
the safety and efficiency of the County Road system where significant
volumes of traffic are expected to be generated and improvements, such
as additional turning lanes, are needed.
-6-
3.7 Truck Routes
Truck Routes may be established by the County through the passing of
bylaws and will utilize Provincial Highways, arterial roads, non-residential
collector roads and suburban links, thereby avoiding residential
neighbourhoods and areas.
3.8 Pedestrians
3.8.1 County Council shall promote pedestrian facilities by making them more
safe and convenient by:
a) generally requiring sidewalks on both sides of County Roads within
settlement areas, as established in local Official Plans;
b) ensuring sidewalks are sufficiently set back from the roadways and
well drained;
c) ensuring that replacement and new sidewalks are of barrier free
design;
d) participating in multiuse trail development such as the "Canada
Trails" Program.
3.9 Bicycles
3.9.1 County Council recognizes and promotes bicycling as a viable alternative
to other modes of transportation, because it promotes a healthy lifestyle,
by:
a) participating in bicycle master plan development by local
municipalities;
b) including where possible in the County Road system,
improvements to accommodate bicycle mode facilities.
"C
ell
~
iii
(.)
o
..J
...
.s
(.)
..!!!
'0
o
iii
';:
~
<(
...
o
.5
:is
iii
.;:
~
<(
...
o
.-
ell
:is
(.)
+l
III
.;:
.s
(.)
l!!
ell
..c
o
.lIl:
s::::
::i
s::::
ell
..c
...
::l
..c
::l
tJ)
I:
o
:;:;
Ol
- ~
I: Q) en
Q) "0 en
E'w 2l
Q)1:0
i580l"O
E~-g:@
o ro mo-
.- E - E
lI:: _~
co 'C ::l cu
~ 0...0 a.
I:
o
:;:;
~
Q)
"0
(/) "w
en I:
Q) 0
o 0
o~
Ol Ol
"OE
1:'1:
..!l!o.
"0 -
I: Ol
Ol ::J
_0"
I: Q)
Q)....
E 0
Q) en Q)
> en 0
o ~ c:
E 0 Ol
OOl'l::
ii="OO
OlI:O.
.I:>..!l! .~
I:
o
:;:;
-~
I: Q) en
Q) "0 en
E'w Q)
Q) c g
~8ro"U
E~-g:@
o ro m'-
ii=E:;:;E
CO'C ::J Q)
J:; 0..0 0.
I:
o
:;:;
-~
I: Q)
Q)"O
E 'w
Q) I:
> 0
o 0
E~
o Ol
ii=E
Ol'-
~ ~
_0.
I:
o
ts
I:
::J
U.
Q)
o
.~
Q)
(f)
I: en
Q)"O
Q) Ol
~e
Q) I:
..oOl
en-2
6 ::J
.- "0
t) I:
Q) Ol
1:-
I: ~
o ::J
o ~
~
2l
o
Ol
1'i
..Q
tii
'0
1:"0
'S; ~
e ~
0.-
o .~
-Q)
en 'I:: E
m Ol Q)
0"01;)
01::>.
Ol Ol en
~
~
tii ~
E"OOl
en ffi ~
Oen'<::'
-;;; Q) ,g>
cl::::;.c
.Q ffi co
00'0
~ c .S
1:0l>
o -e e
0::J0.
en
~
-
I:
.82l
en I:
I: Ol
0..0
+:i '-
o ::J
Q) ~
I: 0
I: '~
o OlE
o
m
Ol
Ol
-""
I:
::i
o
-
eno
:>'Q)en
Ol,__
;s:..o 0
Q):JJ:;
>enl:
'I: 8
"Oal
Q) :!:' I:
1il'E .2>
> ~ en
'I: Q) Q)
0. 0."0
~
~
>
'C "'0
"OQ)
2;:
~ E
'C Q)
0.0.
en
:>.
~
>
'1:
"Oal
Q):!:'
~.~
'C Q)
0. 0.
o
-
ent)
:>'Q)en
~:.oo
Q.l::ll::::;
> en I:
,- 0
-u~o
Q):!:'I:
1il 'E .2>
> ~ en
'C Q) Q)
0. 0."0
~
Ol
;s:
Q)"O
> Q)
'I: Ol
"OOl
~
Q) ::J
1il 0
> 0
.- en
~ ,-
0. "0
en
m
o
.:t
Q)
..0
Ol
'C
Ol
>
~
""
"0
Q)
15.
2
~
Q)
-
.!:
"0
0.
>
o
o
o
;s:
o
""
"0
.ill
0.
::J
~
~
Q)
-
.!:
~
v
"0
0.
>
o
o
o
N
V
;s:
o
""
"0
Q)
15.
::J
~
~
.ill
,!:
"0
0.
>
o
o
o
00
;s: ->
o ~ 0
""o~
""C .....,.. a.
Q)Ol"O
-EI:
0._ Ol
20len~
'-.....-co
.ill 0.Q) .~ ;s:
I: Q) .<::.
'c ~ t ,2>
:JQ)CO.c
o
o
o
N
"0
0.
>
o
o
o
00
^
~..!!!
""Ol
"0 I:
Q) .2>
15. en
::J-
l:: Ol
Q)15.
'EQ)
.- 0
I: X
::J Q)
en
Q)
E
::J
<5
>
o
ii=
~
I-
l3
ti
'C
Q)
o
~
Ol
.<::.
<.>
~
u.
""
E
-""
o
o
~
o
00
.<::.
-
E
-""
o
00
o
CD
""
E
-""
o
o
~
o
00
.<::.
-
E
-""
o
o
~
.<::.
-
E
-""
o
N
~
o
o
~
"0
Q)
Q)
0.
(f)
I:
Ol
'w
Q)
Cl
E
LO
-.i
N
o
o
N
E
o
o
N
o
u"i
~
E
o
o
<"l
o
o
N
E
LO
cO
<"l
o
o
<"l
E
LO
cO
<"l
:>.
Ol
3:
....
o
-
.<::.
Ol
0::
'<t
~
o
.S (/J
E Q)
1:'<::'
o iil
-0
o ~
~o.
-0.
6 Ol
Om
0.Q)
o ~
woo
N
N
e
-
I:
o
o
0.
o
1ii
N
<5
~
-
I:
o
o
0.
o
1ii
N
~
o
.S (/)
E Q)
1:'<::'
o iil
- 0
o ~
~ 0.
-0.
6 Ol
0_
0.31
.8.1:>
en en
'<t
~
00. en
'CO' 0 l- Q)
Ewo..c
I: 0
..... {/f'- co
OlI:Eo
o ~
"'0._ C 0-
Q)t)00.
.!::! Q) _ Ol
(ij~EQ)
I: Q) I: Q)
.2>1: 0 J:;
(/) ._ 0 rJ)
N
"'
Q)
I:
Ol
...J
.<::.
Ol
::J
e
.<::.
I-
....
o
ci
z
e
-
I:
o
<.>
o
ii=
~
I-
-
.
M
~
.0
CIS
I-
tJ)
o
:0:;
tJ)
.-
...
(1)
-
(.)
f!
CIS
.c:
o
"C
CIS
o
~
SCHEDULE A
COUNTY ROAD SECTIONS
BY CLASSIFICATION .
Major Arterials
Road No. From To MDT Lenath lkm)
4 City limits Hwy 3/4 8100 2.24
4 Road 27 City limits 6850
- 10 900 5.69
25 City limits County limits 8200
- 12 900 5.86
30 Road 52 County limits 13 500
- 14400 5.75
52 Road 25 Road 30 2800
- 4 400 4.95
73 Aylmer S. limits Aylmer N. limits 8800
- 13 750 2.69
Minor Arterials
Road No. From To MDT Lenath (km)
3 County limits Hwy 3/4 1 800 - 4 200 50.55
4 Road 20 Road 27 5 100 - 6 350 5.62
8 Road 3 Hwy 401 2 250 - 2 650 6.54
14 Road 3 Hwy 401 1 150 - 1 250 6.29
16 Road 20 City limits 2 100 - 2 850 10.15
19 pt. Burwell County limits 2 000 - 3 550 19.07
20 Road 4 Hwy 401 1 000 - 1 550 20.78
22 Road 24 Road 45 1 000 - 3 700 6.71
38 Hwy3 Road 19 1 850 - 2 200 8.71
40 Road 45 east Hwy3 2 050 - 2 400 5.77
45 Road 4 Road 40 1 900 - 2 900 21.24
45 Road 40 County limits 1 350 - 1 850 18.41
52 Hwy3 Road 25 1850 1.73
52 Road 30 Road 40 3 200 - 4 400 18.15
73 Road 24 Aylmer S. limits 1 050 - 2 150 7.26
73 Aylmer N. limits County limits 5 750 - 6 600 5.94
74 County limits Hwy3 2 750 - 6 250 14.09
76 Road 3 County limits 1 500 - 3 800 16.03
103 Road 3 Hwy 401 1 950 - 3 300 9.93
Collectors
Road No. From To MDT Lenoth (km)
2 Road 103 Road 8 1 600 - 1 800 18.26
5 Road 2 County limits 400 - 550 11.23
6 Road 7 Road 103 700 9.58
7 Kent Road 21 County limits 750 4.74
8 Provincial Park Road 3 550 - 1 100 5.23
8 Hwy 401 County limits 850 - 1 050 9.42
9 Road 103 Road 14 200 - 300 27.99
13 Road 8 Road 14 800 - 900 8.97
14 Road 16 Road 3 600 - 700 4.04
14 Hwy 401 County limits 1 300 - 1 400 3.38
15 Road 8 Road 2 1200 1.20
16 Road 8 Road 20 750 - 1 300 28.0
18 Road 14 Hwy4 250 - 1 450 18.52
20 Hwy 401 County limits 250 - 500 3.31
24 Road 23 Road 73 650 - 1 250 16.48
27 Road 4 Road 36 900 - 1 900 9.36
32 Road 73 Road 52 1 150 - 1 850 5.80
34 County limits Road 74 1700 2.46
35 Road 45 Road 52 1 100 - 1 800 9.11
Collectors (continued)
Road No. From To AADT Lenoth Ikm)
36 Road 24 Hwy3 600 - 1 900 12.41
37 Road 74 County limits 800 - 1 800 15.87
38 Road 19 County limits 1 300 - 1 500 5.06
39 Provincial Park Road 42 700 1.32
40 Road 42 Road 45 east 550 - 850 4.09
40 Hwy3 Road 52 1 100 - 1 200 7.97
42 Road 73 Road 19 1 200 - 1 800 16.09
42 Road 19 Road 55 400 7.85
43 Road 42 Road 38 450 - 800 10.68
44 Road 46 Road 19 600 - 850 7.01
45 Road 3 Road 4 800 - 1 300 10.83
46 Road 38 County limits 700 - 1 650 8.52
47 Road 52 Road 37 850 - 1 500 8.35
48 Wonderland Rd. Road 54 400 - 1 650 29.42
52 Road 40 County limits 900 4.35
54 Road 52 Road 48 1 150 - 1 500 2.82
55 Road 42 Road 38 450 - 650 14.62
56 Road 28 Road 36 1 500 - 2 900 4.33
103 Hwy 401 County Limits 1 200 - 1 700 9.80
104 County limits Road 103 450 - 1 000 6.81
119 Road 3 Road 18 850 4.40
Local Roads
Road No. From To AADT Lenqth {km\
11 Hwy4 Wonderland Rd. 200 2.00
17 Road 119 Middlesex Rd. 15 600 1.37
19 Wellington SI. PI. Burwell 0.83
27 Road 20 Road 4 400 - 1 000 3.58
41 Road 19 Union St 750 0.66
49 Road 52 Road 48 450 2.76
50 Road 42 Road 19 1000 0.56
51 Township Line Road 4 600 1.50
73 Levi Street Road 24 0.92
103 Lake Erie Road 3 900 1.97
119 Road 18 Road 17 500 1.45
142 Road 19 Road 50 300 0.51
Suburban Links
Road No. From To MDT Lenath Ikm)
21 Road 20 Road 4 2200 0.40
22 Road 45 Road 57 4850 1.60
23 Road 4 Road 4 1 800 - 2 600 2.34
26 SI. George SI.
Bridge Road 25 3050 1.36
28 Road 45 Hwy3 2 450 - 5 400 4.78
31 City limits Road 52 1900 1.54
53 Hwy3 Road 73 2 800 - 4 400 1.37
56 City limits Road 28 5300 0.59
57 Road 4 City Limit 2600 1.02
./
Xrv
LEGEND
Major Artertal
Minor Arterial
Collector
Local
Suburban Link
""~.il
"'"
~r.:.1
.,
'.'
/.'. ~4f if:
TlIE COUNTY OF ELGIN
450 SUNSrr DRNE, ST.THOMAS, ON
N5R 5VI (519}631-1460
....
.
'.
,
?
<'
~
'1,
~
,
JHt
iNil
(
~.,
. .
",~:",.';"'-,. ...-
/ ~:;" N+t+!-t+'H-t+.
'~~i~_ii; (' \ " - "'i
j . ,,-,., '. ". I . 2.$178,
" Ii
\2el~"
\ ~
\
,>8114
, ~
,
. "'~}i ,',
_~i;',_
$i::.i
.' .
l~ I
2~4~:i
"
~,I fVV/t;, (} ~_
'ni6Ms'oNliHe i. .
--.. ....
(
SlLVe"1t Cl:AYUNa
'.1' 'j"
'.
'.;.'
l\ .
. 1'.
. ,
'~
>; ~\-{~
LEGEND
Major Arterial
Minor Arterial'
Collector
Local
Suburban Link
THE COUNTY OF ELGIN
450 SUNStT DRIVE, Sf. THOMAS, ON
N5R 5V1 (519)631-1460
COUNlY OF
ROAD M
\; ~\}:~
LEGEND
Major Artenal '
Minor Arterial
Collector
Local
Suburban Link
THE COUNTY OF ELGIN
450 SUNSET DRNE, SI.THOMAS, ON
N5R 5Vl (519)631 1460
~. .
~ (1;.1.
, ':.1'
. ! .' .
S j\&ev
LEGEND
,,\.~ ". ~ .'~'",
_1~<' of -:~ if 1l ~:
1 L:.;' i .~.
. .
Ki~cU?
Major Arterial
Minor Artenal .
Collector
Local
Suburban Link
450 SUNSET DRIVE, St.THOMAS, ON
N5R 5Vl (519)631-1460
Major Arterial
Minor Arterial .
LEGEND
Collector
Local
THE COUNTY OF ELGIN
450 SUNSET DRIVE, SI.THOMAS, ON
N5R 5Vl (519)631 1460
,<~.
.,
. .
. .
Suburban Link
Major Arterial
MInor Arterial
Collector
Local
Suburban Link
THE COUNTY OF ELGIN
450 SUNSET DRIVE, SI.THOMAS, ON
N5R 5Vl (519)631 1460
6. ,~-
,,;. ~
, '
, .
LEGEND
,~.
. .
o .
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM: Clayton Watters, Director of Engineering Services
DATE: February 12, 2008
SUBJECT: Accident Review on County of Elgin Roads - 2006
CORPORATE GOALS:
To promote Elgin as "The Place to Live",
To recognize and seize opportunities for improvement,
To build and maintain an efficient, affordable, effective and safe transportation network
that accommodates the diverse needs of our communities and is able to support
economic development and sustainable growth.
INTRODUCTION:
The County has been compiling accident statistics on County of Elgin roads for many
years. A report was presented to County Council for the accidents in 2005. Accident
information is used for a variety of reasons: a request from Council to review a location,
a staff review before a reconstruction is contemplated or addressing a ratepayer
concern.
In the Province of Ontario few counties proactively complete a thorough review of
accidents on a yearly basis. The exception is the Region of Waterloo who has a full time
technician that reviews their road system accidents and reports that information to their
Council.
The most recent complete year of data the County has is for 2006 and this is used to
determine if any preventive measures are required on our road system to reduce the
severity or number of accidents.
DISCUSSION:
The County has been keeping police collision reports that occur on County roads for
more than 20 years. Staff, has used collision history information when completing
capital project planning (i.e. traffic signal warrants, road reconstruction) but only at
specific areas.
Over the past few years staff has entered the collision report data into an electronic
database. Now that the data can be ana lysed and sorted, staff is able to review trends
and identify areas that may benefit from improvements.
In an attempt to understand motorist behaviours and address potential areas of
concern, staff will be disseminating accident statistics annually and making
recommendations to Council (if any) periodically.
The statistics of importance for 2006 are:
. Total accidents on County roads: 497,
. Accidents per million kilometres driven (County average) 1.00, (Ontario Municipal
Roads - Bench marking Ontario's municipal road system 1.66 for Counties),
. Day of the week with the most accidents: Saturday 99 (Monday 68, Tuesday 67,
Wednesday 64, Thursday 67, Friday 71 and Sunday 61)
. Time of day with most accidents: daylight 231, dark 214,
. Accidents from November 15 to March 15 (winter control season): 171,
. Accidents at intersections or intersection related: 102,
. Accidents at intersections where vehicle failed to stop 19
. Accidents involving deer 214; and,
. Fatalities: 2.
Appendix "A" lists the accidents in 2006 per road. Of importance to the County is the
number of accidents per million kilometres driven, which is the last column in the
appendix. The accident rate per million kilometre driven is Simply the length of the road
times the average annual daily traffic (MDT) of that road divided by one million. This
number is the benchmark commonly used by the provinces to determine and compare
accident rates. This number is important to use as a comparison, otherwise, lower
volume roadways would always appear to be "safer" than higher volume roads which
typically have more collisions.
Staff is using the 2006 statistics as the Ministry of Transportation takes nearly 12
months after the year has ended to forward all the information to the County. That
information, when received, is transferred to our database so that we can disseminate
the information.
Appendix B lists the accidents at all intersections on County roads and Appendix C lists
all intersections with three or more accidents. Appendix Band C are important as this
information is used when analysing multi-year accidents at intersections, which could
determine required improvements such as signalized intersections, flashing beacons,
etc.
Staff has reviewed all County roads with accidents above the County average as report
in the 'Ontario Municipal Roads 2006 Benchmarking Ontario's municipal road system'
average of 1.66 accidents per million kilometres driven, at intersections with 3 or more
accidents and finally all the remaining accidents. Through that review no proactive
action is required. As an example, Warren Street (the highest collisions per one million)
has two accidents: in one accident the vehicle stopped at the stop sign and then
proceeded into intersection causing the accident, for the second accident one vehicle
made a left turn in front of another vehicle. Both of these accidents are driver error and
not related to engineering design.
Additionally staff, has reviewed the accidents for 2006 with the St. Thomas detachment
of the OPP. Staff from the OPP gave valuable insight from their perspective due to
patrolling the roadways and observing the system during all environmental conditions
and days/nights of the year. The meeting concluded that no roadway required
additional attention.
Of significance to County staff is the occurrence of a fatality on a County road.
Accidents where fatalities have occurred, are reviewed to determine is any engineering
design or maintenance deficiencies of the roadway exist. To date as a result of these
reviews from an engineering perspective no changes have been made.
CONCLUSION:
The County of Elgin accident rate for the year 2006 is 45% less than the County
average as stated in the 'Ontario Municipal Roads 2006 Benchmarking Ontario's
municipal road system'. Our rate is 1.00 accidents per one million kilometres driven
verses the provincial average of 1.66. The collision rate using the provincial average
would see 825 accidents but the County had only 497 accidents. Therefore, Elgin
County roads are safer than the industry average.
The County of Elgin has been accumulating accident statistics for more than 20 years.
This information is now entered into a database for review, comparison and sorting.
Staff will disseminate this data annually and report to County Council periodically
regarding our findings and any recommended improvements to the road system in an
attempt to reduce the severity or number of collisions that occur on County roads.
RECOMMENDATION:
That this report 'Accident Review on County of Elgin Roads - 2006' be forwarded to the
Police Services Board for their information.
Respectfully Submitted
Approved f
drvJ f t6J~
Clayton Watters
Director, Engineering Services
Mar . Me
Chief Administrative Officer
Appendix "A'
2006
Collisions Per MIllion Kilometers Driven
5-Feb-08
Ranklna Road # Road Name Lenath AADT Total Traffic Collisions Collisions
Per Year Per One
On Road Million
1 7 Clachan Road 4.74 600 1 038 060 0 0.00
2 11 Clinton Line 2.00 400 292 000 0 0.00
3 17 Southdel Drive 1.37 650 325 033 0 0.00
4 34 WiIIsie Bourne 2.46 1600 1 436 640 0 0.00
5 39 Chatham Street 1.32 600 289 080 0 0.00
6 41 Fulton Street 0.66 400 96360 0 0.00
7 SO Victoria Street 0.56 1000 204 400 0 0.00
8 51 Fnult Rldne Line 1.50 500 273 750 0 0.00
9 104 nueens Line 6.81 600 1 491 390 0 0.00
10 54 Pioram Road 2.82 1350 1 389 555 0 0.00
11 31 Dalewood Road 1.54 1900 1 067 990 0 0.00
12 53 Beech & Elm Street 1.37 3600 1 800 180 0 0.00
13 15 Miller Road 1.20 1200 525 600 0 0.00
14 49 Whittaker Road 2.76 4S0 453 330 0 0.00
15 18 Third Line/Southminlster Bourne 18.52 700 4731 860 1 0.21
16 47 Putnam Road 8.35 1400 4 266 850 1 0.23
17 103 Furnival Road 21.70 1600 12 672 800 5 0.39
18 25 Welllnnton Road 5.86 10600 22 672 340 11 0.49
19 9 Stalker & Duff Line 27.79 200 2 028 670 1 0.49
20 23 East Road 2.34 2200 1 879 020 1 0.53
21 40 Snrinnfield Road 17.83 1400 9 111130 6 0.66
22 30 HinhbUlv Avenue 5.7S 13950 29 277 563 21 0.72
23 73 Imnerlal Road & John Street 19.18 6525 45 679 S68 35 0.77
24 4 Sunset Drive 13.55 7050 34 867 538 28 0.80
25 56 Elm Line 4.92 2050 3 681 390 3 0.81
26 55 Eloln Countv Road 14.62 450 2401 335 2 0.83
27 8 Currfe Road 19.73 1500 10802 175 9 0.83
28 3 Talbot Line 50.55 2350 43 359 263 37 0.85
29 74 Belmont Road 14.09 3850 19799973 17 0.86
30 76 Graham Road 16.03 2150 12 579 543 11 0.87
31 6 Johnston Line 9.58 650 2 272 855 2 0.88
32 52 Ron McNeil Line 29.18 2950 31419565 28 0.89
33 45 John Wise & calton Line 50.48 2000 36 850 400 34 0.92
34 16 Flnnal Line 28.01 1800 18 402 570 20 1.09
35 42 Nova Scotia & Lake Shore Line 22.97 1300 10 899 265 12 1.10
36 37 Avon Drive 15.87 900 5 213 295 6 1.15
37 28 Centennial Road 4.78 3450 6019 215 7 1.16
38 36 nuaker Road 12.41 1300 5 888 545 7 1.19
39 32 Glencolln Line! Hacienda Road 5.80 1550 3 281 350 4 1.22
40 46 Culloden Road 8.52 1050 3 265 290 4 1.23
41 44 Eden Line 7.01 600 1 535 190 2 1.30
42 24 Dexter Line 16.48 1100 6 616 720 9 1.36
43 13 Shackleton Line 8.97 850 2 782 943 4 1.44
Appendix 'A'
2006
Collisions Per Million Kilometers Driven
5-Feb-08
Rankina Road # Road Name Lennth AADT Total Traffic Collisions Collisions
Per Year Per One
On Road Million
44 48 Lvons Une 29.59 700 7 560 245 11 1.45
45 19 Plank Road 19.90 3050 22 153 675 33 1.49
46 35 Snrtnawater Road 9.11 1150 3 823 923 6 1.57
47 22 Falrview Road 8.31 3150 9554423 17 1.78
48 20 Union Road 24.09 1250 10 991 063 20 1.82
49 2 Pioneer Une 18.26 1700 11 330 330 22 1.94
50 26 St.Georae Street 1.36 3050 1514020 3 1.98
61 14 Iona Rd 13.71 1200 6 004 980 12 2.00
52 5 Dunborouah Road 11.23 600 2 459 370 5 2.03
53 38 Herttaae Une 13.77 1650 8 292 983 17 2.05
54 43 Richmond Road 10.66 500 1 945 450 4 2.06
55 57 Southdale Une 1.02 2600 967 980 2 2.07
56 27 Saarta Une 12.94 1000 4 723 100 10 2.12
57 119 Mill Road 5.85 650 1 387913 5 3.60
58 21 Warren 0.40 2200 321 200 2 6.23
Totals 687.44 496934 178 497 1.00
Appendix IS'
Accidents at Intersections 2006
February 12, 2008
Road Intersection # ofaccldents # of accidents of other
intersectlna count,; road
2 Willev Road 1
3 Homestead Line 1
3 Oneida Road 1
3 John Wise Line 1
3 Union Road 1 1
4 Southdale Line 2
4 Roberts Line 1
6 Furnival Road 1
8 Shackleton Street 1
14 Crane Street 1
16 John Wise Line 1 1
16 Iona Road 1
16 Union Road 1 1
16 Mill Road 1
19 Calton line 4
19 Eden Line 1
19 Edison 1
19 Glen Erte Line 1
19 Heritaee line 2
20 Finoal Line 1 1
20 Talbot Line 1 1
21 Catherine Avenue 1
22 Fruit Ridee Line 1
22 John Wise line 2 1
22 Southdale Line 1
24 Imoertal Road 1
25 Ford Road 1
25 Ron McNeil Line 4
25 Shorelea Line 1
26 Welllnoton Road 1
27 Fairvlew Road 1
27 Stone Church Road 1
27 Yarmouth Centre Road 1
28 Bodkin Street 1
28 Southdale Line 1
30 Ron McNeil 1 1
35 Wollewllle line 1
37 Putnam Road 1
38 Duke Street 1
38 Garner Road 1
38 Sandvtown Road 1
38 SDrinoerhll1 Road 1
40 Calton Line 1 1
40 Finnev Street 1
42 Orchard line 1
45 ImDerial Road 1
45 Fairvlew Road 1 1
45 Finoal Line 1 1
45 Ouaker Road 1
45 SDrinofield Road 1 1
45 Sprinowater Road 4
46 Eden Line 2
47 Ron McNeil Line 1 1
48 Imperial Road 1
48 Newell Road 1
52 Belmont Road 1 1
52 Dalewood Road 2
52 HinhbUN Road 1 1
52 Putnam Road 1 1
52 Snrtnnwater Road 1
52 Yarmouth centre Road 1
56 Centenniai Road 1
56 Tvke Road 1
73 John Wise Line 1 1
73 Lvons Line 1 1
73 Ron McNeil Line 2
73 Wiison Line 1
73 Dexter Line 1 1
73 Beech Street 1
73 Chestnut Street 1
73 Svdenham Street 1
74 Edaeware Line 2
74 Heillka Line 1
74 Manleton Line 1
74 Ron McNeil Line 2 1
74 Washburn Street 1
74 Wiilsie Borne 1
76 Elm Street 1
76 Mehrlnn Street 1
76 nueens Line 1
103 Harner Street 1
103 Oueens Line 1
Appendix 'C'
Intersections with more than three accidents
February 12, 2008
Road Location Notes
19 (Plank Road) 45 (Calton Une) Daylight 4
Angle 3, approaching 1
Canltal Imnrovements reQuired nla
22 (Falrvlew Road) 45 (John Wise Line) Daytime 2, Nlghtime 1
Angle 1, SMV 1, turning movement 1
Canltallmnrovements renuired nla
45 (John Wise Une) 35 (Springwater Road) Daytime 4
Turning movement 1, angle 1, S~1:SWIPe 1. rear end 1
Canltallmnrovements reQuired n a
52 (Ron McNeil Line) 74 (Belmont Road) Daytime 2, night time 1
Angle 2, rear end 1, approaching 1
Canltallmorovements required n/a
'"II!;'
. .
. .
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM: Clayton Watters, Director of Engineering Services
DATE: February 12, 2008
SUBJECT: Municipal Infrastructure Agreement
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:
The County of Elgin presently has a number of agreements with municipalities to permit
the installation and maintenance of waterlines on County Roads. The oldest agreement
was with the Village of Dutton to construct, use and operate works required for the
transmission of water which was signed in 1963, which has since been extended for
another 20 years. The most recent agreement is with the Municipality of West Lome
which was signed in 1993 and will expire in 2013.
Since the original agreement in 1963 and the latest agreement in 1993, 16
municipalities have entered into agreements with the County. The County of Elgin is
interested in signing new agreements with our lower tier partners.
The most important issue is municipalities are using the County road system for an
additional use - municipal sewage infrastructure of which there is no agreements in
place and also the amalgamations within the municipalities. The only exception is
Yarmouth that has an agreement for the Lynhurst area. The agreements will clearly
define roles, responsibilities and expectations of each party.
At the March 27, 2007 County Council meeting the following was adopted,
"That the solicitor for the County of Elgin prepare a 'Municipal Infrastructure Agreement'
for the municipalities to comment on, and;
That the comments be reviewed by County Council for final approval and circulation to
the municipalities for signature".
DISCUSSION:
The County of Elgin permits the use of the road allowance for many purposes. The road
system was and is used by the provincial and local governments, public and private
monopolies and local individuals. The governments use the system for: water and
sewage systems and utilities: publiC and private monopolies use the system for energy
transmission, utilities and water systems; and local individuals use the systems for water
and sewage transmission.
The solicitor drafted an agreement for the County of Elgin which was sent to all
municipalities for their comments. Those comments were reviewed by the staff and the
solicitor and changes were made to the original Agreement. It is important to note that
some comments did not result in amendments to the agreement for various reasons as
determined by the solicitor. Never the less, changes were made where deemed
necessary and appropriate. The revised Agreement is attached for Council to endorse
and is to be sent to the municipalities for signature.
CONCLUSION:
Engineering staff and the solicitor have reviewed the comments from the municipalities
and have made changes to the original Agreement where appropriate. This revised
Agreement will be forwarded to the municipalities for execution.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Municipal Infrastructure Agreement be endorsed by County Council to be sent
to the municipalities for their execution, and also,
That the Warden and Chief Administrative Officer be authorized and directed to sign the
Municipal Infrastructure Agreements with the municipalities.
R~:4;bml~
Approved for Submission
~~.~
Chief Administrative Officer
Clayton Watters
Director, Engineering Services
This Agreement made in quadruplicate this
day of
,2008.
BETWEEN:
THE CORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF ELGIN
(hereinafter referred to as the "County")
OF THE FIRST PART
- and -
THE CORPORATION OF THE OF
(hereinafter referred to as the "Municipality")
OF THE SECOND PART
WHEREAS the County is the owner of or otherwise exercises jurisdiction over certain
public rights-of-way, highways, streets, sidewalks, walkways, driveways, ditches, and associated
grassy areas and the allowances therefor;
AND WHEREAS the Municipality seeks the permission of the County to install, construct,
maintain, and operate water lines and sewers and related equipment and facilities (hereinafter
collectively referred to as the "facilities") within such public rights-of-way, highways, streets,
sidewalks, walkways, driveways, ditches, and associated grassy areas and the allowances
therefor (hereinafter referred to as the "Road Allowance" or "Road Allowances");
AND WHEREAS the County has agreed to grant permission to the Municipality to install,
construct, maintain, and operate such facilities over, along, across or under the Road
Allowances, subject to the terms and conditions set forth beiow;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of payment of the sum of ONE DOLLAR ($1.00) by
the Municipality to the County and the other good and valuable consideration as set forth below,
the sufficiency of which consideration is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as
follows:
1. The County grants to the Municipality for a period of twenty (20) years from the
date hereof permission to place, replace, construct, re-construct, maintain,
operate, and repair approved facilities over, along, across, or under the Road
Allowances as identified on Schedule "A" hereto and as amended from time to
time with the written consent of the parties hereto.
The Municipality hereby acknowledges that the permission set forth above shall
not be exclusive and further acknowledges that the County may have granted or
may otherwise grant a similar permission to another person, party, persons, or
parties, at any time during the term of this Agreement.
2. In consideration of the permission set forth above, the Municipality shall pay to
the County the sum of ONE DOLLAR ($1.00) upon execution of this Agreement.
3. Subject to written agreement with the County to the contrary, the Municipality
agrees that it shall undertake and complete any work associated with the
permission granted hereunder at its own expense, including but not limited to
reinstatement, remediation, or restoration of any municipal allowance or lands
upon or under which work has been undertaken or completed to as nearly the
same condition which existed prior to the commencement of such work. In this
regard and for purposes of clarity, the parties hereto agree that works undertaken
solely by the Municipality pursuant to the permission granted herein and as not
otherwise involving associated County works within the subject Road Allowance
and in the same vicinity of works being undertaken by the Municipality shall be
completed at the sole expense of the Municipality. Conversely and again for
purposes of clarity, the parties further agree that works undertaken by the
Municipality pursuant to the permission granted herein but in conjunction with
County works within the subject Road Allowance shall be completed at the
shared expense of the Municipality and the County and in accordance with
separate written agreement or acknowledgment detailing and establishing such
shared expense.
4. The Municipality agrees that, in placing, replacing, constructing, reconstructing,
maintaining, operating, and/or repairing the facilities or as otherwise undertaking
any other work under and/or in conjunction with the permission granted
hereunder, it shall use all due care and diligence to ensure no unnecessary or
unavoidable interference with the traveled portion of any Road Allowance or any
pedestrian, vehicular, or other traffic thereon, or any use or operation of any ditch
or drain adjacent to such public right-of-way, highway, street, or walkway.
5. The Municipality agrees that, prior to the commencement of any work undertaken
pursuant to the permission granted hereunder, it shall file plans detailing such
work and the specifications thereof with the County and thereafter agrees to
undertake any and all such works to which the County has consented in strict
accordance with such plans and specifications. Notwithstanding the generality of
the foregoing, the Municipality agrees that it shall comply with any and all
directions and orders given by the County in respect of works to be undertaken in
accordance with the permission granted hereunder, regardless of whether such
direction and orders were given before, during, or after the commencement or
completion of such work and in respect of which directions and orders the County
agrees to act reasonably.
The Municipality further agrees that, within ninety (90) days of completion of any
work undertaken pursuant to the permission granted hereunder, it shall deposit
with the County as constructed plans detailing the location and specifications of
the facilities placed, constructed, or installed pursuant to the permission granted
hereunder.
6. The Municipality agrees that, within fifteen (15) days of the date of execution of
this Agreement, it shall arrange for and maintain liability insurance satisfactory to
the County, insuring, for the joint benefit of the Municipality and the County as
named insured, as against all claims, liabilities, losses, costs, damages or other
expenses of every kind that the Municipality and the County may incur or suffer
as a consequence of personal injury, including death, and property damages
arising out of or in any way incurred or suffered in connection with the placing,
maintenance, operation, or repair of the facilities as contemplated by this
Agreement, which insurance shall provide coverage with limits of liability not less
than FIVE MILLION DOLLARS ($5,000,000.00) per incident at the
commencement of the term hereof or such greater amount as may be specified
hereafter by the County having regard for inflation and the amount of damages
which might reasonably be expected to be awarded from time to time by Courts of
competent jurisdiction; and the Municipality shall satisfy the County, from time to
time, that the premiums of such insurance have been paid and that such
insurance is in full force and effect; and the Municipality further agrees that, within
seven (7) days of the effective date thereof, it shall deliver to the County evidence
of any changes to such policy of insurance as initiated by the involved insurer.
7. Notwithstanding and without limiting any other term hereof, the Municipality
agrees and undertakes that it will place, replace, construct, reconstruct, maintain,
operate, and repair the facilities in accordance with and compliance with good
engineering practices and, more specifically, all federal, provincial, and municipal
laws and by-laws and in strict compliance with the directions and permissions as
issued by the County.
8. Notwithstanding and without limiting the generality of any term hereof, the
Municipality further agrees that, where practicable, the facilities placed, replaced,
constructed, reconstructed, maintained, or otherwise installed pursuant to the
permission granted by this Agreement will not be located under the existing or
contemplated traveled portion of any Road Allowance but shall be located
adjacent to such existing or traveled portion of that Road Allowance. In this same
regard, the Municipality further acknowledges that the decision of the County as
to the permitted location of any facility or facilities, if granted, shall be final and
without appeal, recourse, or remedy by the Municipality.
9. The Municipality agrees that any work to be undertaken pursuant to the
permission granted hereunder and for which a permit is required shall be
undertaken and completed at such reasonable time or times as the County may
specify in such permit and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing or any
other term hereof, all such work shall be undertaken and completed in such
manner so as not to cause unnecessary nuisance or damage to the County or its
property or to any rate payer or user of such Road Allowance.
The Municipality further agrees that, prior to commencement of any work
pursuant to the permission granted hereunder, it shall obtain the approval of any
federal, provincial, or municipal government or agency having an interest in such
work and, furthermore, it shall notify any other person or body operating any
equipment or facilities within such Road Allowance or in the vicinity of such Road
Allowance of the details of the anticipated work 50 as to insure the absence of
interference with or damage to such existing equipment and facilities by the said
work.
10. The Municipality further agrees that, in the event that it becomes necessary to
break, remove, or otherwise pierce the existing surface of any Road Allowance or
other lands owned by the County to undertake any work pursuant to the
permission granted hereunder, it will in all cases repair, reinstate, restore, and/or
remediate such surface to at least the same condition which existed prior to the
commencement of such work and, further thereto, the Municipality also agrees
that it shall thereafter maintain that portion of the Road Allowance, or other
affected lands to the satisfaction of the County and, subject to other written
agreement with the County to the contrary, at the sole expense of the Municipality
by repairing any settling thereof to the satisfaction of the County, acting
reasonably. In the event that the Municipality shall fail to repair, maintain, and
reinstate the said Road Allowance, or other lands of the County, then in such
case the County may undertake the same and charge the costs thereof to the
Municipality and the County shall not be liable for any damage of any nature or
kind howsoever caused by reason of such work undertaken by the County as
aforesaid and the Municipality hereby agrees to indemnify and save harmless the
County and all other concerned parties from any claims or damages of any party
howsoever caused.
Notwithstanding that set forth above and for purposes of clarity, the parties hereto
agree and acknowledge that the obligations and entitlements set forth above
apply in respect of works undertaken solely by the Municipality and not in relation
to projects within the Road Allowance undertaken in conjunction with the County.
The parties hereto further agree and acknowledge that, in respect of works
undertaken by the Municipality in conjunction with the County within the same
Road Allowance and in the vicinity of such municipal works, the aforenoted
obligations and entitlements, including any obligation for payment of expenses,
shall be identified in separate written agreement or acknowledgment detailing
same.
11. In the course of undertaking any work pursuant to the permission granted
hereunder, the Municipality shall take all steps necessary to protect the integrity
and security of all existing equipment, installations, utilities, and other facilities
within the Road Allowance or which might otherwise be located in, on, or under
such municipal lands.
12. Notwithstanding the terms of this Agreement,
12.1 The County at all times maintains the discretion to require the Municipality
to relocate the facilities or any portion thereof from within any Road
Allowance within three hundred sixty-five (365) days of delivery of written
demand for such relocation, which relocation shall be completed by the
Municipality at its full expense and without recourse against the County for
such costs of relocation or any and all damage or damages associated
therewith and providing that, at all times, the County shall exercise such
discretion only for reasonable municipal and/or engineering purposes;
12.2 In the event of default by the Municipality in respect of any obligation
created hereunder or as otherwise required for reasonable municipal
and/or engineering purposes, the County at all times maintains the
discretion to terminate the within Agreement and require the Municipality
to remove all or any portion of the facilities from within any Road
Allowance within three hundred sixty-five (365) days of delivery of written
demand for such removal, which removal shall be completed by the
Municipality at its full expense and without recourse against the County for
such removal costs or any and all damage or damages associated
therewith; provided that, for purposes of this paragraph, "default" shall
include,
12.2.1 Any and all contravention or contraventions of this
Agreement or any obligations created hereunder;
12.2.2 Cessation of use of the facilities installed, constructed, or
maintained within the Road Allowance pursuant to
permission granted hereunder for a period of not less than
one hundred twenty (120) days;
12.2.3 Abandonment of the facilities as previously installed,
constructed, or maintained within the Road Allowance
pursuant to permission granted hereunder; and/or
12.2.4 Any assignment of rights and obligations hereunder without
the prior written consent and permission of the County.
In the event the Municipality fails to remove and/or relocate all or any portion of
the facilities within three hundred sixty-five (365) days of receipt of written
demand from the County to do so, the County shall have the right to remove
and/or relocate the facilities, following completion of which work the County shall
deliver an invoice to the Municipality detailing the costs and expenses associated
with same and the Municipality shall pay the amount of such invoice in
accordance with the terms thereof. If the County is required to remove and/or
relocate the facilities as described above and without limiting the obligation of the
Municipality to pay the costs thereof, the Municipality further agrees to,
a) release the County from any claims to damage to such facilities
and/or other damages flowing from such removal and/or
relocation;
b) save harmless and indemnify the County of and from any and all
claims or damages by any party as against the County in respect
of such work; and/or
c) restore and reinstate the Road Allowance or the municipal lands
affected by such removal and/or relocation to as nearly the same
condition that existed prior to the original installation.
13. In the event that the Municipality wishes to relocate the facilities or any portion
thereof as have been previously installed, placed, or constructed in accordance
with the permission granted hereunder, it shall notify the County of such request
in writing and such request will thereafter be considered and administered by the
County as if it were a request for a new installation, construction, or placement of
such facilities within the Road Allowance or other public lands hereunder.
14. Without limiting the generality of any other term to this Agreement, the
Municipality
14.1 Will not cut, trim, or otherwise interfere with any trees, brush, plants, or
other vegetation in exercising the permission granted hereunder save and
except in accordance with established standards within any Road
Maintenance Agreement with the county or otherwise only with prior
written notice to do so as obtained by the County;
14.2 Within three hundred sixty-five (365) days of the expiry or termination of
this Agreement or any renewal thereof and to the satisfaction of the
County, it will remove all facilities as have been installed, reinstalled,
constructed, reconstructed, or placed pursuant to the permission granted
hereunder and thereafter reinstate, restore, and/or remediate the
municipal allowance or lands affected thereby to as nearly the same
condition which existed prior to the undertaking of any works pursuant to
the permission granted hereunder.
14.3 Upon request, whether by the County by its officials or authorized agents,
or otherwise, and at its sole expense, the Municipality shall properly and
accurately identify location of the facilities or any portions thereof within
the County, such reports to identify the depth of the relevant portion of
such facility or facilities.
15. Notwithstanding the requirement of prior notice to the County for the permission
to commence any work hereunder, including notice of repair work to existing
facility or facilities, the parties agree that, in the event of an emergency in which
the Municipality requires immediate access to the facilities or any portion thereof
and after reasonable efforts to communicate with the County, the Municipality
may enter upon the subject Road Allowance and/or municipal lands without prior
notice to the County in order to gain access to such facility or facilities in order to
effect such repairs as are required to address such emergency and, in so doing,
shall undertake any works to the standards and as are otherwise required by the
terms of this Agreement and to thereafter provide written notification and details
and specification of such repair works to the County on the next municipal
business day and to thereafter file amended plans and drawings detailing such
repairs as is otherwise required by this Agreement.
For the purposes of this provision, "emergency" shall mean a sudden unexpected
occasion or combination of events necessitating immediate action.
16. In the event that the Municipality is in default of any term of this Agreement or
obligation created thereby, which default continues for at least fifteen (15) days
after written notification of the Municipality by the County, then the County shall
have the absolute right to terminate this Agreement upon a further thirty (30) days
written notice, which right shall be exercisable without recourse by or remedy to
the Municipality.
In the event of termination of this Agreement, the Municipality, at its own
expense, and within three hundred sixty-five (365) days after the effective date of
termination, shall remove any and all facilities as have been constructed,
installed, or placed pursuant to the permission granted hereunder and thereafter
reinstate, restore, and remediate the Road Allowance or municipal lands so
effected to at least the same condition that existed prior to the original work to
install, construct, or place the said facilities. In the event that the Municipality fails
to remove any and all facilities or otherwise reinstate, restore, or remediate the
Road Allowance or municipal lands effected thereby, then the County will be at
liberty to remove such facilities and thereafter restore, reinstate, or remediate the
effected municipal allowance and lands, without claim, recourse, or remedy by
the Municipality, the cost of which removal and restoration will be invoiced to the
Municipality and the Municipality agrees to pay such invoice in strict accordance
with the terms thereof.
17. The Municipality will indemnify and save harmless the County from and against
all claims, liabilities, losses, costs (including but not limited to legal costs as
between a solicitor and his own client), damages, and other expense of every
kind that the County may incur or suffer as a consequence of or in connection
with the exercise of the permission granted hereunder, including but not limited to
the placing, replacing, construction, reconstruction, placement, maintenance,
operation, or repair of facility or facilities by the Municipality.
18. The Municipality hereby acknowledges that it installs, reinstalls, constructs,
reconstructs, places, replaces, maintains, operates, and repairs the facilities in
accordance with the permission granted hereunder entirely at its own risk and the
County shall in no way and in no circumstances be responsible or liable to the
Municipality, its contractors, agents, or customers for any damage or losses in
consequence thereof, regardless of how such damage or loss was suffered.
19. The Municipality acknowledges and agrees that the permission granted
hereunder and the placement, construction, installation, location, and operation of
any municipal facility or facilities are subject to the following:
19.1 The right of free use of the Road Allowance by all persons or parties
otherwise entitled to such use;
19.2 The rights of the owners of the property adjoining any relevant Road
Allowance to full access to and egress from their property and an adjacent
right-of-way, highway, street, or walkway and the consequential right of
such persons or parties to construct crossings and approaches from their
property to any such right-of-way, highway, street, or walkway; and
19.3 The rights and privileges that the County may have previously granted to
any other person or party to such Road Allowance or lands.
20. The parties hereto agree as follows:
20.1 Any written notice provided for and contemplated by this Agreement will
be delivered to the parties by hand or registered mail at the following
addresses:
To County:
Corporation of the County of Elgin
450 Sunset Drive
Sl. Thomas, Ontario
N5R 5V1
To Municipality:
Every such notice shall be deemed to have been received if personally
delivered at the time of such delivery and if sent by prepaid registered
mail, at the end of five (5) business days after the mailing thereof.
20.2 The Municipality is prohibited from assignment of its rights and obligations
hereunder without the written consent and permission of the County,
which consent and permission shall not be unreasonably withheld.
20.3 Each obligation of the parties hereto contained in this Agreement, even
though not expressed as a covenant, is considered for all purposes to be
a covenant.
20.4 The validity or uneforceability of any provision or covenant contained in
this Agreement shall affect the validity or enforceability of such provision
or covenant only and any such invalid provision or covenant shall be
deemed to be severable.
20.5 Each covenant in this Agreement is a separate and independent covenant
and a breach of covenant by either party will not relieve the other party
from its obligation to perform each of its covenants, except as otherwise
provided herein.
20.6 No supplement, modification, amendment, or waiver of this Agreement
shall be binding unless executed in writing by the parties.
20.7 This Agreement is binding upon and enures to the benefit of the parties
hereto and their respective successors, and assigns.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto affix their hands and seal or corporate seals,
attested to by the hand of their authorized officers, as the case may be, at St. Thomas, Ontario,
this
day of
,2008.
SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED
I n the presence of
)
)
)The Corporation of the County of Elgin
)
)per:
)
)
)per:
)
)
)
Sylvia Hofhuis, Warden
Mark McDonald,
Chief Administrative Officer
)The Corporation of the
)
)
)Per:
)
)
)per:
)
)
of
, Mayor
, Clerk
DATED this
day of
,200
BETWEEN:
THE CORPORATION OF THE
COUNTY OF ELGIN
- and -
THE CORPORATION OF THE
OF
AGREEMENT
Hennessey Gibson Hogan
Barristers and Solicitors
99 Edward Street, 2nd Floor
St. Thomas, Ontario
N5P 1Y8
SHG:sb
APPENDIX 'A'
MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE AGREEMENT
MUNICIPALITY COMMENTS
TOWN OF AYLMER
~ Section 2 of the agreement contemplates a payment to the County. I would be concerned about this in that all of
the municipalities already levy monies for the County. If it is to cover some type of extra costs, that would be
acceptable, but I would be concerned if this is some type of money-making exercise for the County. The section
needs to have parameters outlining when a payment will be required, what the payment is for and how it will be
calculated.
~ Section 3 & 10 - The requirement for total payment to replace a County road disturbed due to works undertaken
solely by the municipality should be segregated from the instance when the County and the municipality undertake
a project co-ordinated with each other to complete underground servicing just in advance of the County's repaving
schedule. An example of this is that the County has put the resurfacing of John Street on their five year plan. The
Town is planning on replacing watermain at the same time, according to the agreement the Municipality will be
responsible for all costs associated with the installation of the watermain including the resurfacing. When works
are being co-ordinated with County works ie., resurfacing of John Street, the Municipality should be responsible for
the cost of Installing the watenmain and all replacement of base materials up to but not Including the surface
asphalt. Since the County initiated the resurfacing project the County should be responsible for the costs of the
asphalt over the watermain trench.
~ Section 5 - Concern regarding the part where the municipality follows instructions from the County given after the
project is completed if this contemplates having to redo some parts of the project. Instructions from the County
should be given in advance of the municipality starting the project. In the last paragraph - the lower tier
municipality should have a longer pertod of time to submit as constructed plans. Engineering firms will be hard
pressed to supply these plans within 30 days of completion of a large project and the higher costs would be
passed on to the Municipality. A time frame of 60-90 days seems more reasonable.
~ Section 8 - This section definitely needs to be changed. Lower tier municipality's such as Aylmer that are urban
centers have no other place to install services such as watermains and sanitary sewers within the travelled portion
of the road allowance due to the abundance of other utilities. Our services on John Street are under the travelled
portion 0 the road and there Is no opportunity to put them elsewhere.
~ Sections 12 & 14 - Considerable concern with respect to the fact that this section gives the County unfettered
authority to demand the removal of any service, anytime, for any reason. Municipalities are in the service
business. If we have to move a water or wastewater service at the County's demand for no reason, then this will
create significant problems. This section needs to have some restrictions which include the County needing the
service moved for some good reason, and that service to the resident has to be considered, that there is a
requirement for some time of arbitration procedure if an agreement cannot be reached between the County and
the municipalities, etc.
~ The same comments should apply to Subsection 14.2 - if there is a disagreement between the County and the
municipality regarding the renewal of the agreement - there needs to be some protection for the municipality from
the County unilaterally removing a service. There needs to be some type of arbitration procedure, etc. The same
comments apply to Section 16.
~ Section 14 - This requirement will put a huge burden on the Municipality if we have to give notice to the County
every time we need to trim trees or remove them due to them being dead, or causing a site line problem, safety
concerns, etc.
~ Section 15 - What is considered to be reasonable efforts to communication? If we have a watermain break as we
do on John Street earlier this year in the winter, do we have to actually get verbal or written permission before we
can make repairs? This may be difficult if we get called out at 2:00 a.m.
~ There are several references in the agreement to natural gas lines including in Section 19. The municipalities are
not the ones who own, operate, or provide natural gas facilities. All references to natural gas should be removed
and the County should enter Into a separate agreement with the natural gas providers for their gas mains along
Count roads.
.
~ Article 1 & 14.2 - Provide for a 20 year term to the agreement, and that upon the end of such term that the
Municipality shall remove its facilities. This obviousiy is not reasonable for services that can have a lift expectancy
of as much as 75 to 100 years.
~ Article 3 & 10 - Address the responsibility for road allowance repair! reinstatement required as a result of the
installation and repair of the facilities. Although a reasonable concept, the wording may be overly broad. As well,
if the local work is art of alar er ro'ect includin for exam Ie total reconstruction! resurfacin of the road b the
County), the local responsibility should oniy be for that part of the project up to the point that the County would
proceed with at any rate.
~ Article 5 - Requires the deposit of "as constructed" pians within 30 days of compietion of works. This is quite short
for any major project.
~ Article 8 - Requires that where practicabie, faciiities may not be iocated under the existing or contemplated
travelled portion of any road allowance. This language may be overly restrictive as in many cases, particularly in
urban areas, such may not be possible.
~ Article 12.1, 12.2 and 16 - Provide the County the right to require relocation or removal of the facilities within 120
days of giving notice (12.2 and 16 are in regard to default by the Municipality). This is not a reasonable condition
for the types of essential services contemplated, as it would be impossible to secure and construct alternative
servicing in such a time frame, and would obviously incur significant costs (ie., removal, reconstruction,
engineering, environmental and other agency approvals, land acquisition, etc.).
~ Section 15, 18 & 19 - Cite natural gas services.
~ Other - Staff would also note that there are no requirements placed upon the County in the draft agreement.
Some areas that should be addressed Include:
o Requirement for prior notice! consultation regarding County projects that may impact on the local facilities
installed.
o Discussion of responsibility for costs where local facilities, Installed as approved by the County, are required
to be removed! relocated as a result of County works.
o Protection of local works (insurance against damage, etc.) where contractors are performing works on
County roads.
~ That the draft agreement has not been reviewed by the municipal solicitor. It would be suggested that prior to
roceedin with a final agreement, such comments should be sou ht.
.
~ It would appear that the agreement as drafted was based on an agreement between the County of Elgin and
possibly a natural gas utility. This is evident in Clauses 15, 18 and 19. Some ofthe conditions that are within the
proposed agreement would be more in keeping with natural gas plant rather than water and sewer services.
~ Item 3 - Refers to responsibility for reinstatement of the road surface as a result of rehabilitation, replacement and
maintenance of the plant. There needs to be much more detail in this clause. We would concur with the working
provided that any work that is undertaken by the municipality is for water or sewer work only. Therefore, if Central
Elgin replaced a watermain on a County road and the County did not perform other work at the same time, the total
cost of the road restoration would be the responsibiiity of the Water utility. If the replacement of the watermain was
part of a much larger project which included the County of Elgin undertaking road works at the same time (ie., total
reconstruction or resurfacing) the water utility should only be responsible for the costs of restoration up to the
elevation that the County work was contemplating. For example. If the County was excavating the existing road
bed and placing new granulars, base coarse asphalt and top coarse asphalt on the entire street width, the water
utility should be responsible for the cost to install the new watermain, and backfill the watermain trench up to the
bottom of road granulars. The County would then be responsible for the costs for the road granulars, base and top
coarse asphalt over the entire road width including the watermain trench. This is the typical approach in Ontario
and frankly it is the same approach that Central Elgin uses for itself on Central Elgin projects. On Central Elgin
roads the watermain restoration would be completed using water rates and the road restoration would be
completed using money from taxes. Staff mention this as this has not been the County of Elgin practice in the
past. In 2003!2004 the municipality replaced the watermain on Belmont Road in Belmont. As part of the contract
the county milled and paved the entire road width of Belmont Road. Central Elgin paid for the replacement of the
watermain as well as the base and top coarse asphalt over the watermain. Under staffs proposal, the county
would be responsible for replacing the top coarse asphalt over the entire width of the street. In 2006 Central Elgin
replaced the watermain on Colborne St. in Port Stanley and the County of Elgin milled and resurfaced the road.
Again, Centrai Elgin paid for the top coarse of asphalt. Staff are raising this concern as a matter of equity and
requesting that the normal practice in Ontario be implemented by the County of Elgin.
~ Item 5 - Refers to the timing for the submission of "As Constructed" drawings to the county after new plant has
been installed. The draft agreement is suggesting drawing be submitted 30 days after the completion of the
project. This is not a reasonable amount of time given the complexity and magnitude of the typical water or
sanitary sewer job. Staff would suggest that 90 days is a more reasonable time frame.
~ Item 8 - The agreement, suggests that no plant be installed in the travelled portion of the roadway. Staff would
suggest that this is not always possible especially in urban areas where there may actually be a parking land on
each side of the 2 lanes of traffic whereby creating a "travelled portion" approximately 14 meters wide. Typically,
the road allowance is 20 meters wise thereby leaving 3 meters on either side of the street behind the back of curb.
Completing for these 3 meters is telephone, television cable, natural gas plant and on occasion the County's own
storm sewer. The Ministry of Environment's criteria for horizontal separation of sewers (storm or sanitary) from a
watermain is 2.5 meters. Therefore, it is physically not possible to run the watermain outside the travelled portion
of the roadway. Staff would prefer that the county develop a standard cross section for their roads which denotes
the servicin corridor for all h sical lant includin water, san ita sewer, storm sewer, tele hone, cable TV,
natural gas, etc.
~ Item 12.1 - The agreement suggests that the County maintains the "unfettered" discretion to require the relocation
of any utiiity from the road allowance within 120 days after giving written notice. This is a concern to staff due to
the following reasons.
a) This could effectively mean that residents could be left without water or sanitary sewer service.
b) The municipality would have to secure their own servicing corridor by acquiring land or an easement over
private property which would parallel the road allowance which is already publicly owned.
c) Even if the lower tier municipality agreed to this condition, 120 days is not a reasonable amount of time to
secure property, prepare a design, receive MOE approval and construct the works. Staff would respectfully
suggest that at an absolute rninimum, it would take 545 days.
~ Item 12.2 - Allows the County to terminate the agreement in the event that the municipality does not fulfil its
obligations and require the plant to be removed from the County of Elgin road allowance within 120 days. Staff
wouid suggest that this is not a reasonable approach and that other alternatives should be looked at by the
County. Such alternative may include, but not necessarily be limited to a monetary penalty.
~ Item 14.2 - References the term of the agreement to be 20 years and that at the end of the agreement the
municipality will remove any facilities or plant that it has within the County road allowance. Staff have a grave
concern with this clause given that the plant the municipality is installing has a life expectancy which can range
between 75 to 100 years. By agreeing to this clause it could mean that the municipality is only receiving 20
percent of the lift from the asset which it invested in before it could conceivably have to be removed.
~ As well, staff would note that there should be wording within the agreement which places some responsibilities
onto the County of Elgin as well. These responsibilities include but are not necessarily limited to the following:
a) If the County of Elgin approves a location and grade of water or sanitary service and request that it be
relocated to facilitate County work the cost of such relocation should be the responsibility of the County of
Elgin.
b) The County of Elgin should endeavour to have any contractor who performs work on a County of Elgin road
provide liability insurance and Indemnify the municipality in the event that damage is done to Central Elgin
plant.
~ The items referenced above are considerable, and if the agreement was executed as drafted It would result in a
large financial exposure to the municipality. Staff would respectfully suggest that it would be prudent that the
County of Elgin strike a steering committee with representatives from the lower tier municipalities to discuss in
further detail the ro osed a reement.
. . .. . .
Conflict between this agreement and road maintenance agreement:
~ Section 14.1 - Of this agreement prevents the municipality from cutting, trimming, or otherwise interfering with any
trees, brush, or other vegetation in exercising the permitted granted hereunder unless prior written notice to do so
has been obtained from the County. The road maintenance agreement requires that we maintain the vegetation.
It would appear that these two agreements may be in direct conflict with each other.
~ Section 14.2 - Would require that all water or sewer lines would have to be removed If the agreement was
terminated. This clause, although very unlikely would place the lower tier municipality in a district disadvantage. I
would su gest an automatic renewal clause be included.
. . . I
~ The Township of Malahide administers waterlines along County roads on our own behalf and on behalf of the Port
Burwell Secondary Water Board. The Port Burwell Secondary Water Board, the owner of the water system, is
made up of Malahide Township, Bayham Township and the Municipality of Central Elgin forming a joint ownership.
The Water Board will be meeting in early September and will be adding to their regular meeting agenda the
Municipal Infrastructure Agreement for discussion. A written response will be provided to you following this
meeting.
~ Item #1 - That Malahide Township believes the term of 20 years is too short and should be re-considered and
increased to 50 - 75 years. The life expectancy of water main, plants and appurtenances are anywhere from 50 -
100 years.
~ Item #3 - That Malahide Township advises an amendment be made to item #3 indicating the following:
a) That any work relating to water and sewer on County roads where the County is not involved in the specific
work; the municipality shall cover the full expense of the project to restore the area to pre-construction
conditions.
b) If there was a joint project which included both parties, the municipality should only cover expenses to bring
restoration to the point where the County was to complete the initial scope of their work. It should be the
expense of the County for completion of road surfaces.
~ Item #5 - Refers to as built drawing submissions to be submitted with 30 days, this should be amended from 30
days to between 90 and 120 days.
~ Item #12.1 - Refers to giving the County the right to request the municipality to move its facilities within 120 day
window at the full expense of the municipality. Malahide recommends a different approach. We believe that this
isn't a feasible method. The window of 120 da s to move its utiiities isn't acce table due to the followln reasons:
TI
a) The municipality needs to provide water/sewer service to its consumers. A 120 days window could result in a
loss of service to the residents.
b) The timeline for 120 days for the municipality to move its utilities is not feasible. The required time to apply
and obtain MOE approval is anywhere from 6 - 12 weeks. It would also take a considerable amount of time to
acquire new land, secure funding, engineering time, etc.
}- Item #12-2 - Refers to the County having the power to terminate the agreement at any time if the municipality fails
to compiy with the agreement and remove its utilities. The municipality recommends a more practical, manageable
approach, rather than forcing the municipalities to remove its utilities, a penalty or warning could be placed against
the municipality. Also, if the County feels the municipality hasn't complied with the agreement, a notification letter
and meeting should be conducted to see if there is a solution prior to penalties being given.
}- Not included in this agreement, but which should be addressed, is when the County allows new services, facilities,
etc. to be constructed on the road allowance of County roads, if municipal water or sewer already exists the
County shall meet with the municipality to plan the most logical area of installation to protect the infrastructure of all
the services affected.
}- The municipality would like to be informed within the 5 year County plan for road construction, to be able to apply
jointly for grant/funding for any upgrades required to our plant within the County road allowance if deemed
necessa . This a lies to sidewalks, streetli hts, water and sewers.
. ... ..
}- No comments received.
.
A concern was raised regarding a 20 year period applying to water and sewer lines.
ma be considered to deal with this issue.
es. Please advise what changes
}- No comments received.
MUNICIPALlTYOF WEST ELGIN
I
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM: Clayton Watters, Director of Engineering Services
DATE: March 6, 2008
SUBJECT: Highway #3 Planning Study - Update
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:
In December 1999, a representative from the Ministry of Transportation (MTO)
attended County Council to discuss the proposed Highway #3 improvements. Council
indicated to the MTO that new industry could be attracted to locate in; Aylmer, Central
Elgin and Malahide if the state of the road system was improved and the status of the
proposed Highway network was known.
County Council suggested that County staff organize a meeting with MTO and the local
municipalities to discuss traffic growth patterns with a view to determine mutually
agreeable highway improvements to facilitate new and anticipated growth.
The resolution is as follows \\ That the Ministry of Transportation be requested to fund
50% of the Highway #3 Planning study; and,
That the MTO be requested to confirm in writing their willingness to move the date of
construction upon completion of the study."
In 2007, a letter was forwarded to the Ministry of Transportation requesting a meeting
to discuss the completion of a Planning Study and a Functional Design. The local
Ministry of Transportation office will be meeting with County staff on April 1, 2008 to
clarify the needs of the County in order that this important project can move forward.
DISCUSSION:
In 1999 the Highway #3 bypass was on the MTO priority list, but it was still 15 or more
years away from being initiated. Other Provincial Highways have as much as 2.5 times
the volumes and counts. Therefore, there are more pressing needs than building a new
Highway #3 from St. Thomas to Aylmer, especially since Highway #3 had a major
resurfacing completed in the last few years.
The current uncertainty of the proposed project creates many problems for the eastern
half of Elgin County. Restrictions posed against any lands that have been designated by
the Province under the Route Planning Study of 1975 have resulted in negative
economic impacts on all communities involved.
If the lands have been designated by the MTO to be used for a future project, that
designation restricts the land owner from re-c1assifying, re-zoning, or severing any part
of those lands. These restrictions are imposed against the entire property rather than
the speCific portion required by the project because a complete and through detailed
design is not completed and these areas are not known.
To alleviate the majority of concerns and current conflicts the by-pass would not
necessarily have to be constructed at this time. What needs to be completed is an
updated planning study and design of the proposed project. A current planning study
and functional design would enable adjacent lands to be developed and plan for the
future.
To initiate the creation of an up to date planning study and functional design the local
municipalities and County could enter into a cost sharing agreement with the MTO. This
sort of arrangement has been accomplished in the past in other areas of Ontario to
initiate works that would not have otherwise been completed by the Province. Without
action from the local municipalities involved, a new route planning study may not get
completed for many years. A rough estimate in for planning study and functional design
of this scope is approximately $800,000 and requires two years to complete.
The MTO has scheduled a meeting with County staff for April 1, 2008 at 1 pm in the
engineering meeting room. Any interested County Councillors are invited to attend so
that the County's position is fully expressed.
CONCLUSION:
Realistically, construction of the proposed Highway #3 by-pass would not be initiated
within the near future due to other roads within the Province having greater
importance. An updated and current route planning study and functional design would
enable involved lands, communities and municipal government to proceed with
servicing, development and future planning.
To initiate the competition of such a study in the near future a cost sharing agreement
could be arranged with the MTO. The study would cost approximately $800,000 and
take as much as two years to complete. The MTO would be responsible for selecting
the consultant and facilitate the completion of the study to ensure it would be
recognized by the Province.
In 1999 the MTO has suggested it would fund, if approached, 50% of the cost or
$400,000 (50% of $800,000). And, the municipalities would fund the remaining.
A meeting is scheduled for April 1, 2008 in the County of Elgin engineering meeting
room to discuss the completion of the Planning Study and Functional Design of the
Highway #3 bypass from St. Thomas to Aylmer.
A re-affirmation of the County of Elgin's intentions may assist in moving this project
forward.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT the Ministry of Transportation be requested to fund 50% of the Highway #3
Planning Study and Functional Design and provide a time table for its completion; and
also,
The remaining costs, to a maximum of $500,000, be shared by the County of Elgin, the
Town of Aylmer, the Municipality of Central Elgin and the Township of Malahide; and
also,
That a report be presented to County Council to report on the outcomes.
Respectfully Submitted
Approved for SubmissiQ
{jf)JJr- turs
Clayton Watters
Director, Engineering Services
Mark G. cDonald
Chief Administra Ive Officer
,~;
, .
. 0.. .
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM:
AI Reitsma
Director of Information Technology
DATE:
March 25, 2008
SUBJECT:
2008 IT Plans
CORPORATE GOAL/5) REFERENCED:
1. To provide innovative and collaborative quality service
2. To recognize and seize opportunities for improvement
INTRODUCTION:
This report provides an overview of the Information Technology Department
plans for 2008.
DISCUSSION:
The Information Technology Department plans for 2008 included the following:
1. Rebuild of the County's two Citrix servers. These servers have been in
service since 2004. Over the last four year various application
installations and upgrades have occurred to the twenty-four applications
installed on them. It is an industry accepted fact that upgrades have
potential to degrade the performance of any computer. Over the last year
performance degradation has be noticed and is affecting staff productivity.
Rebuilding the Citrix servers with more memory, a 64 bit operating
system, installing the latest version of the Citrix platform and reinstalling
the required user applications will improve performance.
2. Addition of a third Citrix server. The current version of Workflows, the
application used by the County libraries to track circulation material
causes a significant drain on resources and impacting staff productivity.
The addition of a third Citrix server will spread the load over more servers
and minimize the effects on staff productivity.
3. In 2007 Information Technology staff migrated and tested several non-
critical applications to a virtual server environment. Servers operating in a
virtual server environment allow segregation of applications and more
efficient use of server hardware. Segregation is important from a
maintenance standpoint as it allows applications to be worked on in
isolation without affecting other production applications. The Microsoft
virtual server platform lacks several key features, such as unattended
failover, that is available in the widely used VMware platform. An article in
the February 8, 2008 edition of Computerworld quoted a Microsoft VP as
saying that "Three or four years down the line, I think it's going to be a
close two-horse [Microsoft Virtual platform and VMware platform] race".
Therefore, in 2008, the VMware platform will be tested to determine which
platform is appropriate.
4. The installation of new Kronos clocks and TouchlD technology. The
current Kronos clocks are over twelve years old and have reached the end
of their life expectancy. The addition of TouchlD technology allows staff to
use their fingerprint to clock in and out, removing the need for a bar code
on staff identification cards.
5. Information Technology staff will be working with the Long Term Care and
Human Resources staff to identify and implement a new identification card
system.
6. Wireless hotspots will be added to all County libraries. The implemented
system will allow patrons to use their library cards to gain access to a
wireless network and thus access the internet using their laptops. The
system comes with the necessary safeguards to protect the County
network and computers.
7. Thirteen workstations that are over seven years old will be replaced in
2008. Many of the networks older computers have been replaced over the
last five years due to failure or inability to support the Windows XP
operating system.
8. The amount of data being stored on the County's file servers have
increased significantly over the last four years. Weekly and monthly full
backups now require over twenty-eight hours and 4 tapes to complete and
include over one-half terabytes of data. The hardware is over seven years
old and was not designed for our current demands. The existing tape
library will be replaced with a system that is capable of storing 1.6
terabytes of data and will significantly reduce the time it takes to perform a
backup and the number of tapes used.
9. Development of an interface from the InSync to the InfoHR system. The
proposed interface will improve HR reporting capabilities. The interface is
scheduled to be completed in late March.
10. On-going support of the Elgin-St. Thomas Connects portal. Information
Technology staff are the first line of support for the portal. Staff typically
handles three or four calls a week. Staff will also be assisting the
Economic Development department in the design/redesign of that
department's site. The remainder of the County site, with the exception of
the library site, will also be reviewed in order to allow each department to
control their content.
11. On-going daily support of the county's network, the servers, computers
and printers on that network, applications and users. The Information
Technology staff handles dozens of calls each day. The goal is to
respond to each call within twenty-four hours.
CONCLUSION:
The 2008 Information TechnOlogy plans include a number of projects that will
improve system response time and application reliability. If all goes well users
will see very little disruption in service but they should see an improvement in the
delivery of applications.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT this report be received and filed.
Respectfully Submitted
aV'
~/2,n~~
AI Reitsma
Director of Information Technology
Approved for Sub . sion
Mark. Donald
Chief Administrative Officer
CORRESPONDENCE - MARCH 25. 2008
Items for Consideration
1. Natalie Garnett, Clerk, Township of Galway-Cavendish & Harvey, with a resolution
petitioning the Government of Canada and Province of Ontario to ban ownership of
handguns. (ATTACHED)
2. Warden John Oosterhof, Chair, Western Ontario Wardens' Caucus, requesting
support of former WOWC Chair, Warden Jim Burn's resolution petitioning the Province
of Ontario to provide compensating revenue to municipalities that have been
negatively impacted by the transition from the Farm Tax Rebate Program to the
agricultural property tax rate reduction program. (ATTACHED)
3. Town of Milton, with a resolution recommending the Ontario Minister of Natural
Resources review the role of security deposits for piUquarry rehabilitation, reinstate
the security deposits and review the role and effectiveness of OSSGA and TOARC in
promoting rehabilitation. (ATTACHED)
4. Pam Gilroy, Regional Clerk, Niagara Region, with a resolution calling on the Federal
Government to amend Bill C-22 to provide Ontarians with their fair share of seats in
the House of Commons. (ATTACHED)
5. Louise Gartshore, City Clerk, City of Woodstock, with a resolution requesting the
Province of Ontario to eliminate tax capping and replace it with an equitable system
based on current values assessment. (ATTACHED)
6. Laura Moy, Director Staff Services/Clerk, Town of Tecumseh, requesting the
Provincial and Federal Governments enter into an agreement for delivering Ontario's
share of the $64 million Municipal Rural Infrastructure Program top-up funds and
committing Ontario government to contribute its previously agreed-to matching funds.
(ATTACHED)
Box 820, 70] County Road #36, RR. #3, Bobcaygeon, Ontario, KOM ]AO Te1.(705) 738-3800 Fax (705) 738-380]
February 1, 2008
To: All Ontario Municipalities
The Council of the Township of Galway-Cavendish & Harvey adopted the following resolution at
their Council meeting on January 22nd, 2008:
WHEREAS handguns have the sole purpose of killing people;
AND WHEREAS many lives are being lost by the use of handguns;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED that the Township of Galway-Cavendish & Harvey
petition the Government of Canada and the Province of Ontario to ban the ownership of
handguns;
BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED that this resolution be forwarded to Prime Minister Steven
Harper, Premier Dalton McGuinty, Barry Devolin, MP, Laurie Scott, MPP, and to all
Municipalities in the Province of Ontario for consideration and endorsement.
Please present this resolution to your members of Council for their consideration and
endorsement.
Yours truly,
Natalie Garnett, MA, CMO
Clerk
ngarnett@galwaycavendishharvey.ca
DISCLAIMER
This material is provided under contract as a paid service by the originating organization and does not necessarily reflect the
view or positions of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), its subsidiary companies, officers, directors or
agents.
wowc
\\,,,,t01l1 hll,IlI~' \V~Ht.kn'" ("au.:u"
Warden John K. Oosterhof, Chair, WOWC
County of Dufferin
50 Zina Street
Orangevilie, Ontario
L9W 1 E5
February 21, 2008
RE: Farm Tax Rebate
I am writing today to provide ~ou with an update In regard to the letter and
attachments dated January 4 ,2008 from my colleague Warden Bums which
outlines the impact of the transition from the farm tax rebate program in 1998.
As Warden Burns' January 4th letter indicates, the farm tax rebate transition
challenge is a very important Issue that has negatively impacted the agricultural
municipalities of Ontario by more than $200M a year. With the Importance of this
issue in mind, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has consistently
brought this Issue to the forefront of their discussions with the province on our
behalf.
It has recently come to our attention that In addition to communicating the
importance of this Issue to the province, AMO has ensured that the farm tax
issue has a place in the municipal fiscal review process. As well, AMO has
included the farm tax Issue In their documents that outline the "$3 billion gap' to
ensure that resolving this issue remains a high priority. We greatly appreciate
AMO's continued support and efforts to resolve this issue at the fiscal review
table.
In closing, I would encourage you to continue learning more about the Impact of
this issue on your community so that collectively we can support AMO's efforts
and encourage the province to address this Issue In a timely manner.
Yours truly,
/d-.~
~ohn K. Oosterhof
Chair
Western Ontario Wardens' Caucus
::\ \V() \;\l (=
"l-"'t' '.' .' .
~-.ol-..1)
Western Ontario Wardens' Caucus
clo The Corporation of the County of Lambton
789 Broadway Street, Box 3000
Wyoming, ON NON no
519-845-0801
Jan uary 17, 2008
Association of Municipalities of Ontario
200 University Ave., Suite 801
Toronto, ON M5H 3C6
Attention: Mr. Doua Revcraft, President
Dear Mr. Reycraft:
Re: Farm Tax Rebate Resolution
At a recent meeting of the Western Ontario Wardens' Caucus, the enclosed letter
and resolution regarding the Farm Tax Rebate Program was approved.
We ask that this be circulated to local Municipalities as per AMO's practice.
Yours very truly,
r~
Jim Burns
County Warden
JBllk
DISCLAIMER
This matenal is provided under contract as a paid service by the onginating organization and does not
necessan/y reDect the view or positions of the Association of Municipalities of Ontano (AMO), its
subsidiary companies, omcers, directors or agents.
:;~. \V()\V(=
~.. ,,' .'.
....-.1!
January 4, 2008
To Heads of Council
I am writing to request your assistance in addressing the issue of provincial
compensation for the negative municipal financial impact associated with the transition
from the farm tax rebate program in 1998.
Prior to 1998 the municipal property taxation system taxed farm land at the same tax
rate as residential properties. To secure a provincial rebate of 75% of the municipal
taxes, the agricultural property owner had to first pay the municipal tax bill and then file
a claim with the Provincial Ministry of Agriculture and Food and Rural Affairs and
subsequently a rebate cheque would be issued.
Moving away from this cumbersome and costly system was a good move for both the
farmer and the Province of Ontario. The Farm Tax Rebate Program was replaced in
1998 with a system which required municipalities to lower the tax rate charged to
agricultural properties to 25% of residential tax rate.
At the time of the program transition, the Province of Ontario agreed to compensate
municipalities for the impact of this change with equivalent compensation through the
Community Reinvestment Fund. Unfortunately, equivalent compensation has not been
provided since the 1998 taxation year to the agricultural communities in Ontario. As a
result, according to some recent estimates, the transfer of the Farm Tax Rebate
Program to the municipal tax bill has negatively impacted the agricultural municipalities
of Ontario by more than $200M a year.
For your review, I have enclosed a fact sheet in regard to this issue and a worksheet
that will assist you in determining both your municipality's historic loss and your annual
loss as a result of the transition from the Farm Tax Rebate to a reduced agricultural tax
rate. I would encourage you to determine your financial loss and at the same time I
would ask you to consider the impact that this issue has on all rural residents in Ontario.
The failure of the Province of Ontario to provide appropriate compensation means that
all residents of all municipalities with rural/agricultural assessment must pay additional
taxes to pay for an initiative that benefits all residents of Ontario in the form of lower
food prices.
I have also enclosed a sample resolution for your review. After giving this issue
appropriate consideration, I would appreciate it if you would pass the resolution and
forward a copy to the Premier of Ontario, the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural
Affairs, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Minister of Finance, AMO and your local
MPP to express your concern in regard to appropriate compensation.
I thank you for your attention to this matter and if you have any questions in regard to
this issue, please do not hesitate to contact me at your earliest convenience.
Yours truly,
r~
Jim Burns, Chair
JB/sc
Enc!.
DISCLAIMER
This material is provided under contract as a paid service by the originating organization and does not
necessarily reDeet the view or positions of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), its subsidiary
companies, officers, directors or agents.
Resolution
WHEREAS the Province of Ontario moved from the Farm Tax Rebate Program to a
75% reduction in the agricultural property tax rate reduction program in 1998, at a cost
in excess of 100 million dollars annually to the municipalities of the Province;
AND WHEREAS the Province agreed to maintain municipal agriculture property tax
revenue when they moved from the rebate program to the reduced tax rate program;
AND WHEREAS municipalities have not received equivalent agricultural property tax
revenue compensation from the Province of Ontario;
AND WHEREAS this failure of the Province of Ontario to provide equivalent
compensation has negatively impacted the financial position of all municipalities in
Ontario with an agricultural tax base, at the above-noted cost in excess of 100 million
dollars;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Province of Ontario be petitioned to provide
compensating revenue to the municipalities of Ontario that have been negatively
impacted by the transition from the Farm Tax Rebate Program to the agricultural
property tax rate reduction program.
DISCLAIMER
This material Is provided under contract as a paid service by the originating
organization and does not necessarily reflect the view or positions of the Association of
Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), Its subsidiary companies, officers, directors or agents.
Farm Tax Rebate Fact Sheet
Background
Prior to 1997, the agricultural properties In Ontario were taxed at the residential rate
The Province of Ontario provided a farm tax rebate to agricultural properties that applied for
assIstance
. In 1997, the Farm Tax Rebate program was discontinued
. In place of the rebate program, the Province of Ontario changed the agricultural tax rate to 25% of
the residentIal fote
The cost of thIs reduction in the tax rate was passed on fa munlclpalities
To offset this cost to municipalities, the Province of Ontario agreed to provide compensating revenue
in the form of municipal grants (CRF)
Issue
The Province of Ontario has not kept theIr commitment fa make the transition from the Farm Tax
Rebate Program cost neutral fa municipalities
As a result, municipalities 'Nith rural! agricultural assessment have lost sIgnificant revenue since 1997
The Calculallon
To determine your munIcipality's loss as a result of this transition from the Farm Tax Rebate Program you
need to simply apply the following formula
o Determine your agriculiural taxation revenue prior to 1997
o Subtract current agricultural taxation revenue
o Subtract vacated agricultural portion of education tax room
o The result of this calculation is your community's lost taxation dollars
Impact
. In Middlesex County, the impact of this change is approximately $140M since 1997
. In Grey County, the impact of this change Is approximately $3.700,000 per year beginning in 2005
when the Provincial Community Reinvestment Fund was replaced with the Ontario Municipal
Partnership Fund
The impact is beyond financial as the agriculfural communities are now paying for their own rebate as
under the old system, the entIre province (both rural and urban) contributed to lowering the cost of
agricultural production
FAQs
Are you trying to raise taxes for farmers?
o No, this Initlafive 'NiB actually lower taxes for the agricultural community
. Do you want to go back to the old rebate system?
o No, the old system was not efficient and there is no reason to go back to an Inefficient rebate
system
o We simply want fhe province to provide municipaHfies 'Nith full compensation for the Impact of
their decision to change the agricultural support system
Why not let thIs be dealt with in the Local Services Realignment review?
o This Issue is not part of the lSR review
o The financial Impact of this issue is not included In AMO's analysis of the provincial I municipal
deficit from lSR
. Is this really an Important munic1pallssue?
o Significant financial Impact on rural and agricultural communities
o Even large urban communities are affected as the City of london estImates their annual loss at
$1.5M
o Gro'Ning number of urban and rural municipalities are presenting resolutions in support of this
issue
Whot Can You Do To Help?
. Talk to your local MPP about the Impact that the transition from the Farm Tax Rebate Program has had
on your community
Pass a resolution In support of resolving this Important municipal issue
. For your review, a sample resolution In regard to the farm tax rebate program impact is attached
for submission to the various provincial ministries
Addilionallnformallon
Gary Wood
CAO, Grey County
gwood@greycounty.on.ca
Bill Roybum
CAO, Middlesex County
brayburn@counfy.middlesex.on.co
Mil toN
i}W;~dij)D?\b.""2~-~'~-
THE COUNCIL OF THE
CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF MILTON
'l{'J!SOLV<I10!N!NO. 247-08
Moved by: Councillor Jan Mowbray
Seconded by: Councillor Colin Best
WHEREAS in 1997 - 1998 the security deposits that were to guarantee rehabilitation of aggregate pits and
quarries were liquidated;
AND WHEREAS the bulk of these funds, $48 million, was handed back to the operators of these pits and
quarries;
AND WHEREAS this liquidation removed much of the incentive for pits/quarries to be rehabilitated;
AND WHEREAS although progressive and final rehabilitation is required by the Aggregate Resources Act, only
about half of disturbed lands in pits and quarries is being rehabilitated;
AND WHEREAS this liquidation was done by The Ontario Aggregate Resources Corporation (TOARC) at the
order of the Ministry of Natural Resources;
AND WHEREAS that Corporation TOARC is completely owned by the Ontario Stone, Sand and Gravel
Association (OSSGA);
AND WHEREAS Ontario Stone, Sand and Gravel Association is registered as a lobbyist with the Integrity
Commissioner of Ontario;
AND WHEREAS in July 2006, MNR promised to examine in detail, within 2 years, the merits of a rehabilitation
incentive system, including the re-introduction of the former rehabilitation security deposit system;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of the Town of Millon recommend the following to the Ontario Minister of
Natural Resources with the goal of improving the status of rehabilitation in the Town of Milton and across the
Province:
(a) A review of the role of security deposits for piUquarry rehabilitation
(b) Re-instatement of those security deposits
(c) A review of the role of OSSGA and TOARC in regard to rehabilitation and security deposits toward
determining if this role has been in the public good and has been effective for promoting rehabilitation
The Corporation 01 the Town 01 Milton. 43 Brown Street, Milton, ON, L9T 5H2 - ATT: Shelly van Empel- 905-878-7252 #2131
FAX: 905-876-5022 e-mail - shelly.vanempel@milton.ca
DISCLAIMER
This material is provided under contract as a paid service by the originating organization and does not necessarily reflect the
view or positions of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), its subsidiary companies, officers, directors or agents.
Niagara
Office of the Regional Clerk
2201 SI. David's Road, P.O. Box 1042, Thorold
ON L2V 4T7
Tel: 905-685-1571 Toll-free: 1-800-263-7215
Fax: 905-687-4977
pam.gliroy@regional.niagara.on.ca
www.reglonal.nlagara.on.ca
Region
To All Ontario Municipalities:
The Regional Municipality of Niagara's Council, at their meeting of December 20, 2007,
endorsed the following motion, which is being circulated to all municipalities in Ontario for
endorsement:
"WHEREAS one of the founding principles of Confederation is the fair and
equitable representation in the House of Commons:
WHEREAS the formula proposed by the Federal Government in Bill C-22 will
add seats to the House of Commons, in an inequitable manner,
WHEREAS under the proposed legislation Members of Parliament from
Ontario will continue to represent a greater number of constituents than
Members of Parliament in other provinces, effectively reducing the
representation of Ontarians;
BE IT RESOLVED that the Regional Municipality of Niagara recognizes that
despite the Federal Government's efforts to improve the representation of
growing provinces in the House of Commons, the proposed formula is unfair
to Ontario and calls on the Federal Government to amend Bill C-22 to provide
Ontarians with their fair share of seats in the House of Commons while
maintaining the constitutionally protected seat guarantees of smaller
provinces;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution be forwarded to Prime
Minister Stephen Harper, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty and all Niagara
MPs and MPPs.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution be forwarded to all
municipalities in Ontario for their endorsement."
Yours truly,
Pam Gilroy
Regional Clerk
Ipp
DISCLAIMER
This material is provided under contract as a paid service by the originating organization and does not
necessarily reflect the view or positions of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), its subsidiary
companies, officers, directors or agents.
Building Community. Building Lives.
___ dtyof
Woodslocl<:
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
City Hall
P.O. Box 1539
500 Dundas Street
Woodstock, ON
N4S OA 7
Telephone (519) 539-1291
February 19, 2008
.~ "". ___...., '<.~.B 1$ 'L p- :f"it:. ~r'~
.,,:;-.r. ,,)0,., ~,\,>!j \~." ~"...-~ ~ :;;
~~:;"i t::~ ~;;,_fl b~~~,); ~j \r ~\;,.* ~J;jJ
FEB 2 \) 2008
Re: Taxation Matters
-~~t\;i\\.n;~~:~~~,< \~ '_'~?~~~U'<i:'~\
;'>; ~<O\~};Jr\~;fHJ\! '1~ i;.~}:d'\ -J n,tf.'~-.;J
~ ~ ,.. fit.>; ". , .
At the regular council meeting held on Thursday February 7, 2008, the following resolution was
passed:
"Whereas the premise of property tax collection is that each property owner pays their fair
share of taxation based on current value assessment;
And whereas the current tax capping regime creates inequities between properties with
identical assessments and that the introduction of assessments phase- ins for the residential
class further exacerbates this problem;
Therefore be it resolved that the Council of the City of Woodstock requests that the Province
of Ontario eliminate tax capping and replace it with an equitable system based on current
values assessment;
And that a copy of this recommendation be forwarded to the Ministry of Finance, our local
MPP, pertinent municipal associations and all Ontario Municipalities for support."
Yours truly
D(~ d/~
uunL< \
-f:pr .~
U/nS'~~60-
Louise Gartshore
City Clerk
Item A- 1
Administrative Services
February 7,2008
i
I
!
,
,
I
r
i
,
To: Paul Bryan.Pulham, Chief Administrative Officer
From: Patrice HlIderley, Director of Administrative Services
Re: Taxation Matters
AIM
To advise Council of various property taxation issues.
BACKGROUND
As Council is well aware, the Province revamped the property taxation system in 1998. The
original premise was simple - to create a property tax system that was fair, easily understood and
comparable across the province. Current Value Assessment (CV A) assessment was introduced
and defined as what a willing buyer would pay a willing seller on a given date. The Municipal
Property Assessment Corporation (MP AC) determines assessed values.
The impact of the change was not particularly noticeable for those areas that had regular
reassessments. However, some jurisdictions, such as Toronto, had not kept their assessments
current. As a result, there were large fluctuations in property values particularly in the
commercial, industrial and multi-residential classes. In order the address the Toronto problem,
the Province introduced tax capping protection, purportedly as a short term solution. Property
owners in those classes were protected from large increases. Taxpayers with decreases, had part
of their savings clawed back to finance the shortfall. In Oxford, this happens on a county-wide
basis, with taxpayers in one jurisdictions paying for shortfalls in another.
COMMENTS
The capping regime has continued for many years and there is no sign of it disappearing. The
results are often unfair. Property owners with identical assessments pay different taxes.
Taxpayers with decreasing assessments do not get the full benefit of the potential savings.
For example, based on 2007 information, there are 2,180 properties in the commercial class
across the County. 878 (40%) pay taxes, 190 (8%) have tax protection and 1,112 (52%) have a
portion of their taxes clawed back to fmance the shortfall. In the industrial class, 36% pay full
taxes, 28% are protected and 36% pay for the protection.
There have also been many complaints about armual reassessments and the Province has now
decided to move to a four year assessment cycle beginning 2009. As part of the plan, assessment
increases for the residential, farm and managed .forest classes will be phased in over four years.
In our opinion, this is just another form of capping which further complicates the system. As in
the other classes, those residential taxpayers who have their assessments decrease will not realize
their full tax savings while those with increases will be protected. We also question the value of
reassessment given that many property owners' property tax burdens have little to do with the
assessed values of their properties.
Additionally each time there is a reassessment there is the potential a property that is not
"protected" can fall back into "protected "status.
We believe it is important to go on record with the Province about our concerns and request the
elimination of tax capping. It is increasingly clear that the original provincial objective ofa fair,
understandable and comparable tax system has fallen by the wayside in favour of a complicated
system where certain taxpayers do not realize a reduction in taxes being required to subsidize
other taxpayers who, based on their CV A should be paying more.
We have had a number of taxpayers who have successfully appealed their assessments, paying
tax consultants to present their cases,only to find they do not realize the expected savings as they
end up having a portion oftheir savings clawed back to pay for the protected properties.
RECOMMENDATION:
Whereas the premise of property tax collection is that each property owner pays their fair share
oftaxation based on current value assessment
And whereas the current tax capping regime creates inequities between properties with identical
assessments and that the introduction of assessments phase- ins for the residential class further
exacerbates this problem
Therefore be it resolved that the Council ofthe City of Woodstock requests that the Province of
Ontario eliminate tax capping and replace it with an equitable system based on current values
assessment
And that a copy of this recommendation be forwarded to the Ministry of Finance, our local MPP,
pertinent municipal associations and all Ontario Municipalities for support.
"Patrice Hilderlev"
Patrice Hilderley, CGA
Director of Administrative Services
"Paul Brvan-Pulham "
Paul Bryan-Pulliam, P.Eng.
Chief Administrative Officer
peh
31/01/08
MAYOR- MAIRE
GARY McNAMARA
THE CORPORATION OF THE
TOWN OF TECUMSEH
917 LESPERANCE ROAD
TECUMSEH, ONTARIO' N8N 1W9
DEPUTY MAYOR - SOUS MAIRE
TOM BURTON
COUNCILLORS - CONSEILLERS
JOE BACIIETTI
MARCEL BLAIS
GUY DORION
JOIE JOBIN
RITA OSSINGTON
PHONE: 519-735-2184
FACSIMILE: 519-735-6712
www.tecumseh.ca
February 28, 2008
To the Municipalities afthe Province of Ontario
Please be advised that the Council for the Town ofTecumseh at its meeting of February 27,2008, adopted the following resolution:
\Vhereas on November 15. 2004, the Government of Canada and the Ontario Government entered into a five (5) year partnership under the Canada-
Ontario Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund (COMRIF) Agreement conunittillg the Governments to each invest up to $298 million dollars to
improve public infrastructure in rural and small urban communities;
And whereas the COMRIF Agreement is an important trilateral partnership for Canada, Ontario and municipalities as it demonstrates that
investment in municipal infhstructure is a shared responsibility that creates tangible economic and environmental benefits locally, provincially and
nationally; in addition to providing municipalities with the long-term support needed to renew essential infrastructure in their communities;
And whereas COMRlF is a competitive, merit-based program which assesses safe drinking water, wastewater, significant local road and bridge
improvements and waste management projects against three (3) criteria; namely, health and safety, public policy priorities, and value for money;
And whereas the COMRIF Program Intake Three closed in September 2006, and was funded in the amount of $46 million from both the Canada and
Ontario Governments, however, many of the applications did not receive funding;
And whereas in early 2007, the Canada Government allocated an additional $200 million as a "top-up" of the national Municipal Rural
Infrastructure Program (IvIRIF) program, of which Ontario's share is to be $64 million and is be matched by an additional $64 million from the
Province for a total additional funding under the original COMRlF program of$128 million;
And whereas AMO expressed concern in an October 22, 2007, Alert for the potential manner through which the $64 million "top-up" funding may
be administered in Ontario as there is debate over whether there should be a new COMRlF Intake Four or whether only those applications that did
not receive funding under the September 2006 CONlRlF Intake Three should be eligible for consideration;
And whereas since COMRIF Intake Three, there has been a municipal election and new Councils may have different priorities than those expressed
in the Tbird Intake;
And whereas on February 14,2008, the Canada Government announced:
. it would be funding projects from the $200 million MRIF "top-up" funding;
. that since the announcement of the additional MRIF funding, in February 2007, it has signed agreements with every province and territory -
except Ontario;
. it is proceeding to allocate the funding share for Ontario of $64 million under the MRlF "top-up" to unfunded existing applications for
municipal water and wastewater infrastructure from the last round ofCOMRIF Three Intake applications;
And whereas the COMRlF Agreement states that "in order to maximize the resulting illfi'astructure benefits to Canadian communities. Canada is
negotiating with the provinces and territories to develop new joint agreements for the pwpose of delivering the Sf-billion .MRlF and to leverage this
investment with provincial, territorial. municipal and llon-governmentalfinancial contributions. "
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council ofThe Corporation of the Town of Tecnmseh request:
That the Ontario Government and Government of Canada enter into an agreement for the purpose of delivering Ontario's share of the $64 million
Municipal Rural Infl-astructure Program (MRlF) "top-up" funds aImounced in February 2007 and committing the Ontario Government to contribute
matching funds of $64 million as agreed to under the November 15, 2004, Canada-Ontario Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund (COMRlF)
Agreement;
And that allocation of funding to Ontario Municipalities be determined in the same equitable manner as COMRIF Intakes One, Two and Three and
in accordance with the guidelines and procedures established by the Management Committee appointed to administer and manage the COMRIF
Agreement, in a timely manner, and to reflect the joint nature of the CO.MRIF;
And further that a Joint Secretariat be established to support the Management Committee in the administration of the Agreement, including the
timely production and sharing of information about Applicants, Projects, financial cash flows and other information;
And furthermore that this resolution be forwarded to the Prime Minister, Ontario Premier, Federal and Provincial Ministers of Finance, for action;
and to local NIP's and :MPP's, all local and Ontario municipalities, AMO, FCM, and AMCTO for support.
The Town ofTecumseh respectfully requests support of this resolution from all Ontario municipalities.
Sincerely,
Laura Moy, AM.C.T,
CORRESPONDENCE - MARCH 25. 2008
Items for Information (Consent Aaendal
1. Jayne Carman, Clerk, County of Brant;
Warden Albert Bannister, County of Middlesex;
Dianne Wilson, Deputy Clerk, Municipality of Central Elgin;
R. Millard, C.A.O.lClerk, Township of Malahide;
Denise McLeod, Deputy Clerk, Township of Southwold;
Wendell Graves, City Clerk, City of St. Thomas;
Norma I. Bryant, Clerk, Municipality of West Elgin;
Ken Whiteford, C.A.O.lClerk, Oxford County;
with resolutions of support for the brief to the Ministers of Energy and Agriculture,
Food and Rural Affairs respecting the proposed IGPC ethanol plant. (ATTACHED)
2. Luc Rouleau, Director, Ministerial Correspondence Secretariat, Canadian Heritage,
acknowledging Council's support of the City of Waterloo's resolution regarding the
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's request for federal funding to establish new
regional BCB radio stations.
3. Premier Dalton McGuinty, Premier of Ontario, acknowledging Council's support of
Durham Region's resolution regarding Employment Insurance benefits.
4. A. Opalick, Executive Correspondence Officer, Office of the Prime Minister,
acknowledging Council's endorsement of the City of Waterloo's resolution concerning
chemical pesticides.
5. Jennifer Reynaert, Director of Finance and Human Resources, Town of Aylmer: 1)
with copy of correspondence to Cathy Bishop, Director of Cultural Services, thanking
her for assisting the Town with preparing for the OEB hearing; 2) with copy of
correspondence to Suzanne Edwards thanking her for her assistance to the Town
with preparing for the OEB hearing. (ATTACHED)
6. Hon. Chris Bentley, Attorney General, Province of Ontario, authorizing consent to the
County of Elgin's request to add collection agency commission rates to defaulted
fines. (ATTACHED)
7. M. Bourque, Executive Correspondence Officer, Office of the Prime Minister,
acknowledging Council's resolution pertaining to Canada's municipal infrastructure.
8. Hon. David Caplan, Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal, expressing concern
about recent federal decisions that impact the Canada-Ontario Municipal Rural
Infrastructure Fund (COMRIF). (ATTACHED)
9. R. Millard, C.A.O.lClerk, Township of Malahide, with information concerning the
timely dispatching of Ambulance Dispatch Services/Fire Services - First
Response/Police. (ATTACHED)
2
10. Rob Roberti, Associate Director, Macquarie Capital Funds, Erie Shores Wind Farm
Limited Partnership, announcing that Dennis Haggerty has joined Erie Shores Wind
Farm as a full-time Plant Manager. (ATTACHED)
11. Jay C. Hope, Deputy Minister, Emergency Planning and Management ,Ministry of
Community Safety and Correctional Services, acknowledging and commending the
County for its achievement in fulfilling the 2007 municipal requirements of the
Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act. (ATTACHED)
12. Debra Bagshaw, commending Marg Emery and the Elgin Tourist Association on the
recently published 2008 Visit and Tour Guide. (ATTACHED)
13. Minister of Finance and Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, with information on
the 2008 Stable Funding Guarantee and the OMPF allocations for 2008 for County of
Elgin. (ATTACHED)
14. AMO Member Communication ALERT: 1) "Proposed Bill would Direct 2007/08
Provincial Budget Surplus to Municipal Infrastructure"; 2) "Ontario Municipal
Partnership Fund Increased for 2008 (ATTACHED)
REF. Eddy. Mayor
Rick Fiebi9. C.A.O.
Telephone 519-449-2451
Fax 519-449-2454
E~maH brantiCVbrant.ca
Web Site http://www.brant.ca
County Administration Building
26 Park Avenue
Burford. ON
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 160
Burford. ON NOE 1AO
February 22, 2008
~::)
Mr. Jim Mclntrye, Chair
Rural Initiatives Committee
County of Elgin
450 Sunset Drive
Sl. Thomas, ON N5R 5V1
'" ,-, ~ 2008
l'>ihl\ ~,<> j
nVf;: .8EHViCe.S.
Dear Mr. Mcintyre:
Brant County Council approved the following resolution at their meeting held on
February 19, 2008:
"That the Council of the County of Brant support the Elgin County Rural
Initiatives Committee's Brief to the Ministers of Energy and Agriculture,
Food and Rural Affairs on the 'IGPC Ethanol Plant in the Town of Aylmer
and the County of Elgin'."
If you have any questions or require further information, please contact our office.
Yours truly,
8"7JuJ CaJU"iV\J
Jayne Carman
Clerk
County of Brant
cc Hon. Gerry Phillips, Minister of Energy
Hon. Leona Dombrowsky, Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
Dave Levac, M_P.P., Brant Riding
County Administration Building, 399 Ridout Street N., London, ON N6A 2P 1
(519) 434-7321 FAX: (519) 434-0638 warden(aJ,countv.middlesex.on.ca
middlesex
county
THE CORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX
February 20, 2008
<~~ Ii':>':.! ft ~ .q i'f~ ~f"~
,t k.\':! ~, 1!;~ ['ltd.... ~
';~~~Ji' ny> ii W f:,"'n:n ~",-.fJ
FEB 2 2 2008
Hon. Leona Dombrowsky
Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
77 Grenville St., 11th FIr., Toronto, On. M5S 1 B3
"'(.1_!i,1'i'V ('f f'j"(J
L))U,-L ) \,,~,\.1 ,'J
"')\'IHI..fr.'....'.." ".,.f'.\1IM'C'
luA-tl ft' t~, i)J'\l U &; bf:~n '} ft,1f,..:,3
And
Hon. Gerry Phillips
Minister of Energy
Hearst Block, 4th Fir., 900 Bay St., Toronto, On. M7A 2E1
RE: IGPC Ethanol Plan in the Town of Aylmer
Dear Ministers:
I am writing today to bring to your attention a very important and pressing
issue for our region.
As the attached brief from the County of Elgin indicates, this development
of this ethanol plant is an important economic and community development
opportunity for our region. With the importance of this project in mind, on
behalf of the County of Middlesex we are asking that you monitor the
current challenges associated with this project and that you take whatever
steps necessary to ensure its successful completion.
Yours truly,
~.vy'-&-~
Warden Albert Bannister
Warden
Attachment
cc. Steve Peters, MPP, Elgin-Middlesex-London
Maria Van Bommel, MPP, Lambton-Kent-Middlesex
Bev Shipley, MP, Lambton-Kent-Middlesex
Joe Preston, MP, Elgin-Middlesex-London
Warden Hofhuis, County of Elgin
The Corporation of the Municipality of
Central Elgin
450 Sunset Drive, 1 st Floor, St. Thomas, Ontario NSR SVl P: 519.631.4860 F: 519.631.4036
February 20th, 2008
Jim Mcintyre
Chair
Elgin County's Rural Initiatives Committee
County of Elgin
4S0 Sunset Drive
St. Thomas, ON
NSR SV1
if''"'i 0'" r"'" ~."' In\ ftE.V''''
:>C:;~"':~ t'ii.'O_'" ~~.., fr~'-'l ~~, ~ '" ,-~ ~
h >~ 1,:'<,{ ,.;~:-." ,:,~,.;~ U v~ t' ~n ~iYf.'
FES 2 1 2008
COUNT1 OF aGIN
t\DMl1nSTRAlIVE SfJlVlCES
Dear Mr. Mcintyre:
Re: IGPC Ethanol Plant
Please be advised that Council discussed your correspondence with respect to the above noted
item at their meeting dated Tuesday, February 19th, 2008 and the following resolution was
passed:
THAT: The Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Central Elgin express support for
correspondence from the County of Elgin for the attached "Brief to the Ministers of Energy and
Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs for Ontario" respecting the proposed IGPC Ethanol Plant in
the Town of Aylmer. CARRiED.
If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at the municipal
office.
Yours truly,
~~
Dianne Wilson
Deputy Clerk
87 John Street South,
Aylmer, Ontorio N5H 2C3
Telephone; (519) 773-5344
Fox; (519) 773-5334
Wvtw.township.maloh ide.on.co
theTOWNSH I Po!
ALANID.
A proud tradition, a bright future.
Febmary 19,2008
f~ K:~ lFE~ n'l' ~;::~ ~C:If
County of Elgin,
450 SlIDset Drive,
St. Thomas, Ontario
N5R 5Vl
FEB 2 0 200B
v {n~ f~I' {~1~4
l ':,., .("",,\4,'
, IV'''''l''''"(1' '-,,,r' ""R\!'CiO',
A-Wh-lfn,1'~~J,l\1;V!;:.~)'t;\ '11 ~,.<J
Attention: Jim McIntyre, Chair.
Elgin County's Rural Initiatives Committee
Dear Sir:
RE: IGPC Ethanol Plant, Aylmer.
Malahide Township Council passed the following Resolution unanimously on Febmary
14,2008:
THAT Malahide Township Council endorses the bl"ief to the Minister of Energy and
to the Minister of Agl"icuIture, Food and Rural Affairs for Ontario on the IGPC
Ethanol Plant in the Town of Aylmer Pl'esented by Jim McIntyre, chair of Elgin
County's Rural Initiatives Committee dated February 2008 relating to their concel'll
regarding the potential delay of the supply of natural gas to the project by NRG.
Yours very truly,
TOWNSHIP OF MALAHIDE
15, /J?tthd /ikJ
R. MILLARD, C.A.O./CLERK
Copy - Minister of Energy
- Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.
Steve Peters, MPP Elgin-Middlesex-London
Joe Preston, MP Elgin-Middlesex-London
H:\diana's files\Randy 2008\county ~ ethanol feb 19.doc
RANDALL R. MILLARD
C.A.O./Clerk
SUSAN E. WILSON
Treasurer
02/21/2008 11:00 FAX
141002
TOWNSHIP OF SOUTHWOLD
35663 Fingal Line
Flngal, ON NOL 1KO
PhOM: (519) 769-2010
Fax: (1519) 769-2837
cmail: dmcleod@twp.southwold.on.ca
February 21, 2008
DELIVERED BY FAX: (519) 633-7661
Rural Initiatives Committee
Elgin County
James Mcintyre, Chair
450 Sunset Drive
S1. Thomas, Ontario N5R 5V1
Dear Mr. Mcintyre:
Re: IGPC Ethanol Plant in the Town of Aylmer
Please be advised that Council at its regular meeting on February 19, 2008 passf!d the
following resolution:
"THAT this Council supports the brief to the Ministries of Energy and Agriclllture,
Food and Rural Affairs respecting the proposed IGPC ethanol plant in the Town
of Aylmer, in the County of Elgin."
truly,
'V III
nise McLeod
Deputy Clerk
Cc: Joe Preston, M.P., Elgin-Middlesex-London
. Steve Peters, M.P.P. Elgin-Middlesex-London
Cliff Barwick, Mayor, City of S1. Thomas
Warden Hofhuis, County of Elgin
Wendell Graves
City Clerk
nmCORI'ORATIONOl'nmcm'OF
Office of the Clerk
P.O.Box 520, City Hall
St. Thomas, ON N5P 3V7
Telephone: (519) 631-1680
Ext. 4120
Fax: (519) 633-9019
wgraves@city.st-thomas.on.ca
ST. THOMAS
February 20, 2008
[";:f [:;, G ~::, II 'iV~~: D
Hon. Gerry Phillips, Minister of Energy
900 Bay Street, 4th Floor
Hearst Block
Toronto, Ontario
M7A 2E1
FEB 2 1 2008
,..,:\1 )~-,;nJ ;'\(; p n~\}
tty.q"t i i-.it ",,'!.'\\1h
"r..".!;~~:r;'A 1'IIH: '~p,..\,\jir.!~$
l'-llJii'lIblvlPf't! S'J-,t..hci 'l'l~ Jot
Hon. Leona Dombrowsky, Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
Public Archives Building
77 Grenville St., 11th Floor
Toronto, Ontario
M5S 1 B3
RE: IGPC ETHANOL PLANT. AYLMER ONTARIO
Please be advised that City Council received a Brief dated February 2008 from Mr. Jim
Mcintyre, Chair, Elgin County's Rural Initiative Committee and as a result Council passed the
following motion:
"THAT: The Council of the City of SI. Thomas endorse a brief dated February 2008 to the Minister
of Energy and to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs relating to the IGPC Ethanol
Plant In Aylmer as submitted by Jim Mcintyre, Chair, Elgin County's Rural Initiative Committee;
and further,
THAT: A copy of this motion be sent to the Minister of Energy, the Minister of Agriculture, Food
and Rural Affairs, MPP Steve Peters, MP Joe Preston, the County of Elgin, and the Town of
Aylmer."
Carried.
Thank-you for your attention to this matter.
Yours truly,
cc. MPP Steve Peters
MP Joe Preston
Jim Mcintyre, Chair, Elgin County's Rural Initiative Committee
The Town of Aylmer
ijI4~ 4ffit1tnicipaIit~ of ;wrest ztiIgitt
February 19, 2008
FES ;' '1 ZOU8
S:t{i\J.,l
County of Elgin
450 Sunset Drive
Sl. Thomas, ON
N5R 5V1
r\t!Lm..,\I~}fHiYr~VU ::~EHVICES
Attn: Jim Mcintyre, Chair
Rural Initiatives Committee
Dear Sir:
RE: IGPC Ethanol Plant in the Town of Aylmer
Please be advised that the Council of the Municipality of West Elgin, passed the
following resolution at their meeting held on February 14, 2008
Properly Moved and Seconded:
RESOLVED that the Council of the Municipality of West Elgin endorses the brief
to the Ministers of Energy and Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs respecting the
proposed IGPC ethanol plant in the Town of Aylmer.
DISPOSITION: Carried,
Yours truly,
N~ry~~~T
Clerk
22413 Hoskins Line, Box 490, Rodney, Ontario NOL 2CO Tel: (519) 785-0560 Fax: (519) 785-0644
IBJlxfgrdCount~
~ growing stronger... together
["<if,:
IZ""'\'
'i) ~f.
,!
'0:
,i
'}
r,
kzi,~,
~ ~
,~;,~:;,."
Office of the C.A.O./Clerk
p.o. Box 397, 415 Hunter Street, Woodstock, Ontario N4S 7Y3
Phone:519-539-9800 . Fox:519-S37-3024
Website: www.county.oxford.on.ca
MAR 1 0 2008
\-;"/;\jl';'V,{;,; .! ....1'1
h~'0l ~ j ~ f;:.1,,('I'h
I~ n~J~,~j lr~ 'I' n ,\ l~\ l'r'~'::~:;;';.n \Jlr"1f:!;:;
"io<'~>1h?f."..; _.;,-},> ~J-. ",!,..,.\ 111 "h-.,.\)
March 6, 2008
Mr. Jim Mcintyre, Chair,
Elgin County's Rural Initiatives Committee,
450 Sunset Drive,
S\. Thomas, Ontario.
N5R 5V1
Dear Mr. Mcintyre,
Re: IGPC Ethanol Plant in the Town of Avlmer
Oxford County Council considered your February 13, 2008 letter regarding the IGPC
Ethanol Plant in the Town of Aylmer at their session on the evening of February 27,2008
and adopted the following resolution:
"That the brief to the Minister of Energy and the Minister of Agriculture and
Rural Affairs for Ontario from the County of Elgin regarding the IGPC Ethanol
Plant In the Town of Aylmer and the County of Elgin, be endorsed."
Letters have been forwarded to the Minister of Energy and also the Minister of
Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.
Yours very truly,
ck:~L
Ken Whiteford,
C.A.O./Clerk.
cc: Dave McKenzie, M.P., Oxford
Ernie Hardeman, M.P.P., Oxford
Paul Holbrough, Warden, County of Oxford
1+1
Canadian Heritage
Patrimoine canadien
tf:v~ ~?i.'; f~~Q tt-:~{<I q '}\ (f ~(:'k ~'>:>~
t4~-'Sl t...., \1, r? l';,,'~" L ~f( 11<,= ~ .-1
~.l l.1 '.,,,,":1 <~F' 1,"'f"..1" "..' ('-~~'_' ,"___~"
-. ..., .-, <.....".....-
FEB t: 9 2008
CCL!i{(/ ELGIN
,liJl~Hi~;t;TI'?&fHF ~~n'.!iG"'l:~
''''_''h'~'''''; .'''''.1,-.'.''; y",.",'t~ ~'J
Mrs. S.J. Heffren
Manager of Administrative Services
County of Elgin
450 Sunset Drive
St. 1Lhornas, ()ntario
N5R 5V1
FEB 2 6 2008
Dear Mrs. Heffren:
I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your correspondence ofFeblUary 12, 2008,
addressed to the Honourable Josee Verner, Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of
Women and ()fficial Languages, supporting the resolution of the City of Waterloo
regarding the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's request for federal funding to
establish new regional CBC radio stations.
Please be assured that your correspondence will be given every consideration.
Yours sincerely,
CJ~c~~~-
r~uc Rouleau
Director
Ministerial Correspondence Secretariat
Canada
*
The Premier
of Ontario
Le Premier ministre
de I'Ontario
Edifice de l'Assemblee legislative
Queen's Park
Toronto (Ontario)
M7A1A1
ltj
"'1m!JJ.J"
Ontario
Legislative Building
Queen's Park
Toronto, Ontario
M7A 1A1
February 26, 2008
~j
,i
'i'
!r~;:'1.
,~ ~
~'i_d'i/
1,,1 " n "Z008
-"iI,\t~ .,.,. .0,
" >'1"
':-; f" ,'",'
>'';'"-,,,
~ "\ ~~, "\ '\ '".- . ~
f-1LNWdJb I i{/~,}F:j~.~' 1:'~}~~,'''1!i~,{~J;~j
, - 1>. ,,'.lr-; \..."", :~!vt.r0
(:(iUtJ
Mrs. Sandra J. Heffren
Manager of Administrative Services
County of Elgin
450 Sunset Drive
St. Thomas, Ontario
N5R 5Vl
Dear Mrs. Heffren:
Thank you' for your letter expressing council's support for Durham Region's resolution
regarding Employment Insurance benefits. I appreciate your keeping me informed of
council's activities.
As this matter falls under the jurisdiction of my colleague the Honourable Dwight
Duncan, Minister of Finance, I have sent a copy of council's resolution to the minister. I
trust that the minister will also take council's views into consideration.
Thanks again for the information. Please accept my best wishes.
Yours truly,
(Ht"7
Dalton McGuinty
Premier
c: The Honourable Dwight Duncan
Gy,
\67
Office of the
Prime Minister
Cabinet du
Premier ministre
Ottawa. Canada K1A OA2
Februmy 26, 2008
::::~t
y :j
u r.~~:~ i~:~}
!<l,t\R .> II 20G8
Mrs. Sandra J. Heffi'en
Manager of Administrative Services
County of Elgin
450 Sunset Drive
St. Thomas, Ot;ltario
N5R 5Vl
.\1,'\;3\Nl(
!..~.v;".. ),,,"'
.,:;;;. rJ"J~r"~_~q
'''''''h;~ j 't ;\,;"..0;1
Dear Mrs. Heffi'en:
On behalf ofthe Right Honourable Stephen Harper, I would like to
acknowledge receipt of your c01l'espondence of November 27, with which you enclosed a
resolution by the City of Waterloo, as endorsed by the Council of the Corporation ofthe
County of Elgin, regarding chemical pesticides. I regret the delay in replying.
Please be assured that the views expressed in the resolution have been
carefully reviewed. As copies of your letter have already been sent to the Honourable
Tony Clement, Minister of HeaIth, and the Honourable John Baird, Minister of the
Environment, I am certain that they will have appreciated being made aware of your
interest in this matter and will wish to give your concerns every consideration.
Thank you for writing to the Prime Minister.
Yours sincerely,
OOr'~
A. Opalick
Executive Correspondence Officer
Canada
~,~
III I'
A11m'~
proud Heritage. Bright Future.
The Corporation of the Town of Aylmer
46 Talbot Street, West, Aylmer, Ontario N5H 1J7
Office: 519-773-3164 Fax: 519-765-1446
www.aylmer.ca
!:
1,IAi; ,0 "I 2008
February 29, 2008
Cathy Bishop
County of Elgin
450 Sunset Drive
St. Thomas, Ontario N5R 5V1
I' 1'1,~_ f (!" 1l4i
'l!;;!,;lLh)
Dear Cathy:
On behalf of Council and Administration of the Town of Aylmer please accept our
sincere thanks for assisting the Town with preparing for the OEB hearing this
week. We appreciate the time you took to coordinate these activities and we
wish to pass on our thanks to your staff at the Aylmer Library for being so helpful
and patient while we were dropping the internet line through their work space.
The required internet connection through the County system for the hearing
worked without fail throughout the day and assisted us in successfully providing
the facility for the OEB on very short notice.
Again, thanks for your assistance.
Yours truly,
--I
, //
/#~,lJhr'~
Jennifer Reynaert, AMCT, CHRP
Director of Finance and Human Resources
c.c. Heather Adams, Administrator, Town of Aylmer
MarkMcDonald, CAO, County of Elgin
~
II. I'
Ailrrf~
Proud Heritage. Bright Future.
The Corporation of the Town of Aylmer
46 Talbot Street, West, Aylmer, Ontario N5H 1J7
Office: 519-773-3164 Fax: 519-765-1446
www.aylmer.ca
;1
i, "'000
'.. t.
February 29, 2008
Suzanne Edwards
County of Elgin
450 Sunset Drive
SI. Thomas, Ontario N5R 5V1
L
Dear Suzanne:
On behalf of Council and Administration of the Town of Aylmer please accept our
sincere thanks for assisting the Town with preparing for the OEB hearing this
week. We appreciate the time you took to coordinate these activities and we
wish to especially thank you for taking the time out of your schedule to come
here to set up your computer and load the required programs for the court
reporters.
The required internet connection through the County system for the hearing
worked without fail throughout the day and assisted us in successfully providing
the facility for the OEB on very short notice.
Again, thanks for your assistance.
Yours truly,
)
./ .
" . /
la-~~.J~aLv,lo
/ 7
Jennifer Reynaert, AMCT, CHRP
Director of Finance and Human Resources
c.c. Heather Adams, Administrator, Town of Aylmer
MarkMcDonald, CAO, County of Elgin
Co plf.. 0) "/0 ;k./tt/'r.r'nr:l
. /. ~~/^.Y
Attorney General
McMurtry-Scott Building
720 Bay Street
11th Floor
Toronto ON M5G 2K1
Tel: 416326-4000
Fax: 416326-4016
Procureur general
Edifice McMurtry-Scott
720, rue Bay
11' etage
Toronto ON M5G 2K1
TOI. : 416 326-4000
TOlee.: 416326-4016
~
~
Ontario
Our Reference #: M08-000 19
FED 2 5 2000
~:;~ k:: C "V~;:~)
MAR ., 5 2008
Ms. Linda Veger
Director of Financial Services
County of Elgin
450 Sunset Drive
St. Thomas, ON
N5R 5Vl
',n;xHm.j'(~)~'i.':n~n~' ~~,r:~{HJ!PF~~
r~UI~l{b;',-. i i)i"t l. t:1'< '",hi l'~ 1,.;';"v.;J
Dear Ms. V eger:
Thank you for your letter of October 19,2007, requesting my consent to authorize the
recovery of collection agency costs associated with debt collection activity related to
outstanding Provincial Offences Act fines by the County of Elgin.
As you are aware, under the POA Transfer Agreement, Municipal Partners have the
authority to collect fines and certain costs, fees and surcharges levied under the
Provincial O.flences Act and the Contraventions Act (Canada). The Provincial (}[fences
Act states that Municipal Partners "shall not collect any other charges for acting under a
transfer agreement, except with the Attorney General's written consent, obtained in
advance" (s.165(9)).
I hereby consent to the County of Elgin's request to add collection agency commission
rates of 10% to 45% to the total amount of dcfaulted fines owed by a defendant, as
approved by Conncil.
In the preamble, the transfer agreement states that "future improvements in service delivery
to the public for local justice matters can best be achieved in partnership with local
governments." As Attorney General, I share this vision of provincial-municipal
cooperation in reaching the goal of a modern, efficient and effective justice system.
...2
- 2-
If you require further information regarding the recovery of collection agency costs, please
contact Mr. Jeremy Griggs, Manager, Provincial Offences Act Unit, at (416) 212-4546 or
ieremy.griggs@ontario.ca.
Sincerely,
~Jv
Hon. Chris Bentley
Attorney General
Office of the
Prime Minister
Cabinet du
Premier ministre
Ottawa, Canada KiA OA2
F.i~f<i ,>,"-;'j-"; .<t~"'b ljq~ ~1 f~ IJ '{f'W v'~-.&>.
11"d! rt~;'~ f(' 'j~ <<:;)J ~~ ~Jf ~~.,~ ~ ~J
11 ~ ~~'":1] 'ct.':} U,'tIJ tt ~ k";>,A kd
February 27,2008
MAR 1 0 200B
i':(')PH'fV f)t; ~t /~IM
'Ie,. .' >.n\1. ; t.. t"~,,,,~ l";:
j\f\,t~~U'rlF\I:r,~ljYltfr,' :.~,i:PU}f't~
.~,\", \',,'.+\ ,,-.'.. ~ _ ~'-'. " ~ F ~_ -,,<'.~>! y~V.bw
Mrs. Sandra J. Hefti'en
Manager of Administrative Services
County of Elgin
450 Sunset Drive
St. Thomas, Ontario
N5R 5Vl
Dear Mrs. Heffren:
On behalf of the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, I would like to
acknowledge receipt of your c011'espondence of January 23, which included a resolution
of the County of Elgin pertaining to Canada's municipal infrastructure.
Please be assured that the views expressed in the resolution have been
noted. As a copy of your c011'espondence has already been sent to the Honourable
Lawrence Canno~, Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, I am certain
that the Minister will also have appreciated being made aware of your comments.
Thank you for writing to the Prime Minister.
Yours sincerely,
.1
~)1' 1 -7i~
'/1 .'
, l ,~vu:I L~_,~
I'
(J
M. Bourque
Executive Con'espondence Officer
Canada
Ministry of Public
Infrastructure Renewal
Minister
6" Floor, Mowat Block
900 Bay Street
Toronto ON M7A 1L2
Tel: 416325-0424
Fax: 416325-3013
www.ontarlo.ca/plr
Ministere du Renouvellement
de l'lnfrastructure publlque
Ministre
6' etage, edifice Mowat
900, rue Bay
Toronto ON M7A lL2
Tel.: 416325-0424
Telec: 416325-3013
www.ontario.ca!pir
~
~....~
Ontario
PIR1825MC-2008-168
February 28, 2008
t4AR - S 2008
Warden Lynn Acre
County of Elgin
450 Sunset Drive
St. Thomas, ON N5R 5V1
Dear Warden Acre:
I am writing to express my concerns about rElcent federal decisions that impact the Canada-
Ontario Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund (COMRIF).
Ontario worked with our municipal partners, as represented by the Association of
Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), to develop an approach for a new fourth intake of COMRIF
that would be fair and equitable to municipalities, that would address their current
infrastructure priorities, and would provide the flexibility for municipalities to submit previous
applications if they wished. Since April 2007, the federal government has been aware of
Ontario's and AMO's preference for an Intake 4 and of how prepared we were to proceed.
Ontario was prepared to match its share of the national top-up to the program with funding
of $64 million-if the federal government had taken a collaborative approach. That is not
what happened. The federal government chose to ignore an agreement in principle
reached among federal, provincial and municipal partners.
Instead, the federal government decided on its own to allocate its $64 million share of the
COMRIF top-up. It is a choice that does not serve the best interests of Ontario's
communities.
On a number of counts, this decision is disappointing. It potentially causes confusion for
municipalities that wanted a fourth intake and were anticipating its launch. It also penalizes
municipalities that may have proceeded with unfunded COMRIF projects or have new and
urgent priorities that also require federal and provincial funding support. The federal
government needs to be accountable for their decision. The communities they select must
not presume provincial support for their projects will be forthcoming; the province will
evaluate such requests on a case-by-case basis.
... /2
- 2 -
In the meantime, Ontario is moving forward with the Municipal Infrastructure Investment
Initiative (Mill) to support the construction and renewal of local infrastructure priorities in
Ontario's communities. On February 25, 2008, Premier McGuinty announced a top-up of
$150 million, bringing the total to $450 million of provincial funding. Ontario is not
requesting matching funding from Canada for this program. We will provide successful
municipalities with the amounts they requested to implement the projects they identified.
The Mill application process has closed, and we will be making grant announcements by
March 31,2008.
Ontario looks forward to more cooperative decision-making with regard to the Building
Canada Plan. We have been working with the federal government on the terms and
conditions of the proposed Framework Agreement. You can be sure we will continue to
advance the priorities of Ontario's communities in our discussions. We hope to be able to
sign a framework agreement in the coming weeks that is not only transparent and equitable,
but also addresses the pressing infrastructure challenges your communities are facing.
Yours sincerely,
~
David Caplan
Minister
c: The Honourable Dalton McGuinty
Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
The Honourable Dwight Duncan
Minister of Finance
The Honourable Leona Dombrowsky
Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
The Honourable Jim Watson
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Mr. Doug Reycraft
President, Association of Municipalities of Ontario
A proud tradition, a bright future.
87 John Sfreef Soufh,
Aylmer, Ontario N5H 2C3
Telephone: 519-773-5344
Fax: 519-773-5334
WNW. townshlp,malohide.on. co
theTOWNSH I Po!
MALARID.
February 5, 2008.
Minister of Health and Long-Tellli Care,
The Honourable George Smitherman,
Hepburn Block, loth Floor, 80 Grosvenor St.,
TORONTO, Ontario
M7 A 2C4
Dear Sir:
RE: Ambulance Dispatch Services/
Fire Services - First Response/Police.
Please find enclosed a news article which caused Malahide Township Council to have
concerns regarding the timely dispatching of our Fire Services.
While the time delay given may not be accurate, the story does give one pause as to what
may have occurred.
In this type of situation, a slow dispatch 01' failure to dispatch could cause a fatality.
Malahide Fire Services trains extensively to provide assistance in a number of emergency
circumstances. Council believes this training is wasted if fire services don't kuow 01' are
not dispatched to where their kuowledge and training could be used.
Malahide Township Council is concerned that undue delays in dispatching can occur as a
result of the tired response protocol.
Malahide Township Council believes all (emergency) services should be dispatched
immediately and at the same time. A tiered response necessitates a determination and a
time delay.
Malahide Township Council would prefer trained emergency personnel make the
determination on site as to who is needed rather than relying on information from non-
emergency personnel, who may 01' may not convey all of the needed information as to
who should be requested or dispatched. Council believes there is too much responsibility
placed on the dispatch in a tiered response.
SUSAN E. WILSON
Treasurer
freasurer@fownship.malahide.on.ca
RANDALL R. MILLARD
C.A.O./Clerk
Minister of Health and Long Term Care,
Page 2.
Council would like to meet with the Minister of Health and/or with Senior Management
of the ambulance Services to get a response or determination if joint dispatching will
occur immediately for our area.
Your consideration and response to the above would be appreciated.
Yours very truly,
TOWNSHIP OF MALAHIDE
c:7~
R. MILLARD, C.A.O./CLERK ~
Copy - 911 Committee
Ambulance Services
MPP Steve Peters
MP Joe Preston
OPP - Police services (Elgin Detachment)
County of Elgin
Council
H:\diana's files\Randy 2008\rv1inistry ofHeatlh - Jan 18- ambulance dispatch,doc
,YI~K
..h
..pANADA'.$ BIGGE$iNfWSPAPE,R~;~~{~~~~@~J:jij~~~~~~)~.~~.~">'.~~t~'J
I Firetlglitetf save.':a~~ri~~ii
inconversation wlllCb: includt:idl Volunteer firefighters
asking ,the ages of; the otheI:, arrived,l),t her,.hop.~e v.;itliiil
children in the room. minutes of her 'husband's pager
1Irs. Steelerepealed1Y as.ked being sounded at~:21 p:IIl.
herJo dispatch ernergency,b~lp " Her. bIother-iil.~law. Darry-n
andwlin61d it\vas on'the way Ostrander was ihe flfSt to.arrive
and-she w<?uld soon'see.the 'followed closely by Da:ve
flashing lightS. _. ~ymoI1. Kevin' Syinyk, -Beo,
. -'1M I knew they hadn't dis- VanHapl and Dertnis Johnson.
patchedtheftrc.qepartrnenJ:.'" , 1!r~, Ost~ndet' took. the
. Her husband is a rpember of 'infant: fro1Il1frs,.:Steele ,and
the volunteer rrre department aJiP\ace4 it on a foot.~tool,
Springfield. He left his emeIt S-'T~eard h.i.m }'elliiJ.g she's>
gehey' pager at home, in, th~ 'f!Jre{l\hing and they b.egan, work-
kitchen withinearshotofwhe~ ~nZ~9i:1~er," ',:-:: ,::'
the'mother and baby were sit~ //F,irefighter Keyin "SyrnYk
tinS-. , . }i:s~:<j'strawto.su'c~fheinucu's
. Mr. and 1Irs. Steele believed .tllif.()f the jnfant's mouth..
the rionnal procedure was for '::-MothertU"eij~{e.r,comfortr;
the fue department dos,est to "e?,~11rs, Si.eele:-~<:l:;~ePV1~r,.,
the emergency to be dispatched away from thehlen IeVl\'lI1g'.
at the same time as the ambu- the'<#ld:_.. _'" :',
lance, but the pager had not Mackenzie appeared to _be:,
sotl.nded~ tyc~:r~'ered, by ',th4 >timethe::
'1 told her they had not been ambuiance arrived and fookher' ,
dispatched." '. to'-:~l':Thomas-_Elgin' 'General'
',IVlrs, Steele i$certain she Hospital where she remained
,was on the phone with the 9"1- overnight _ '
I operator for five minutes. ,HoSpital staff. tol~ M11"
When she still did not hear ~teele the mucus _ which was
. the pager sound and the opera. choking Ma,ckenzie is normally
tor started asking if she could discharged within one or. two
perfoon cardiopulmonary d,l,ys -of birth: before '~~ bifant
resuscitation (CPR.); she began is sent home. 'They were at, a
to panic. loss to explain why thathad:not
She hung up the te1ephone~~(}pened. '.
- and began telephoning nearby . Mr. Steele got several teIe~
family and frlen.ds for help.He~ phone: .calls'in Pe,!,?l,i~ ,from
brother-in.law is aiso a fari1ilY;.mends and" fuefighters
Springfield volunteerfrre fight~ telling hiili about themis,hap.
cr. ' 'H-e said th~ deluge, of infor~
After the incident, she had malion )vas- confusing, but he
no recollectionofIiIaking thosefinaIlY)earned _the baby was-
calls-untilteininded_ by those o,kay:andol,l'itSwaytothehos-
she had Cilled. . pi,taL .',
/u;soon as his team fini~hed
rrf g~1lle, he -11-o,;e 1If I1ie-St.
Tho~ hospital. .
, 11alahide, Fir~ Chief, Pete
B_atOOUI_ said when :'an- '_ambu-
, lance is oispatched <\9 result of
a 9-.1 ~ le<ill;_theaDl:IIl~?nceserv-
ice is supPos~ tonOtUy ,th-e~fue
i;!epartment:withfu ,a .II1inute,
'He said there had Some.-_~n
' deJayslnthepas:t%dh<<~'Cluld
investiMte .the 'delaYhr relay_c,
jng.'aIC :S(ee]e'-family 'emer-
gency.. '
Bothpatents_aIe-gtat!'lful-for
the illrinediatel1ctiori:by.the
volunteer firefjght~rS: .
:Mrs; Steele' Sald, \1 can't say
enough abouti,'hilt:they did,
A,nYOlle "rho d}X:-Sli 'tappreciate
what they do has never needed
th_eirservice.'"
::$he said,most'of:the-fire-
fighters were, at:_: the house
before the second' page_' _was
SbUIided. ." .:' ...,
"Of cqurseit is'a small tQ,wn
and everyone knows _wber~- ,,'e
Ih'e~Most of them' are Olir'
'frien\ls: ' . '
,"n'.5,a lot better having them
respond, when. you're' sitting
wi(h your ~by:dYliIgon,youi
lap, :waitin$--fot,an,lliftbulance
to cOi1iefro~ Ayl,!uer,l!
=iES1DENT"
It'&' ~. p~iit's. worstnight~
mare' and an: experience Terri
Steele of Springfield will Ilev"t
forget~her seven-day-old
b~by .daughterMackenzie;
chOking and going limp' on her
lap 'tfespite:all her tnini.\itra~
tions, .
But, she has no doubt, the
imniediate response and
actioIlS of Spnngfie'ld volun-
teer _ fIrefighters' saved her
daughtet'slife~
twIrs. Steele was sitting in the
livingroomOf the family home
with her. two other children
Tara, 16 and Jordan, 4 and the
babt on her lap, shortly after 6
p.m. last Thursday.
Her husband Mark Steele
was in ,Petrolia, coaching a
midget hockey teiun, compNing
in a SiI\'er Stick Tournament.
As ,she held the baby it
appeared to get sick. wanting to
vomit, but couldn't expel what-
e"er' was in its mouth and
appeared to be choking.
She placed the irifant, face
down, across her: knees in an
unsuccessful effort to dislodge
whatever 'was caught in its
mouth and throat.
Her, eldest daughter Tara
tried pullliig.thesubstance out
with: her fingers, to no avai!.
Mrs. Stee1ereached,forthe
nearby telephone anddiaIled 9-
1-l.
She told the operator what
Ie .was happening and ask.ed for
:1_ einergencY~sistance.
The oPerator stayed. on the
line witlLher, assuring het help
waS on the Way, engaging_ her
he
en
he
lC~
us
'no
'y,
1St
ad
11.
vo
on
d-
,e
w,
tly
rs
s.
ty
;n
er
10
,d
d
,.
)1
't
Bayham fac~s ..9%.
seWer rate increaSe
)f
Baynam COuDcjllOrsrecently
approved 'in, pri:q~}ple:a ,nine
peJ;Cent. .incfea~e in; the ;muriici-
y pat ~ewage rat~'al}d~ ,i)nepep
cent incrcase foc water.
'Piar'i"oulQ, fnean ~c~ing
th,~-, hqusehbld sc',Va_ge rate to
$37.71.-a month,c_up. froW
$3450.
'A,,Pllblic hearing-is to.be
s'ched~led . OIl the proposed
increases.
_TIe<isurer :Suzanne'_ Mantel
said the increas'eS_w_eie primwj~
ly aimed 'at 'irt~(lS_!-ng ~erve
fur'uls 'ior__'ft!fur~. ri!~airs,';'and
repla~ments -'of '.\v*r, ]lnd
sewer wOfkS~ _ ;,' ,>'
She said_. CN. Watson
Associates', ltd; 'c(lnducted a
study -of'Ba~ham's. Wilter -and
sewer systems in 2006.
_The: expected lifespans 'of
the, systen:i5'.w~e-ana1yZed, and
recbmmendatiorismade -as. to
increasing the 'reserves
requited to carry"'out that weirk
in future.
a
sewers.
She_~d the iru;rease IUight
seem:.large;butin.1O.yCars1' ,
parts: or,the,_Port Burwell sewCI:
system, ,',,,ould . need to. be
replaced, ~d in,other sc~ced
cori:1munities 20"yearsfroIil
now. .
FQllowing an. "aggressiv~
mcrease" in the water Iate 1ast
yeaf, she' said;she reCommelld,
ed a one perCf:nt increase thH
year, and' bne to two percent
annually after tharfor tIfe next
, ~ONnfmEb ON PAGE2
1':;
~'>.
-"",,,,,,,~,' ,
_':';"';0",.:,'-_1-
.',"
'Terri' and-~Aai-k~St~IWiqt 9prlrigfteJd r;ire;dii the-': j.,.jaCkerizlei;--Doo~-~Z:]Ii~:'
qiJlqk: actions 9Jvolui1,t~~:I( firefIghte,rs WMsW~,' ..~t 1l~lal, dl~.c~?fg,e'~tW
Ing .lh..I"?f;'ir.ev.n'daY'Old'daughl.ri~~lpd9",... ......... ......;c
.'.lJaYb~JD..5!~k~;~tt~...~~J~i
joint'e~oii()riii~'-P'~mlqRJ
' Aylme~:and M8:,~hainb~r _~~,t'~}!.Pe':~!0;_~9'<<',~~,s:~,g~';,;jy~At~\p:
. of - "Commer:ce' . has . asked -. comparnes to e,Kp<\lld. :::"" '-<,"'-'t'e$0i:ltCe!,
'B_ayliam.- ,~o':loci1 _,io)~]J~a!~.. :::, "A~ltiie.r ,~uI19Jl: :~~):fp(!?~:'/i'~,:,.:~~efj!
$20;goGthis Ye4rfQ~Joil1t~: 'seIllativ~. on. the' C9~(!~{\;'~II;l~%!-y:~
.nomk'develoJlni~nt I'){Om~Qo,n~d - (B~yha$}::, 11!lYOI,:~LYi~~};:,its,_,~(<iK-)~
bfEaStEl.gin, cQIumuiLities;'-:" . --A~{e~tJy'a~lbp~cX:'2>.'ij7y~l~pm
" :Ws nj~&. a sh:I1ilarrequ~.t _', .:pP1ea,s,':Vell.':-:_.,... ,.' .--_"',:.,.;:-_:~Jl.~:~l~~~'
ofM~_i1llld~, - '" ._,,"_,: ,,- _ :'."l{e, :hope;,lo.f*~d.~',:. '~h;~~{'(X::~'I.
,:Bayha~-CCl~l1cillorsrefcrred, )bhius ,in.a'60~'o~i: ,ettoi-VtP":/i",'t'~W(:\:'-_
the 'request,'equiv!llcpt::to::6:ne-_ ,'Ptovide_.-(h~, :1~, ,'reso_~,:'::i~ar~
~rcerit'of Qtc"Ai\inicip,ali,ty). l1.eed~' _to ens_uie_,the}lIttJre",':90.1wn:9f.:l
PfPpeIty' ,Iaxlev~ue, 'to'fOO? ; pfpSperiJ'r?f ?W:'C?m..wuni~es. ,:. :-,":Wl"l}~
budgetdelibetati~/lS.,_ ,', ' " ''E.l~_n,:Colloty-,~a,s''es,tab:o, "1I!g:Wlll:i;w
Pfesi~ent~_:TooY:'-H;oIc\lIi1be. Ji,sb_eAaD.' -#o!io,\i1ic :'dev.e~op"; '_to.'e~Ur~_:'
:saidiU_alette{~at-thc'-chtill1~r ,'w"C_rit: ,depatimeJ:lt,.,~_ut-_ i~: ',~appYQh~
has esta6lis~ed ~jQiJlt ~'J10$~. .;,-J~~Jltly.ilIl."eil.e.d'c . ,!1v~}.e;n' J ,> '3
ic Qe:<eloP.Iil?ntli,ais?n ': CQIll-; '.' 'plan -~I?aI:ly ':esta~lish~ :th~t:jt
. mittee .tiy _p~ovide :a~yice:,"<;u'~' < ;,'will~. o_llly P~lillY:re$_~~i.<_
encoUIa,gem.-ciit 'fo)oCar~IG': --DIC:~o~~wt:h'-p,,"omoti.oIl; , '
muJtities.,.. . ,',_',:,_,_:: ";,,Mllpil'ipi!litics':1lJtlst share':.". _.,
''With-. ;recent .ccoi:i.o~rnic ,_ip.:thce.y_enture:~)"ell..;'.'<: _ '/IByiiPiis~;:
~~:'~e~~~f%~:;~:, ~_in:'~:'fr~;tt~~~~~~~::,~~I~~~~
closing:ofthe4n~n,w:ro~_w>/Jl9D)lC;d<:Yel9pme~t50Jls'u,ltapt.:<.\4~y!'(rQ:Pl\'~
-plant in 'Ayln1er)md ',the 'shUt ,3J;!:d.Jj~'~e't~~i?,~'enoilg~IY?n"j';~':-, N;~};(jf'~
teductipn'- at I<:ofd,_~t.. !h5'.4l:<:S-: ',t9J~~y;f~r~~ofthtl_:y~.~ ,,-:'.~R-~Ro/tmr-'?-)
.Assembly- Pliylt,. we,JeeI: 1t- J$ .:; ~~IJ,:_!L'jsW"e:_~~<pr9slW1ty9f:'-: ;'PoCoJ~~,~,~!
urgent' 'that ~m'\1nicfpall~es., ~__.N1?ji~:Elgip;:-\V~~b sliar~ .' 9fE!~!rl,;'8.f
becoine',directl{._h1Vol,,,~ in;' F( ~ari~ )?~sin~s :<\!ld "s-oc!jtl'.,:,:)~K(t~Hifg
selling_ thl<ir"C~J)unUi:11,ti~.:,_tq, "'_~, )\'~_',~.~ki11g'):9U}II:Jqi!,~~A,~~~Yf!;
new,' J:iusinesSe5i 'apd-:h~!pl)l.g~, .:~al.,~~e.~9:~_~O;SQ~tr:iO\!t~J?~:,~~~s:~~1
Peter and Kathaiil
mark 60 years of IT
Erie Shores Wind Farm Limited Partnership
Canadian Paclflc Tower, TD Centre
100 Welllngton Street West
PO Box 234. Suite 2200
Toronto, Ontario M5K 1J3
CANADA
Telephone
Fae:oimlle
Internet
(416) 607-5000
(416) 607-5073
www.macqunrle.com/mpt
~~;~~ ~~:; fr:~~ tl'~~~f ~:~~ ~::)
FES 2 5 2008
February 19, 2008
-::-<.~ f\I~'~
J.J,\~jr.,;
"'--'~llf'W"
tiJ"J-:, t',<;~
l.Jj.\~ ! f,.<",,:u
Lynn Acre, Warden & Council
450 Sunset Drive
St. Thomas, ON N5R 5V1
MACQUARIE
Dear Lynn,
I am very pleased to tell you that Dennis Haggerty has joined Erie Shores Wind Farm as a
full-time Plant Manager.
Dennis brings more than 30 years of extensive power sector experience to Erie Shores
Wind Farm. For more than two decades, Dennis served Ontario Hydro in a variety of roles,
predominantly in southwest Ontario. Dennis is highly qualified and offers significant
knowledge of substation and lines equipment, information systems, training and
maintenance, safety systems and procedures, and emergency response. More recently,
Dennis also served as a highly-regarded instructor in the ElectricaVElectronics department
at Fanshawe College.
Dennis will be responsible for Erie Shores Wind Farm's day-to-day operations and will be
based at the substation. Dennis, who resides in Dorchester, is familiar with the
surrounding region and will be an important point of contact for your organization. I am
confident that you will find Dennis to be committed to the continuing success of Erie
Shores Wind Farm and to fostering positive, productive relationships within the community.
In the weeks and months ahead, Dennis will contact you directly to personally introduce
himself. Dennis can be reached at (519) 550-2662 or at dennis.haggerty@erieshores.ca.
I hope you will join me in welcoming Dennis to his new roie at Erie Shores Wind Farm and
as part of your local community.
Sincerely,
.J 2/ tct----...
, / "
k{&LL';~
Rob Roberti
Associate Director
Macquarie Capital Funds
WS:77023..1
Ministry of Community Safety
and Correctional Services
Minlstere de Ja Securite communautaire et
des Services correctlonnels
ft'1}- l]<<!' .t!-~ll~&'fi1i. ~'~ r~
~N~ ~~~~ j~~f' ~;: n '~f t: ~~J-~
FEB 1 9 2008
Office of the Deputy Minister
Emergency Planning and Management
Bureau du sous-ministre
Planllication at gestion des situatlons d'urgence
r,(,q"~." ('.1: ,"'I Ci'll
'" \i<",t~'!ld) .,'!, ~t.,-:! If
.l~":'1I"'f'tl''''I''r'. "".'!'\!ll'~e!
r ~ 1~f;I';UHI <",0;:;11~M.<ilI
vF Ontario
25 Grosvenor Street
11. Floor
Toronto ON M7 A 1Y6
Tel: 416327-9734
Fax: 416 327-9739
25, rue Grosvenor
116 etage
Toronto ON M7A 1Y6
Tel. : 416 327-9734
Telec. : 416 327-9739
EM008-00023
February 12, 2008
Lynn Acre
Warden
County of Elgin
450 Sunset Drive
St Thomas, ON N5R 5V1
Dear Warden Acre:
As Ontario's Deputy Minister for Emergency Planning and Management, I am writing at
this time to acknowledge that in 2007 your municipality fulfilled the municipal
requirements of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, and Ontario
Regulation 380/04, I would also like to take this opportunity to commend you, your
council, and your staff for the efforts and leadership that has led to this worthy
achievement Building disaster-resilient communities, as you are doing, is among my
highest priorities.
Experience has taught us that no community is immune to the effects of serious
emergencies and disasters. While we will continue to confront known and existing
hazards, Ontario will also face the impacts of new hazards, such as the consequential
effects of climate change, urban growth, and other hazards that have yet to be
identified,
All levels of government need to be prepared to respond to emergencies, however, I
believe that our biggest preparedness gap is the lack of individual/family preparedness.
In May 2007, an EKOS poll suggested that only 12% of Canadians have a survival kit
and only 11 % have a family emergency plan. Emergency Preparedness Week is May
4th to 11 th and I would ask that emphasis on personal preparedness be a priority in your
community.
- 2 -
In our shared commitment to community safety, the Province and its municipalities are
working together to implement coordinated and integrated emergency management
programs that will meet the needs of Ontarians whenever disaster strikes. Your
community has demonstrated its commitment to that partnership through the successful
completion of the municipal emergency management program and for that I am grateful.
In closing, my staff and I look forward to continuing to work with your community to
achieve our mutual goal: a safe and resilient Ontario.
Sincerely,
J~
Jay C. Hope
Deputy Minister
Emergency Planning and Management
cc: CEMC
9 Warren Cres.
Sl. Thomas Ontario
N5P 3Z1
February 21, 2008
FEB
(~ r;:
,/ .)
7.008
i\lJiw.n!~~;TrH\'fnit:. :_}~~:;:;V1GfS
Ms. Sylvia Hofhuis
Warden
Elgin County Council
Administration Building
450 Sunset Drive
Sl. Thomas, Ontario
N5R 5V1
Dear Ms. Hofhuis:
I would like to commend the Elgin Tourist Association on the recently pUblished 2008 Visit and Tour
Guide. It is a great read, attractive, and packed with useful information. As an Elgin resident and also a
member of the Tourist Association, I find it to be both enjoyable and a great resource. The detailed
events listing for the upcoming year is invaluable.
It is obvious that Marg Emery and the others involved have put a great deal of care and effort into the
publication. Another great reason to live (and visit) in Elgin Countyl
Sincerely,
.~~
Debra Bagshaw
COI"f/EO 76: 1I1../'I>->S'",,''frl
M!t/2F.i [yVlEIL'/
C3j03/0P
MInistry of Finance
Office of the: Minister
Frost Building SOlllh
1 QUfJan's Park Cr
Toronto ON M7A 1Y7
rei (416) 325-0400
Fax (416) 325-0374
www.Hn.ontarlo.ca
Ministry of Municipal Affair.
and Housing
Offlco of the Minister
777 Bay Slreet
Toronlo. ON M5G 2E5
Tel (416) 685-7000
Fax (416) 585-6470
www.mah.ontarlo.ca
1"):--
t? Ontario
March 13, 2008
Dear Heads of Council:
We are pleased to announce the release of the Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund
(OMPF) allocations for 2008. This release is a follow-up to the Stable Funding
Guarantee announced on December 21,2007.
2008 is the first year of the upload announced by the Premier last August. Effective
January 1, 2008, the municipal share of the Ontario Drug Benefit (ODB) program has
been uploaded by the province. In 2009, the province will begin uploading the Ontario
Disability Support Program (ODSP). This upload of social programs is estimated to
reduce costs to municipalities by over $900 million annually by the time it is fully
implemented in 2011.
For 2008, the OMPF will provide $870 million to 393 municipalities across the province.
This is a $252 million or 41 per cent increase over the funding provided in 2004 under
the previous program.
Although municipalities delivering social programs will see their social program costs
decrease, no municipality will receive less funding in 2008 than the funding identified on
its 2008 Stable Funding Guarantee Notice.
Municipalities eligible for funding Increases in 2008 will receive those additional
amounts in accordance with the previously announced phase-in schedule. Under the
OMPF phase-in schedule, increases in funding over payments received in 2004 are
limited to $150 per household in 2008, and will not be limited after 2008.
The OMPF is included in the Provincial-Municipal Fiscal and Service Delivery Review
(PMFSDR). The review's recommendations may result in changes to the program for
future years. A key principle is that the OMPF remain responsive to changes in
municipal circumstances and provincial support only be provided in respect of costs that
are actually incurred by municipalities. As a result, 2008 will be a transition year for the
OMPF.
.. .Icont'd
- 2-
The Deputy Ministers of Finance and Municipal Affairs and Housing will be providing
further details on the 2008 OMPF grant parameters to your municipal Treasurers and
Clerk-Treasurers shortly. This information and other supporting materials will be posted
in both English and French on the Ministry of Finance website:
http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/english/budget/ompf/
http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/french/budget/ompf/
The Ontario government will continue to develop its partnership with municipalities, and
work with you to build strong communities in a strong and prosperous Ontario.
Sincerely,
\
ilJ:t
.::;
Dwight Duncan
Minister of Finance
Jim Watson
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Mlnlstryof Finance
Office of the
Deputy Minister
Frost Building Soulh
7 Queen's Park Cr
Toronto, ON M7A 1Y7
Tel (416) 325-1590
Fax (416) 325-1595
www.fin.gov.on.ca
Ministry of Municipal
Affairs and Housing
Office oflhe
Deputy Minister
777 Bay Street
Toronto, ON M5(l 2E5
Tel (416) 565.7100
Fax (416) 585.7211
www.mah.gov.on.ca
('~
t ~
vF Ontario
March 14, 2008
Dear Treasurer/Clerk-Treasurer:
This letter is in follow up to the recent letter to Heads of Council from the
Ministers of Finance and Municipal Affairs and Housing announcing the release
of the 2008 Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund (OMPF) allocations.
In 2008, the OMPF is providing $870 million to 393 municipalities across the
Province. This is a $252 million or 41 % increase over the funding provided in
2004 under the previous program.
No municipality will receive less funding than the level Identified on the 2008
Stable Funding Guarantee Notice Issued December 21, 2007.
In addition, municipalities delivering social programs will benefit significantly from
the upload of the Ontario Drug Benefit (ODB) and Ontario Disability Support
Program (ODSP) announced by the Premier last August. By 2011, the Ontario
Drug Benefit (ODB) and Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) upload will
save municipalities In excess of $900 million annually. The municipal savings
resulting from the January 1, 2008 upload of ODB is identified on Line E1 of the
enclosed Allocation Notice.
The OMPF is included in the Provincial-Municipal Fiscal and Service Delivery
Review (PMFSDR) and the review's recommendations may result in changes to
the program for future years. As noted in the Ministers' letter, a key principle for
the province is that the OMPF remain responsive to changes in municipal
circumstances and provincial support only be provided in respect of costs that
are actually incurred by municipalities. As a result, 2008 will be a transition year
for the OMPF.
Details of the 2008 OMPF Release
Details of the 2008 OMPF grant calculations are provided in the attached Ontario
Municipal Partnership Fund Technical Guide 2008.
The 2008 OMPF has been updated to reflect the most current program data to
ensure that the OMPF remains responsive to changing municipal circumstances.
.../2
. Treasurers/Clerk-Treasurers
Page 2
The January 2008 upload of municipal ODS costs to the Province has resulted in
significant savings for municipalities delivering these services. These reduced
municipal costs are reflected in the social program grants under the 2008 OMPF.
Simliarly, changes in assessment, households or policing costs are also reflected
in the respective grants.
While the basic structure of the OMPF grants will remain the same in 2008,
further refinements to OMPF grant parameters have been introduced in order to
continue to provide enhanced support to municipalities. The specific refinements
to the grant parameters incorporated in the 2008 OMPF are as follows:
- The weighted assessment eligibility benchmark for the Social Programs
Assessment Threshold Component has been adjusted to 0.176% in 2008
(from 0.178% in 2007), to respond to municipal assessment growth.
- Under the Assessment Equalization Grant Component, municipalities will
receive funding if their total assessment per household is less than
$190,000 (adjusted from $187,000 in 2007), in response to assessment
changes.
- The tax revenue benchmark for Northern and Rural Social Programs
Grant Component has been adjusted to 12.5% in 2008 (from 13% in 2007)
to reflect changes in tax revenue.
- Rural and Small Community Measure (RSCM) representing the proportion
of a municipality's population residing in rural areas or smali communities
has been updated to incorporate recently released 2006 Census data.
Special 2008 ODB Upload Guarantee
The Special 2008 ODS Upload Guarantee is included in this year's OMPF. This
grant provides special additional one-time funding In 2008 to those municipalities
that otherwise would see funding decreases, relative to their March 2007 OMPF
allocations, specifically as a result of no longer sharing the ODB costs for social
assistance recipients. Some municipalities will receive additional assistance, as
in previous years.
.../3
Treasurers/Clerk-Treasurers
Page 3
OCBINCBS
With the introduction of the Ontario Child Benefit (OCB), announced in 2007,
municipalities are benefiting from lower social assistance (SA) costs. To the
extent that overall SA expenditures decline as a result of reducing child-related
payments, the municipal share of these expenditures will also decline. This
decline will result in municipal cost savings.
While the National Child Benefit Supplement (NCBS) will no longer reduce SA
benefits for families with children, municipalities are still expected to maintain
investments in the NCB reinvestment programs. These municipal investments
will continue to be recognized as eligible social program costs under OMPF, after
the Introduction of the OCB, if they flow to programs for children in low-income
families.
2008 OMPF Allocation Notice
The results for your municipality are reflected in the enclosed 2008 OMPF
Allocation Notice.
As the Ministers' letter advised, no municipality will receive less funding in 2008
than the level of funding announced under the 2007 OMPF in March. To ensure
this, municipalities otherwise projected to see lower OMPF funding in 2008 will
receive additional assistance, as in previous years, and/or the Special 2008 ODB
Upload Guarantee (Lines Band A5 respectively, on the Allocation Notice).
2008 Cash Flow
The attached 2008 Cash Flow Notice Identifies each of the 2008 OMPF quarterly
payments. The remaining quarterly payments to municipalities will be processed
at the end of April, July and October 2008.
2008 Reporting Requirements
Municipalities are required to submit the following to the Ministry of Municipal
Affairs and Housing:
. their 2007 Financial Information Returns (FIRs) by May 31,2008;
. their 2008 tax rate by-laws by September 30, 2008; and
. any outstanding 2006 Financial Information Returns (if applicable).
.../4
TreasurerslClerk-Treasurers
Page 4
. Failure to meet these deadlines may result in the withholding of 2008 OMPF
payments until these documents have been provided to the Province.
All 2008 OMPF Allocation Notices and the 2008 Ontario Municipal Partnership
Fund Technical Guide will be posted in English and French on the Ministry of
Finance website:
htto://www.fin.Qov.on.calenalish/budaetlomof/
htto:/lwww.fln.aov.on.calfrench/budaetlomofl
Staff from the Ministries of Finance and Municipal Affairs and Housing would also
be pleased to arrange technical briefings on the modifications to the OMPF grant
parameters in the upcoming months if requested.
If you require additional information regarding your 2008 OMPF allocation, you
may contact your local Municipal Services Office of the Ministry of Municipal
Affairs and Housing, or e-mail your inquiries and your contact phone number to:
info.omof@ontario.ca
Sincerely,
Colin Andersen
Deputy Minister
Ministry of Finance
John Burke
Deputy Minister
. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Attachments
Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund (OMPF)
2008 Stable Funding Guarantee Notice
f'~
~ -::>
vr Ontario
County of Elgin
44000
Total March 2007 Announced OMPF Funding
2008 Stable Funding Guarantee Amount
(Equal to Line A)
* Payments are subject to holdback pending receipt of all 2007 OMPF reporting requirements.
First quarter 2008 OMPF payment sc/ledufed for the week of January 21, 2008.
Ontario Ministry of Finance
Provinclal.Local Finance Division
Issued;Oecember21,2007
Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund (OMPF)
2008 Allocation Notice (see enclosed insert)
1')1--
t -:>
vF Ontario
County of Elgin
44000
A. Sum of OMPF Grant Components
$1.977,000
1. Social Programs Grant
8. Assessment Threshold Component
b. Income Threshold Component
2. Equalization Grant
a. Assessment Equalization Component
b. Farmland and Managed Forest Component
3. Northern and Rural Communities Grant
a. Rural Communities Component
b. Northern Communities Component
c. Northern and Rural Social Programs Component
d. Stabilization Component
4. Police Services Grant
$1,103,300
$873,700
lB. Additional Assistance
$3.864,0001
$5,841,000
D. Grant Allocation Summary
1.2004 CRF Payments
2.2005 Announced Tolal OMPF Allocation
3.2006 Announced Total OMPF Allocation
4.2007 Announced Total OMPF Allocation
5.2008 Announced Total OMPF Allocation
$5,841,000
$5,841,000
$5,841,000
$5,841,000
$5,841,000
E. Other Provinciallnltiatives
$1,361,100
1.2008 Estimated ODB Upload Savings
2. 2008 Estimated Public Health Net Benefit
$357,900
$1,003,200
F. 2008 Announced Total Funding with Other Provincial Initiatives (Line C + Line E)
$7,202,100
G. Key OMPF Data Inputs
March 2008
Release
1. Tolal Municipal Social Program Costs
2. Households
3. Total Assessment per Household
4. Policing Costs per Household
5. Rural and Small Community Measure
6. Total Household Income
$3,582,584
19,483
$192,035
84.3%
$1,000,983,800
Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund (OMPF)
2006 Allocation Notice
l'~
t ::>
vJr Ontario
County of Elgin
44000
2008 OMPF Allocation Notice. Line Item Descriptions
A
Total 2008 OMPF Grant Components
A1 toA4
The OMPF grants are described in detail in the OMPF technical guide - this document can be found on the Ministry of
Finance's website at: hUp:llvvww.fin.gov,on.ca/englishlbudgeUompfl
B
Equals the amount of additional assistance to ensure that 2008 funding is not less than that announced in 2007.
c
Sum of the 2008 OMPF Allocation and Additional Assistance.
o
Grant allocations for 2004 through to 2008.
E1
The estimated 2008 municipal savings due to the upload of Ontario Drug Benefit program costs by the province. Further
information will be provided with the Social Program Cost Report.
The projected municipal benefit of the Province's 75% share of Public Health funding relative to its 50% share in 2004.
This four~year cumulative funding increase assumes that the growth rate for public health unit budgets in 2007 is repeated
in 2008. Actual municipal savings may vary based on public health unit budget approvals.
E2
F
Sum of Line C and Line E.
G1
Refers to the costs that municipalities are responsible for under existing cost-sharing arrangements with the province,
Includes municipal costs for Ontario Works, Ontario Disability Support Program, Child Care, Social Housing and the
reinvestment of National Child Benefit Savings.
Refers to the total assessment for a municipality weighted by the tax ratio for each class of property (including payments in
lieu of property taxes retained by the municip~lity) divided by the total number of households.
G3
G4
Refers to the projected 2008 eligible police costs per household.
G5
Represents the proportion of a municipality's population that resides in rural areas or small communities.
G6
Refers to the total household income for all residents of the municipality.
Note: Provincial Funding and other initiatNes rounded to multiples of $100.
Ontario MinIstry of Finance
Provincial-Local Finance Division
IssuectMan;.h13,2008
Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund (OMPF)
2008 Allocation Notice Insert
1')h
t :>
vF Ontario
$7,000,000
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
Cl
C
"C $4,000,000
C
:l
U-
n; $3,000,000
-
0
I-
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
44000
Grant Allocation Summary for
the County of Elgin
$0
2007
2008
2004 2005 2006
1:1 CRF Payments
OMPF Entitlement
DAdditional Funding Provided
Chart Data
CRF Payments
Base OMPF Funding
Additional Funding Provided
Total Funding
5,841,000
2,133,600 2,102,500 2,087,200 1,977,000
3,707,400 3,738,500 3,753,800 3,864,000
5,841,000 5,841,000 5,841,000 5,841,000 5,841,000
Data Sources:
2004 CRF Payments
2005 October Announced OMPF Allocation
2006 March Announced OMPF Allocation
2007 March Announced OMPF Allocation
Issued Marro 13,20OS
~td.
Assodation of Munidp..llilict. of Onl,uio
200 University Ave, Suite 801
Toronto, ON M5H 3C6
Tel.: (416) 971-9856 I Fax: (416) 971-6191
E-mail: amo@amo.on.ca
MEMBER COMMUNICATION
ALERT NO: 08/012
To the attention of the Clerk and Council
March 12, 2008
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:
MatthewWilson, AMO Policy Advisor
(416) 971-9856 ext 323
Proposed Bill would Direct 2007/08 Provincial Budget
Surplus to Municipal Infrastructure
Issue:
Proposed new legislation would guarantee a portion of 2007-08 Provincial Budget surplus
would be invested in municipal infrastructure.
Background:
Today Finance Minister Dwight Duncan made a significant fiscal commitment to addressing
the municipal infrastructure deficit. The Government intends to introduce legislation that
would, in the event of a provincial budget surplus of $800 million or more for 2007-08, result
in the first $600 million going toward provincial debt repayment with the remainder allocated
to municipal infrastructure, The amount of the provincial surplus would be determined at the
conclusion of the Legislature's Public Accounts process anticipated for summer 2008.
Despite the slower economic growth outlook for 2008 and 2009, the government is
projecting ongoing and sustainable balanced budgets over the next few years. The 2007
Fall Economic Statement projected a surplus of $750 million.
For illustration, if the proposed legislation was applied to the 2006-07 year-end provincial
surplus of $2.3 billion, then municipal governments would have received $1.7 billion. That
is, a total surplus of $2.3 billion, reduced by $600 million in provincial debt repayment, with
the remaining $1.7 billion for municipal infrastructure. The Bill will also establish a cap
limiting the allocation to not more that $2 billion a year.
Municipalities will be the beneficiaries of any proceeds from the 2007-08 surplus, allocated
based on population and allowing municipalities to invest the additional funds in any form of
municipal capital. AMO strongly supports flexible infrastructure funding on an entitlement
basis.
I-
0::
w
...J
<(
1-2
Association of .bie
Municipalities of Ontario i.
The proposed legislation would, in future years, permit the Government to direct these
funds to other public infrastructure priorities not consolidated with the Government's
accounts. However, with nearly half of all public infrastructure being municipally
owned, coupled with Ontario's massive municipal infrastructure deficit, municipalities
are in a strong position for future surpluses to continue to be directed to municipal
needs.
Today's announcement responds directly to a request in AMO's 2008 Pre-Budget
submission that any provincial budget surpluses should be invested in municipal
infrastructure.
This initiative is in addition to the commitments made by Finance Minister Dwight Duncan in
the 2007 Fall Economic Statement, and by Premier McGuinty at the ROMAlOGRA
conference, for a total $450 million in new investment through the Municipal Infrastructure
Investment Initiative (Mill) by March 31st 2008.
The announcement embraces the principles of sustainable infrastructure investment made
with equitable and transparent fiscal arrangements, key goals of the ongoing Provincial-
Municipal Fiscal and Service Delivery Review.
Action:
For your information. The Ministry of Finance announcement is attached.
This infonnation is available in the Policy Issues section of the AMO website at www.amo.on.ca.
I-
0::
W
......J
<(
2-2
Association of Atde
Municipalities of Ontario i
MEMBER COMMUNICATION
ALERT NO: 08/013
I--
rr::
w
....J
<(
hie
M~od.1liOri of Munidpalilit'S uf Ont<trio
200 University Ave, Suite 801
Toronto, ON M5H 3C6
Tel.: (416) 971-98561 Fax: (416) 971-6191
E-mail: amo@amo.on.ca
To the attention of the Clerk and Council
March 13, 2008
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:
Matthew Wilson, AMO Senior Policy Advisor
(416) 971-9856 ext 323
Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund Increased for 2008
Issue:
The Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing have announced
individual Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund (OMPF) allocations for 2008.
Background:
Today, the Ministries of Finance and Municipal Affairs and Housing wrote to Heads of
Council and Treasurers confirming individual municipal allocations for 2008. Overall, base
OMPF funding municipalities has increased to $870 million, a $27 million increase over
2007 fig ures.
The 2008 Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund also confirms two previous government
commitments:
1. The 2008 Stable Funding Guarantee: as confirmed to all municipalities individually in
December 2007. The Guarantee ensures that no municipality would receive less OMPF
funding in 2008 as a result of the upload in Ontario Drug Benefit (ODB) costs. The 2008
OMPF includes a special 2008 ODB Upload Guarantee of $44 million.
2. The 2006 Phase in Strategy: as previously committed in 2006, the phase in for 2008
increases the maximum per household increase to $150, up from $100 per household in
2007. It also limits the maximum per household decrease to $50 per household.
More than two hundred municipalities will see their OMPF allocations increase this year and
no municipality will see their funding decrease.
All 2008 OMPF Allocation Notices for each municipality and additional details regarding the
Fund are available at: http://www.fin.Qov.on.ca/enQlish/budaetlompf/2008/
Action: For your information.
This information is available in the Policy Issues section of the AMO website at www.amo.on.ca.
Association of ....ti.
Municipalities of Ontario ....... i - -
1-1
CLOSED MEETING AGENDA
MARCH 25. 2008
CONFIDENTIAL
Dele~ation:
1 :00 p.m. - personal matters about an identifiable individua/- Lease Matter (attachment)
1 :15 p.m. -labour relations/employee negotiations - Mr. Tom Gazda - 2006 Compensation and
Organization Presentation (package with report from Director of Human Resources to
be circulated under separate cover)
Staff Reports: (attached)
1) Director of Engineering Services - personal matters about an identifiable individual-Tenant Lease
2) Director of Human Resources -labour relations/employee negotiations - ONA Negotiations
~
.
REPORT TO COUNTY COUNCIL
FROM:
Linda B. Veger, Director of Financial Services
DATE:
March 17, 2008
SUBJECT: Budget Highlights Update - 2
CORPORATE GOAL(S) REFERENCED:
To ensure fiscal responsibility and accountability.
INTRODUCTION:
This report updates Council on the changes since the budget review.
DISCUSSION:
The grant line shows the changes as approved by Council at the last meeting. Also,
the City of St. Thomas has provided their estimates for Ontario Works. These
numbers are being presented to their Council on March 31st. The County increase is
now $852,180 or 4.13%. There has not been any adjustment to this proposed budget
for the report on planning or for the salary review.
For a County taxpayer with a property assessed at $175,000 the increase is:
$175,000 X 2007 tax rate of .558016% $976.53
$175,000 X 2008 estimated tax rate of .574915% $1006.10
Estimated Increase in County rates $29.57
Estimated Increase per month $2.46
CONCLUSION:
The attached report reflects the changes since the last report and also highlights the
estimated increase to annual County taxes based on a residential property assessed
at $175,000. That increase amounts to $29.57 annually or $2.46 monthly.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT the report titled Budget Highlights Update - 2 and dated March 17, 2008 be
received and filed.
Respectfully Submitted
Approved for Submission
~t~?/V
Linda B. Veger
Director of Financial Services
/
COUNTY OF ELGIN
2008 PROPOSED BUDGET
Coli
Col2
ColS-
Col4
ColS
Col6
Co! 7
Col8
C0I9
Col10
Col11
Col12
March 13,2008 - 2007 BUDGET Preliminary 2007 BUDGET 2008 PROPOSED BUDGET oabudget I
DRAFT ACTUAL vs 07 budget $ CHANGE ~ CHANGE
EXPENDITURES RECEIPTS NET EXPENDITURES RECEIPTS NET VARIANCE EXPENDITURE RECEIPTS NET % change (10)-(3) 2)120,633499
1 SURPLUS FROM PRIOR YEAR 0 335,093 (335,093) 0 335,093 (335,093) 0 0 300,000 (300,000) (10.47%) 35,093 0.17% 1
1 REQUISITIONS 0 20,232,571 (20,232,571) 0 20,232,571 (20,232,571) 0 0 0 0 (100.00%) 0 0.00% 1
1 PAYMENTS IN LIEU 0 400,928 (400,928) 0 361,647 (361,647) (39,281) 0 0 0 (i00.CO%) 0 0.00% 1
1 SUPPLEMENTARY TAXES 0 250,000 (250,000) 0 266,943 (266,943) 16,943 0 260,000 (250,000) 0.00% 0 0.00% 1
1 TAXES WRITTEN OFF 225000 0 225,000 232 836 0 232 836 (7.836 225,000 0 225,000 0.00% 0 0.00% 1
1 INTEREST CHARGES & INCOME 0 150,000 (150,000) 0 220,955 (220,955) 70,955 0 200,000 (200,000) 33.33% (50,000) (0.24%) 1
2 HEALTH UNIT 764,964 0 764,964 764,964 0 764,964 0 792,623 0 792,623 3.62% 27,659 0.13% 2
3 COUNCIL MEMBERS & LOCAL BOARDS 258,520 0 258,520 243,840 0 243,640 14,680 266,655 0 266,655 3.15% 8,135 0.04% 3
4 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 345550 0 345550 334195 0 334,195 11355 362800 0 362,800 4.99% 17250 0.08% .
5 FINANCIAL SERVICES 396,059 0 396,059 398,030 0 396,030 29 420,902 0 420,902 6.27% 24,843 0.12% 5
6 HUMAN RESOURCES 422,000 0 422,000 397,284 0 397,284 24,716 423,800 0 423,800 0.43% 1,800 0.01% 6
7 ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 614,000 292,500 321,500 577,356 294,596 282,760 38,740 683,782 315,420 368,362 14.58% 46,862 0.23% 7
8 CORPORATE EXPENDITURES 501,490 0 501,490 510,848 0 510,848 (9,358) 569,175 0 569,175 13.50% 67,665 0.33% 8
9 ENGINEERING SERVICES 3,055,950 71,000 2984 950 3,024,217 101,262 2,922,955 61995 3,117342 72000 3,045,342 2.02% 60,392 0.29% 9
10 HOMES FOR SENIORS SERVICES 16,676,504 12,685,072 3,991,432 16,700,857 12,936,950 3,763,907 227,525 17,955,439 13,215,529 4,739,910 18.75% 748,478 3.63% 10
11 AGRICULTURE 32,953 0 32,953 32,223 0 32,223 730 34,500 0 34,500 4.69% 1,547 0.01% 11
12 MUSEUM 145,158 14,200 130,958 148,378 15,182 133,196 (2,238) 159,362 15,200 144,162 10.08% 13,204 0.06% 12
13 LIBRARY SERVICES 2,012,004 152,739 1,859,265 2,129,088 274,025 1,855,063 4,202 2,154,819 158,739 1,996,080 7.36% 136,815 0.66% 13
14 ARCHIVES 162351 3000 159,351 179477 22,782 156695 2,656 168,396 3000 165396 3.79% 6045 0.03% 1.
15 LAND DMSION 95,00p 95,000 0 80,906 80,650 256 (256) 105,000 105,000 0 0 0.00% 15
16 EMERGENCY MEASURES 15,675 0 15,675 12,229 0 12,229 3,446 15,880 0 15,880 1.31% 205 0.00% 16
17 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES 546,655 0 546,655 526,243 0 528,243 18,412 574,454 0 574,454 5.09% 27,799 0.13% 17
18 PROVINCIAL OFFENSES 596,105 625,045 (28,940) 949,038 986,411 (37,373) 8,433 896,299 928,590 (32,291) ~1.58% (~3,351) ~~.02%) 18
19 ~ABULANCESERVlCES 6712079 4,573,831 2,138248 6658,303 4601 467 2,056,836 81412 7,062728 4984,804 2,077,924 2.82% 60324 0.29% 18
20 COLLECTIONS ~ POA 242,284 305,000 (62,716) 216,644 235,003 (18,359) (44,357) 443,127 461,175 (18,048) (71.22%) 44,688 0.22% 20
21 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & TOURISM 224,850 90,000 134,850 243,361 104,400 138,961 (',111) 469,873 102,791 367,082 172.22% 232,232 1.13% 21
CITY OF ST. THOMAS
22 SOCIAL SERVICES & ONTARIO WORKS 2,346,424 0 2,346,424 2,417,056 0 2,417,056 {70,632) 2,140,345 0 2,~40,345 (8.78%) (208,079) (1.00%) 22
22 ADMINISTRATIVE FEE. CITY OF ST. THOMAS 377,905 0 377,905 382,304 0 382,304 (4,399) 362,765 0 362,765 (4.01%) (15,140) (0.07%) 22
22 CHILD CARE 207,337 0 207,337 196,321 0 196,321 11,016 211,769 0 211,769 2.14% 4,432 0.02% 22
22 SOCIAL HOUSING 1,225289 0 1,225289 1243,189 0 1243189 (17900 1 277 652 0 1277652 4.27% 52383 0.25% 22
23 GRANTS 142,000 0 142,000 101,850 0 101,850 40,150 107,800 0 107,800 (24.08%) (34,200) (0.17%) 23
2. ELGIN TOURIST ASSOCIATION 37,500 0 37,500 37,500 0 37,500 0 0 0 0 (100.00%) (37,500) (0.18%) 24
25 TOURISM OFFICER 36,000 0 36,000 12,000 0 12,000 24,000 0 0 0 -(100,00%) (36,000) (0.17%) 25
26 JOINT ACCESSIBILITY COMMITTEE 2,000 0 2,000 0 0 0 2,000 2,000 0 2,000 0.00% 0 ({0.00% 28
27 RENTAL INCOME 0 648 364 (648,3$4 0 648,361 (648381 . (3 0 656874 (656674 1.31% (8510 0.04% 27
28 PROPERTY ASSESSMENT 643,115 0 643,115 643,115 0 643,115 0 663,936 0 663,936 3.24% 20,821 0.10% 28
29 CAPPING 50,000 0 50,000 0 20,3;58 (20,356) 70,356 50,000 0 50,000 0.00% 0 0.00% 29
30 TAX RELIEF 1,000 0 1,000 0 0 0 1,000 1,000 0 1,000 0.00% 0.00% 30
31 RESERVE FOR MILL RATE STABILIZATION 207,202 0 207;202 207,202 0 207,202 0 150,000 0 150,000 (27.61%) ,,~57,2~~~ ~~.280/0) 31
31 RESERVE FOR WSIB 500,000 0 500000 500,000 0 500000 0 250000 0 250000 (50.00% 250000 1.21% 31
31 RESERVE FOR INSURANCE DEDUCTIBLES 31,250 31,250 31,250 0 31,250 0 31,250 0 31,250 0.00% 0 0.00% 31
31 RESERVE FOR PERFOR~AANCE EXCELLENCE 5,000 0 5,000 5,000 0 5,000 0 5,000 0 5,000 0.00% 0 0.00% 31
31 RESERVE FOR TERRACE LODGE 250,000 0 250,000 250,000 0 250,000 0 350,000 0 350,000 40.00% 100,000 0.48% 31
31 RESERVE FOR ORTHODONTICS 5000 0 5,000 5,000 0 5000 0 6,000 0 5000 0.00% 0 0.00% 31
31 RESERVE OF OMPF REPLACEMENT 500,000 0 500,000 500,000 0 500,000 0 0 0 0 (100.00%) (500,000) (2.42%) 31
RESERVE FOR INTERNATION PLOWING fAATCH 125,000 125,000 125,000 0.61% 31
32 POLlCE SERVICES BOARD 33,700 33,700 0 0 0 0 0 33,700 33,100 0 0 0.00% 32
33 ONTARIO MUNICIPAL PARTNERSHIP FUND 0 6,841,000 (5,841,000) 0 5,841,000 (5,841,000) 0 0 5,841,000 (5,841,000) 0.00% 0 0.00% 33
34 TRANSFER TO CAPITAL 6,143,170 0 6,143,170 6,143,170 0 6,143,170 0 6,450,328 0 6,450,328 5.00% 307,158 1.49% 34
35 RURAL INITIATIVES COMMITTEE 10,000 0 10,000 0 0 0 10,000 10,000 0 10,000 0.00% 0 0.00% 35
36 OTHER INCOME 0 0 0 0 9335 {9,335 9,335 0 0 0 0 0.00% 36
Total 46799 043 46799043 0 47,035,274 47688989 553715 553715 49,129601 27,643822 21485679 852180 4.13%
Less PIL's 390,000
Net Levy 21,095,679