THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CHATHAM-KENT

CHATHAM-KENT COUNCIL MEETING

COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CHATHAM CIVIC CENTRE

MARCH 24, 2003 6:00 P.M.

CALL TO ORDER

The Mayor called the meeting to Order.

Present were: Mayor Diane Gagner, Councillors Arbour, Coulter, Crawford, Crew, Fluker, Gordon, King, McGregor, Parney, Robbins, Schnabel, Seney, Sulman, Van Gassen, Vercouteren, Watson and Weaver.

APPROVAL OF SUPPLEMENTARY AGENDA

Councillor Parney moved, Councillor Arbour seconded:

“That the supplementary agenda be received.”

The Mayor put the Motion. Motion Carried

DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST (DIRECT OR INDIRECT)

Councillor McGregor declared a conflict of interest regarding item #16 (b) Council In- Camera held March 24, 2003.

The Mayor declared a conflict of interest regarding presentation item #6 (c) The Chatham Capitol Theatre Association.

ANNOUNCEMENT OF PUBLIC MEETING

(a) Announcement by Mayor re Chatham-Kent Retail Business Holidays Act Exemption By-law.

Councillor Crew moved, Councillor Gordon seconded:

“To bring forward item #12(a)-Retail Business Holidays Act Exemption By-law.”

The Mayor put the Motion. Motion Carried 2

MUNICIPALITY OF CHATHAM-KENT

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

TO: Mayor and Members of Council

FROM: Geoff Wright, Service /Commercial Coordinator

DATE: March 11, 2003

SUBJECT: Retail Business Holidays Act Exemption By-law

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the information forthcoming at the public meeting, March 24, 2003, Council consider the following recommendation.

It is recommended that:

1. A By-law to allow Loblaw Properties Limited, operating as Zehrs Markets at 835 Queen Street and 801 St. Clair Street within the community of Chatham an exemption from the Retail Business Holidays Act for Victoria Day, Canada Day and Labour Day be approved. (May, July & September)

BACKGROUND

From 2000 to 2003, Economic Development Services has received a number of inquiries surrounding the Retail Business Holidays Act. In 2001, there was an attempt to grant a municipality wide exemption, however, only the communities of Blenheim and Wallaceburg were granted this exemption. For the other areas of Chatham-Kent, The Municipality has continued to process applications on an individual basis. At the applicant’s cost, Notices of a Public Meeting are placed in local papers inviting residents to voice their opinions with regard to the application. A notice for this application was placed in the CK Matters publication February 17, 2003, see attached. If passed, the Exemption By-law comes into effect 31 days after the Public Meeting.

Council approved 3 requests for exemption in 2000. In 2001, Council granted community- wide exemptions for Blenheim and Wallaceburg allowing retailers to remain open on Victoria Day, Canada Day and Labour Day. There were 4 applications in 2002 however, for various reasons, they were each withdrawn prior to the Public Meeting.

For this specific application it has been determined that an exemption may be granted under the Retail Business Holidays Act in keeping with the following provisions:

Tourism Criteria

1. “A retail business establishment may be exempted if, it is located within two kilometers of a tourist attraction. For the purposes of this section, a tourist attraction is limited to, natural attractions or outdoor recreational attractions; historical attractions; and cultural, multi-cultural or educational attractions.”

2. “Despite any other provision of this Regulation, retail business establishments in a municipality may be exempted for up to five holidays a year during which a fair, festival or other special event is being held in that municipality.”

With these criteria in mind, the justification of identifying fairs, festivals and special events 3 held on or near the statutory holidays detailed by the applicant include Victoria, Canada & Labour Day. The following annual fairs, festivals & special events are scheduled for the respective holiday weekends. Attractions have been identified to be located within a 2- kilometre radius of the retail establishment and are of a seasonal nature.

Holiday Event Community

Victoria Day Pow Wow, Walpole Island 1st Nation Chatham Festival of Flight Rondeau /Ridgetown Norm Chesterfield Birding Week Wheatley

Canada Day Festival of Nations Chatham Canada Day Celebrations throughout Chatham-Kent Tartan Sertoma Highland Games Chatham Pain Court Farm Fest Pain Court

Labour Day North Buxton Homecoming North Buxton /Chatham Pow Wow, Delaware Nation Moraviantown

Attractions: 835 Queen Street Store 801 St. Clair Street Store

Chatham Railroad Museum Golf Land Indian Creek Golf & Country Club RoLyn Golf Trails & Golf and Fun Centre

It is critical to note that passing a By-law exemption under this Act allows businesses to open but does not suggest the business must be open. The decision remains with the individual business owner. Granting the exemption merely allows legal operation of the business on the given holiday.

The Retail Business Holidays Act sets out the rights for the employees by indicating that they may refuse an assignment of work on a holiday and, further, that they cannot be punished for involvement in challenging a potential By-law.

OTHERS CONSULTED

Legal Services was consulted regarding this application for an exemption under the Retail Business Holidays Act and reviewed the draft By-law for accuracy.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The Municipality placed advertisements for Notice of Public Meeting in the Chatham-Kent Matters column on February 19, 2003; however, the costs associated with these advertisements are recovered from the applicant.

COMMUNITY STRATEGIC PLAN

The recommendations in this report support the following objectives and strategic directions:

Economy: Working aggressively to develop a diversified economic base

B1: Brand and promote Chatham-Kent B2: Nurture complementary new and existing businesses B3: Develop and promote Chatham-Kent as a desirable tourist destination

Prepared by: Reviewed by: 4

______Geoff Wright G.J. (Greg) Borduas, Ec. D. (F) Service/Commercial Coordinator Director of Economic Development

Reviewed by:

______Joe G. Pavelka, P. Eng. Chief Administrative Officer c. Legal Services GW/lg Attachment

------

Reproduce in “CK Matters” The Chatham Daily News February 19, 2003

Public Notice

Community of Chatham

Holiday Openings

Pursuant to the Retail Business Holidays Act, the Zehrs Market locations at 835 Queen Street and 801 St. Clair Street in Chatham have applied to open for retail business on the following statutory holidays: Victoria Day, Canada Day, Labour Day.

Chatham-Kent Council, pursuant to the Act, will hold a Public Meeting on the 24th of March, 2003 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 315 King Street West, Chatham, Ontario to consider this application.

Individuals with questions about this application are asked to contact Geoff Wright, Economic Development Services, at (519) 351-1228, ext. 2033.

------

The Service/Commercial Coordinator addressed Council and introduced Mr. Gary Livingston, an employee of Zehrs. Mr. Livingston addressed Council and explained his opposition to store openings on holidays. He also provided the history of store openings in the area and expressed his belief that holidays should be spent with family.

Michelle Dornbush, representative Loblaw Properties, addressed Council and explained the reason for the request.

Councillor Robbins asked if it would be mandatory for employees to work the proposed holidays. Ms. Dornbush explained that working on a holiday would not be mandatory and any employee could not be punished if they chose not to work.

Councillor McGregor asked if the motion would be exclusive to the Loblaws at the two locations. Ms. Dornbush replied affirmatively.

Councillor Coulter questioned the legalities of the exemption. The Director, Legal Services advised that Council would have the discretion to approve or not approve. 5

Councillor Vercouteren asked why the policy would be different for the community of Wallaceburg and the community of Dresden when it is one Municipality.

Councillor King commented on exempt communities and the issue that new applications for exemption should be treated accordingly.

The Service/Commercial Coordinator explained that the exemption would not make it mandatory for employees to work. He explained that each exemption would be considered on a case by case basis.

Councillor Watson sought clarification as to the process that would be needed to proceed with a community wide exemption. The Director, Legal Services advised that it would require a new by-law.

Councillor Watson moved, Councillor Vercouteren seconded:

“That:

1. A By-law to allow Loblaw Properties Limited, operating as Zehrs Markets at 835 Queen Street and 801 St. Clair Street within the community of Chatham an exemption from the Retail Business Holidays Act for Victoria Day, Canada Day and Labour Day be approved. (May, July & September).

2. Administration proceed with the process of exemption for all of Chatham-Kent for the same dates.”

Councillor Crew advised he did not support the motion. He requested a recorded vote.

Councillor Vercouteren moved, Councillor King seconded:

“That the vote be split.”

The Mayor put the Motion to split the vote. Motion Carried The Mayor put recommendation #1 of the Motion.

RECORDED VOTE

CHATHAM-KENT COUNCIL 2003 ______

SUBJECT: A By-law to allow Loblaw Properties Limited, operating as Zehrs Markets at 835 Queen Street and 801 St. Clair Street within the community of Chatham an exemption from the Retail Business Holidays Act for Victoria Day, Canada Day and Labour Day be approved. (May, July & September).

YES NO YES NO

ARBOUR x ROBBINS x COULTER x SCHNABEL x CRAWFORD x SENEY x CREW x SULMAN x FLUKER x VAN GASSEN x 6

GORDON x VERCOUTEREN x KING x WATSON x MCGREGOR x WEAVER x PARNEY x MAYOR x

Motion Carried

The Mayor put recommendation #2 of the Motion.

RECORDED VOTE

CHATHAM-KENT COUNCIL 2003 ______

SUBJECT: Administration proceed with the process of exemption for all of Chatham-Kent for the same dates.

YES NO YES NO

ARBOUR x ROBBINS x COULTER x SCHNABEL x CRAWFORD x SENEY x CREW x SULMAN x FLUKER x VAN GASSEN x GORDON x VERCOUTEREN x KING x WATSON x MCGREGOR x WEAVER x PARNEY x MAYOR x

Motion Carried

DEPUTATIONS

(a) Mr. Ernie Lamont, resident of Windsor regarding proposal of building a 5-storey Essex-Kent Sick Children’s Hospital in Windsor, Ontario.

Mr. Lamont addressed Council and presented a proposal for a Sick Children’s Hospital in Windsor, Ontario. He explained the process he has taken for the funding of the project. He also referred to endorsements received from Windsor and Essex County. Mr. Lamont performed a review on the Shriner’s Hospital plan for London and the plan for the Windsor project. Mr. Lamont requested a letter of endorsement for the proposed hospital plans.

The Mayor asked for clarification as to what type of support Mr. Lamont is seeking. Mr. Lamont advised that Chatham-Kent Council support the letter. The Chief Administrative Officer advised that the letter to the province request 100% of capital costs and possible ongoing operating cost.

Councillor Schnabel asked if there are copies available for other letters of endorsement. He also sought clarification concerning the legal issues involved with U.S. doctors practicing in Ontario. Mr. Lamont explained that this is to be reviewed. 7

Councillor Arbour asked if there had been any discussion with the District Health Council, and suggested that Mr. Lamont approach them prior to the trip to Toronto.

The Mayor suggested that a motion be made for information purposes.

Councillor Arbour questioned if there are any enhancements from the Health Council. Mr. Lamont advised that there has not been any discussion so far.

Councillor Fluker commented on the project and funding.

The Chief Administrative Officer advised that the letter is not a resolution from the Windsor or Essex County and that according to the letter the request for the meeting has been declined.

Councillor Crew moved, Councillor King seconded:

“That this report be received as information and administration report back to Council.”

Councillor Coulter advised that such consideration be investigated and ensure that administrative contact the various hospitals to make sure it would meet their requirements.

Councillor Watson commented on the project and thanked Mr. Lamont for the presentation.

The Mayor put the Motion. Motion Carried

PRESENTATIONS

(a) Dr. Pudden, Chief Medical Officer of Health re West Nile Virus Operational Plan.

Councillor Arbour moved, Councillor Coulter seconded:

“To bring the report #8(a) West Nile Virus Operational Plan for Vector Control Measures forward.”

The Mayor put the Motion. Motion Carried

MUNICIPALITY OF CHATHAM-KENT

COMMUNITY, HEALTH & PROTECTIVE SERVICES

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES

TO: Mayor and Members of Council

FROM: Dr. Pudden, MD, MHSc., FRCS (C) Medical Officer of Health

DATE: March 14, 2003

SUBJECT: West Nile Virus Operational Plan for Vector Control Measures 8

RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that:

1. Council approve the West Nile Virus Operational Plan for Vector Control Measures in 2003 to be funded within existing Municipal budget.

BACKGROUND

The Public Health Branch of the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, Ontario has made available 50% cost-shared funding for West Nile Virus surveillance, prevention and control activities to municipalities and their respective Public Health Units. The operational plan submitted for this year describes the proposed activities and includes a cost template describing how the money could be spent. Subject to Public Health Branch and Municipal approval $200,000 will be allocated to the activities outlined in the attached 2003 Operational Plan ($100,000 from the Province and $100,000 from the Municipality of Chatham-Kent).

COMMENTS

The West Nile Virus appears to have a firm root in Southwestern Ontario. Chatham-Kent’s surveillance indicators from 2002 lead us to believe that the virus will continue to be a concern this summer.

2002 statistics: § 580 suspect bird submissions/sightings from all corners of the municipality § 9 positive mosquito pools, two in Wallaceburg and 7 in Chatham § 3 human cases, one in Blenheim, one in Chatham, and one in Wallaceburg, all have since recovered § veterinary clinics also reported signs and symptoms of the virus in a number of horses during the late summer and early fall

The following is a summary of activities planned for West Nile Virus control and prevention in the Municipality of Chatham-Kent. 1) Public Education § Public Health Services plans to continue its education campaign by providing information or advice on: § how the virus is transmitted § what kinds of illnesses it causes § how it is diagnosed or detected in the community (surveillance) § how one can reduce the risk of acquiring West Nile Virus infection by taking personal measures against mosquitoes and by reducing mosquito breeding sites i.e. draining or covering containers of standing water. § Information and advice will be disseminated to targeted subgroups of the public (the elderly, institutions, tourists, campers etc.) and organizations such as the media, community groups or other government agencies. § Information will be posted on the Municipal web site. Public Health Services will also receive calls or attend in person concerns with the virus. Printed materials such as pamphlets and posters will also be made available for a variety of groups including the public and medical community.

2) West Nile Virus measures § Dead bird (corvid) surveillance (pick-up and submissions for testing as well as receiving reports of sightings) § Adult mosquito trapping and submissions for (species) identification and testing § Larval mosquito collections, “dipping” and identification to genus and species level § Human surveillance, “enhanced passive” (e.g. increasing awareness among health care providers of considering diagnosis of West Nile Virus and testing for it) or “active” (e.g. 9

actively calling health care providers to look for suspected cases of West Nile Virus) § Veterinary surveillance (e.g. providing and receiving local information on West Nile Virus in horses.

3) Preparatory Work This includes activities that need to be done in advance of potential vector control measures including: § mapping known or potential mosquito breeding sites in the municipality § providing training and support for staff § investigating complaints of possible adverse health effects related to pesticide application

4) Vector Control and Related Measures The following measures reduce local populations of mosquitoes known to be vectors of West Nile Virus and reduce potential breeding reservoirs known to carry the virus. Nuisance control measures are therefore not included. § Source reduction on a systematic basis through the elimination of potential breeding sites particularly near dense urban areas. We will be working with municipal departments such as engineering or public works and other agencies to drain, cover or prevent standing water. We will issue orders (Section 13) to premise owners or occupiers to drain standing water if larvae are present and there is evidence of West Nile Virus in local mosquitoes or transmission to humans. § Control of known virus reservoirs such as crows (corvids). § Potential use of equipment/agents that would destroy mosquito larvae, likely to be used with municipal agency approval on a responsive basis.

5) West Nile Virus “Interagency Committee” Public Health Services will co-ordinate with regional, municipal or local agencies i.e. Public Works Department, Engineering Department, Parks and Recreation, Conservation Authority, Ministry of Natural Resources, to develop and implement a comprehensive multi-stakeholder approach to surveillance, prevention and or control of West Nile Virus.

OTHERS CONSULTED

Public Works Department to determine their role as to reduction of standing water and crow control. Engineering (drainage) Department to consult on the mapping of municipal drains. Information Services for technical support. Centre for AM/FM and GIS for their role in mapping and converting information on municipal drains for potential vector control. Financial and Performance Services to develop a plan utilizing existing budgets.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

In consultation with the Director, Budget and Performance Management, the following budget plan has been developed with the intent to utilize existing budgets for the implementation of the program, such as:

Public Works - to reduce standing water $20,000 Public Works – re: crow control $20,000 Centre for AM/FM GIS - mapping and data conversion $60,000 Total Municipal Share $100,000 Requested Provincial Share 100,000 Total Project Costs $200,000

Prepared by: 10

______Dr. Pudden, MD, MHSc., FRCS (C) Medical Officer of Health 11

Reviewed by: Reviewed by:

______Greg G. Keating, B.A., M.P.A. Joe G. Pavelka, P. Eng. General Manager Chief Administrative Officer Community, Health & Protective Services cc: Public Works Department Engineering (drainage) Department Centre for AM/FM and GIS Financial and Performance Services

/hb

Attachment Appendix A – 2003 West Nile Virus Operational Plan Appendix B – West Nile Virus Budget template 2003

Ref: RTC/health & seniors/west nile virus operational plan

Dr. Pudden, Medical Officer of Health addressed Council and explained several different viruses and their progress across North America. The Medical Officer of Health explained the West Nile Virus and the relation to cases in Chatham-Kent. He commented on how Chatham-Kent had been highly resistant to this disease and spoke of the antibodies for this disease. The Medical Officer of Health explained that there are different options for reducing the source of the virus. He also explained the mapping of the disease and alternative ways of working with the disease. He explained that this is to be a contingency plan only.

Councillor Coulter mentioned other disease problems within the community and asked if they would be more important than the West Nile Virus. The Medical Officer of Health advised that all diseases have been reviewed. Councillor Coulter questioned the educational costs involved. The Medical Officer of Health advised that education is to be the main stay of the program.

Councillor Weaver asked about the information that has been gathered on antibodies. The Chief Medical Officer of Health advised him of the information and commented on antibodies and their relation to South Western Ontario. Councillor Weaver asked if there are currently any antibodies. The Chief Medical Officer of Health advised of the antibody assurance. Councillor Weaver sought clarification as to the existence of the disease in other areas and how they are handling the disease. The Chief Medical Officer of Health advised that reviews have been done.

Councillor Vercouteren asked if there has been a request to the public to report as to the possible presence of the disease. The Chief Medical Officer of Health advised that the web site ask for public aid.

Councillor King voiced his support for the option not to use chemicals in an attempt to control this disease. In addition, he also sought clarification as to immunity. The Chief Medical Officer of Health advised of the disease rate in Chatham-Kent.

Councillor Arbour questioned if weather could be a factor. The Chief Medical Officer of Health explained that he did not think winter would offer as much protection as previously believed. 12

Councillor Seney asked about the natural habitat of the area, and whether it would be necessary to destroy numerous areas in order to control the mosquito population. The Chief Medical Officer of Health advised of the precautions recommended.

Councillor Robbins expressed his support of the report and asked if it would have an effect on giving blood. The Chief Medical Officer of Health advised that the blood services and public health labs are to screen for protection.

Councillor Robbins moved, Councillor King seconded:

“That Council approve the West Nile Virus Operational Plan for Vector Control Measures in 2003 to be funded within existing Municipal budget.”

Councillor Fluker questioned the role of the Health Unit and Municipality. The Chief Medical Officer of Health advised of the authority.

Councillor Sulman questioned the changes from the previous year and the mapping that is still to be done. He also addressed the concerns surrounding the issues behind chemical use and possible provincial funding. The Chief Medical Officer of Health explained the concerns with the disease and the severity of the disease in regard to the risk to the population.

Councillor Sulman moved an amendment, Councillor Parney seconded:

“That the Province be requested to fund 100% of any larvicide or adulticide program that may have to be instituted in the future.”

Councillor Crawford sought clarification as to spraying of mosquitoes. The Chief Medical Officer of Health advised that Chatham-Kent seems to be unique because of the low number of human cases.

Councillor Coulter advised that she would be against any kind of spraying.

Councillor Weaver moved an amendment, Councillor Coulter seconded:

“That the Province be requested to fund 100% of any mediation.”

The Mayor put the amendment #2. Amendment Carried

The Mayor put the amendment #1. Amendment Failed

The Mayor put the Motion, as amended. Motion Carried

(b) Presentation re Tourism in Chatham-Kent.

The Director, Economic Development addressed Council and presented an overview of tourism in Chatham-Kent. He then introduced the presentees.

Judy Rogers, President, Research Resolution provided a presentation on Chatham-Kent tourism. Ms. Rogers explained the data from Statistics Canada. She explained Ontario’s definition of tourism, the big picture in Chatham-Kent, the length of stay of visitors, major overnight markets, and problems with tourism and the possible economic impact for Chatham-Kent. 13

Councillor Vercourteren asked if Rondeau Park would be included in the plan. Ms. Rogers advised that all areas of Chatham-Kent would be included as one.

Councillor Robbins asked if there are any studies on the Brantford Theatre. Ms. Rogers advised she was unaware of any studies.

Councillor Coulter questioned if the impact of 9/11 and the IRAQ war. Ms. Rogers advised of the impact.

Councillor Robbins thanked Ms. Rogers for the report.

Councillor Robbins moved, Councillor Coulter seconded:

“That the presentation be received for information purposes.”

The Mayor put the Motion. Motion Carried Unanimously

(c) Mr. Robert W. Fox, Project Manager, The Chatham Capitol Theatre Association.

The Mayor declared a conflict of interest and withdrew from discussion and voting on the matter.

Councillor Arbour took his place as Acting Mayor.

Mr. Robert Fox, Project Manager, The Chatham Capital Theatre Association addressed Council. He provided a PowerPoint presentation on the Chatham Capital Theatre, the challenges and investments involved. Mr. Fox then introduced the presenters.

Jack Rigby, Blenheim Rotary Club Representative presented the Chatham Capital Theatre with a cheque for $40,000.

Jack Sterling, Pioneer Hybred Limited presented the Chatham Capital Theatre with a cheque for $50,000.

Scott McGeachy, McGeachy Charitable Foundation presented the Chatham Capital Theatre with a cheque for $68,000.

Wes Thompson, W.G. Thompson & Sons presented the Chatham Capital Theatre with a cheque for $70,000.

Brad Langford, President, Chatham Rotary Club presented the Chatham Capital Theatre with a cheque for $277,000.

Mr. Fox explained the vision for the theatre.

Peter Cook, Project Architect, Jordan and Cook addressed Council and explained the construction cost, the financial challenge, JCP participation, and programming.

Brian Prince, Representative, Buxton Museum and African Heritage Network addressed Council and commented as the value of the Chatham Capital Theatre project and the importance of it to Chatham-Kent.

Trish McFarlane, Principal, St. Clair College addressed Council and spoke of the development of St. Clair College in regard to their partnership with the Capital Theatre.

Mr. Fox further advised of program plans, revenues and expenses, yearly profit, economic 14 benefits and a request for a loan guarantee. He introduced several people who offered support for the Capital Theatre project including Claire Brown, Ken Chittim, Mike Childs, Sheldon Parsons, Cameron Murray and Samantha Thomas. Mr. Fox then thanked everyone involved for the support and consideration.

Councillor Vercouteren sought clarification as to the present mortgage on the building. Mr. Fox advised of the financial situation.

Councillor Watson questioned how the risk would be managed if a guarantee would be provided. The Chief Administrative Officer advised that this had been reviewed. The General Manager, Financial and Performance Services advised of discussions and the review of the risk and guarantees involved.

Councillor McGregor sought clarification as to the funding already in place and changes to occur in funding. Mr. Fox explained the fund raising procedure and additional plans for funding.

Councillor Robbins encouraged Chatham-Kent to support the project. Mr. Fox advised of ways the public could show support. Councillor Robbins asked if the Ontario Government had been approached to assist with funding. Mr. Fox advised that they could, in future, approach the provincial government.

Councillor Fluker questioned the current financial situation and the level of burden for tax payers. Mr. Fox advised that they intend for the theatre to be self-sustained. Mr. Paul Ekk spoke of other theatre funding situations. The General Manager, Financial and Performance Services advised of the worse case scenario for the project, and that it would be addressed in an upcoming Report to Council.

Councillor Coulter asked about the risks and the possible impact to the Kiwanis Theatre.

Councillor Coulter questioned potential funding from other sources. Mr. Fox advised that other funding would be reviewed from the provincial government in addition to other sources.

Councillor Gordon questioned the possibility of obtaining a pro-rated policy for the loan.

Councillor Van Gassen questioned the details that pertain to the ownership of the Capital Theatre. Mr. Fox advised of the ownership and membership. Councillor Van Gassen questioned where profits would go. Mr. Fox advised of the endowments and project entitlements by the theatre.

Councillor Sulman questioned the amount of the guarantee, term of the guarantee and fund raising. Mr. Fox discussed the funds raised with pledges, the funding of the guarantee, as well as the reduction of debt. Councillor Sulman questioned the position for ongoing fund raising. Mr. Fox advised that there would be ongoing fund raising. Mr. Paul Ekk advised that the project would be Chatham-Kent specific and that programming would be specific. He also advised of competitors to the theatre.

Councillor Watson moved, Councillor Weaver seconded:

“That administration be requested to provide a report to Council with recommendations relating to the request of the Chatham Capital Theatre Association specifying the risk to Chatham-Kent regarding how the $5 million guarantee can be managed.”

The Acting Mayor put the Motion. Motion Carried 15

Councillor Schnabel moved, Councillor Van Gassen seconded:

“That Council adjourn for 5 minutes.”

The Mayor put the Motion. Motion Carried

Council adjourned at 9:30 p.m.

Council re adjourned at 9:40 p.m.

Councillor Fluker moved, Councillor Weaver seconded:

“That the meeting be extended to 11:30 p.m.”

The Mayor put the Motion. Motion Failed

(d) Presentation re Long Term Care Redevelopment – Sketch Plans

Councillor Arbour moved, Councillor Watson seconded:

“That Item #8(d) - Long-Term Care Redevelopment - Sketch Plans be brought forward.

The Mayor put the Motion. Motion Carried

MUNICIPALITY OF CHATHAM-KENT

COMMUNITY, HEALTH AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES

HEALTH AND SENIORS SERVICES

TO: Mayor and Members of Council

FROM: Lloyd Jackson Director, Health and Seniors Services

DATE: March 10, 2003

SUBJECT: Long-Term Care Redevelopment – Sketch Plans

RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that:

1. Purchase of service for laundry management continue and space and equipment is allocated in the new facility for a total laundry service for the provision of personal 16

clothing and flatware.

2. Purchase of service for dietary management continue and space and equipment is allocated in the new facility for food services to establish a conventional kitchen for food preparation.

3. The sketch plans presented in this report be approved and administration be authorized to forward them to the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care for review and approval.

BACKGROUND

On January 20, 2003, Council approved the redevelopment of the Municipal 320 long-term care beds in one facility on the St. Joseph’s Hospital site, 591 King Street, West, Chatham. In addition, Council requested that in designing the new facility, administration was to consider the option of purchasing all or part of the dietary and laundry service.

During the public information sessions held in January 2003, with residents, family members and staff concerning the selection of the site for the Municipal long-term care facilities a number of concerns and suggestions had been raised. Council requested that these issues be addressed in the planning and design of the new building and have been included in the latter part of this report.

There are a number of approvals that are required by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOH/LTC) related to the many phases of this project. The next stage of approval by the MOH/LTC is the sketch plans for the building and property site. This report presents the sketch plans that are being recommended for submission to the MOH/LTC.

COMMENTS

The report is divided into two major sections: discussion of the purchase of all or part of the laundry and dietary services and an overview of the proposed layout of the long-term care facility and the site. This phase of the project is known as the submission of the “sketch plans”. The sketch plans will set the “foot print” for the location of the various spaces that make up the facility, and supporting infrastructure that is required to make the building functional. The sketch plans also address the site for the building. It provides information concerning issues such as resident outdoor space, emergency services access and safety of the residents when making use of the outdoors. Once these sketch plans are approved by MOH/LTC work can begin on the detailed drawings for all aspects of the building and the site. The detailed drawings will then be used to engage and provide direction for the contractors who will construct/renovate the building. The completion of the detailed drawings is the next major phase in this project and required for submission to the MOH/LTC for review and approval.

Purchase of Support Services

Long-term care services can be divided into three major functions: administration, resident care, and support services. Support services include the areas of housekeeping, laundry, maintenance and dietary. Support services are most appropriate to be considered for purchase in part or in whole. Support services, although they are not seen as the core purpose of the organization; it is recognized that they are an essential element that requires a level of expertise not always found within the organizational management structure.

Thamesview Lodge has purchased administration services and supplies purchasing management for building services (laundry, maintenance and housekeeping) and dietary. The contract for building services has been purchased from CSL Hospital Services since 17

1989. The dietary service contract from Nutritional Management Services (NMS) has been in effect since 1989. The respective services provide only the management staff for their operations. The front-line staff are Municipal employees. Both CSL and NMS began in 2002 to also provide services for Victoria Residence. Over the life of these purchase of service arrangements the reports on the quality of the service indicate favourable comments from residents, staff, administration, family members, and the MOH/LTC Compliance Advisor.

The purchase of service for laundry and dietary are being addressed in this report because of the relevance to the space requirements within the new building and the respective cost for construction of the space. The type of service provided may impact on the type of equipment that will be required and the operational cost for these services. An overview of each of these areas will be presented here with detailed information attached as appendices.

Laundry Services

Laundry services in long-term care facilities are in some respects unique when compared to a hospital. The primary difference includes the processing of a large volume of personal laundry. Also residents are encouraged and permitted to bring favorite bed comforters, etc., which require special laundry care. The flatware that includes sheets, pillow cases and towels are those items that are most often considered for outsourcing.

The decision to purchase service for flatware is primarily determined based on the availability of the service to the location of the facility. The MOH/LTC indicated that the majority of long-term care facilities in large urban areas where laundry services are available purchase their laundry services. Other homes in smaller communities where laundry services are not readily available tend to provide their own laundry service. Some operators who have a number of homes in a community provide in-house laundry services for all of their homes.

A review of laundry services has been conducted. The laundry review included capital costs, e.g. space required and equipment; operating costs included staffing and supplies; service implications and industry comments. Information has been obtained from two laundry outsourcing providers and an analysis of laundry options from EnviriMed Inc.

The options considered were:

Option “A” – In-House Conventional Laundry Services

- Central in-house laundry facilities to handle both personal laundry and flatware. - Resident laundry to be centralized (processed in the main laundry). - A small amount of space will be included on resident floors for the use of nursing staff (for lift slings and emergency needs) and the occasional use by residents’ families; this will also allow future decentralization of personal laundry to resident floors if the staffing model changes.

Option “B” – Process Personal Laundry In-House, Outsource Flatware To External Provider

- Flatware only is outsourced to an external provider; personal laundry done in-house as described in Option A. - Chatham-Kent Health Alliance is not a potential provider as they already outsource their laundry to LHLS.

Option “C” – Outsource All Laundry to External Provider

- Both personal laundry and flatware is outsourced to an external provider; some 18

additional space is provided on resident floors as described in Option A.

We eliminated Option C from further analysis for the following reasons:

Ø Higher costs of handling personal clothing: must be processed separately from flatware and therefore is much more labour intensive and drives up unit costs. Ø Lower quality control: higher incidence of damaged and lost articles of clothing. Ø Service Implications: no personal service and recognition of residents’ personal preferences for handling specific items of clothing. Ø It is generally held within the industry that this is rarely done successfully and too costly for a long term facility.

When comparing the conventional in-house laundry to outsourcing flatware only we found that:

Factors Option A Option B Outsource Flatware Only Conventional In-House Laundry 1.2 Ø Appropriate space for laundry Ø About 57.60 net sq. m. (620 net sq ft) are required Space processing is designed and built in the new facility Ø Decreased space requirement and therefore reduced building costs Ø About 159.79 net sq. m. (1,720 net sq. ft) are required Ø However, if operating decision to outsource should change in future, it would be very difficult to add the Ø Estimated capital cost for required space after the fact, if sufficient expansion building is $385,280 capacity has not been designed during initial construction

Estimated capital cost for building is $138,880

1.3 Equipment Ø Will require mostly new Ø Some savings in washing/drying equipment related and Capital equipment; only one existing to processing flatware washer from TVL can be utilized Ø Contractor will require at least 6 and possibly 9 full Ø New carts to meet the new turns of linen, of a specified quality to add to the linen resident unit sizes pool; this means a one-time cost of 3-6 more linen turns Ø Estimated capital cost for equipment is $160,500 Ø Current knitted top sheets would require full replacement with standard top sheets

Ø New carts required to match contractor’s requirements

Ø Estimated capital cost for equipment is $139,500 1.4 Operating Ø Direct annual operating costs Ø Direct annual operating costs estimated at $365,521 Costs estimated at $348,625 or $.26 or $0.28 per kg ($0.61 per pound) (excluding utility per kg ($0.58 per pound) and certain other miscellaneous laundry costs) (excluding utility and certain other miscellaneous laundry costs) Ø Financial calculations have been based on an estimated base outsource cost of $0.25 per kg Ø Slightly less expensive than ($0.54 per lb) for flatware, depending on the required outsourced option, given the level of service provision which may increase unit present assumptions price.

Ø Operating savings provide a pay- Ø Slightly more expensive than in-house option, given back period to cover the the present assumptions additional capital costs estimated at 15.83 years. 1.5 Ø Point of service is on-site – Ø Point of service for flatware is off-site – requires Service requires lower amount of linen higher amount of linen inventory contribution to the Implications inventory contractor’s pool

Ø Increased flexibility in linen Ø Linen control, distribution, transport requires defined control, distribution, staff timelines, schedules scheduling Ø Must rely on external provider for transportation – little 19

Factors Option A Option B Outsource Flatware Only Conventional In-House Laundry Ø Do not have to rely on external control over costs provider for transportation Ø Need to establish a reputable provider that will meet Ø Service standards can be the needs of the Home established internally based on service requirements Ø Most likely will come from London or Windsor

Ø Offers greater flexibility for facility Ø Requires additional purchase of equipment and to provide laundry service to other supplies which meet contractor’s standardized programs/services that may requirements (for example, use of hospital standard develop on each site top sheets instead of the currently-used and more comfortable knitted ones) Ø Design will be based on best operating practices and Ø Additional cost elements to monitor the performance functionality of contractor 1.6 Ø The majority of commercial Ø Contractor will establish the quality of linens that Industry operators building new facilities must be purchased Comments are opting for in-house laundry services Ø Use a provider that washes linens separately from other commercial users Ø Two options are being considered for resident personal Ø Several facilities provided mixed reviews on laundry. Some facilities are success/benefits of outsourcing based on cost and providing resident laundries in service issues each home area (ranging from small areas for families to full launderettes), while others are processing resident linen centrally

Detailed review of the laundry service is provided as Appendix A Through our review of this issue we have identified the following concerns regarding outsourcing of flatware:

Ø We would not be able to increase/decrease amount of linens per unit as easily if demand changed Ø We would not have as much control on quality of linens Ø Require a refrigerated storage for soiled laundry to comply with MOH/LTC standards Ø Be locked into commitment no matter what the cost as you will no longer have equipment or area to install a laundry room, therefore as prices over the years continue to rise, you have limited yourself and will have no control of pricing increases Ø London Linen Hospital Supply – when asked about outsourcing the Homes linens regarding replacement of linens, replacement carts for exchange system, etc. they continually stated that each was an additional cost Ø It is also an additional cost to use comforters or homelike bedspreads due to the extra bulk and special handling required to process Ø We would require additional linen in use at all times Ø Cost of processing flatware in the two facilities presently is less than purchasing the service and additional savings are possible in one facility Ø Although capital costs are higher the provision of extra linens and replacement costs will add significantly to the ongoing operational costs

It is recommended that purchase of service for laundry management continue and that space and equipment is allocated in the new facility for a total laundry service for the provision of personal clothing and flatware.

Dietary Services

The current dietary services provided at the Homes are considered to be conventional food preparation operations verses total preparation and packaging of food outside the facility and delivered to the facility frozen. It should be noted that some frozen items are used in the 20 conventional method of food preparation, however fresh produce is most often used when it is available.

The raw food costs for 2001 and 2002 were maintained at $4.49/resident/day compared to the provincial average of $5.00/resident/day. A review by the Ministry Dietitian has found that the Homes were meeting and or exceeding standards in terms of food quality and variety.

A review of dietary services was conducted. Three options were considered with respect to provision of dietary services for the new facility. Information was gained from three long- term care facilities who were using the outsource model of food services and an analysis of food services submitted by Envirmed Inc. Options considered were:

Option “A” – Conventional Central Kitchen

This option is a conventional food service operation with an on-site central kitchen handling a majority of in-house food production and a small portion of outsourced product. Procurement, preparation and production would occur in the central kitchen, then transporting prepared foods and other items to the resident home area (RHA) kitchen. Some preparation such as portioning desserts, garnishing, etc. would take place in the RHA galley kitchen. Warewashing options could include centralized warewashing in the main kitchen or decentralized warewashing in the RHA servery.

This is the most common food service model in long-term care facilities. For the purpose of this analysis, the conventional model will be the baseline for comparison with two other “receiving kitchen” alternatives, which vary only in terms of the degree of outsourcing desired.

Option “B” – Outsource Food Products with On-Site Panning

The facility purchases a high level of pre-prepared food products from commercial purveyors. These products are re-panned on site in a central depot or “receiving kitchen” located in the building, and distributed to the units chilled and reheated on the units or reheated within the main kitchen and distributed hot ready for service. Warewashing could be handled centrally in the main kitchen or decentralized to the RHA servery.

Option “C” – Received Fully-Prepared and Pre-Panned Foods from Third Party

This option is a fully outsourced food production method. The foods are prepared and re- panned by a supplier off-site and simply shipped to the central receiving kitchen in the long- term care facility. Meals would either be distributed to the units chilled and then reheated on the units or reheated within the central kitchen and distributed hot ready for service.

We eliminated Option C from further analysis for the following reasons:

Ø Highest raw food costs (typically range from $5-$6 per diem, although site visits confirmed costs in the range of $6-$7 per diem) Ø Limited theoretical savings in staff hours due to MOH/LTC minimum requirement of 0.4 food handler hours per resident day, regardless of food delivery system used; savings do not offset significantly higher raw food costs Ø Reduced variety and availability of food products geared to meet the needs of long- term care residents particularly with texture-modified food products (e.g. minced foods are very difficult to source) Ø Many of the food products currently available are geared to acute-care needs (i.e. low salt, low fat, etc.) Ø MOH/LTC has raised concerns in other long-term care projects considering outsourcing, related to ensuring food quality and variety; this may entail increased compliance review or other monitoring by MOH/LTC 21

Ø It is generally held within the industry that full outsourcing is not appropriate and too costly for a long-term care facility

The following is comparison of Option A and B addressing key issues:

Factors Option A Option B Conventional Kitchen Outsource With On-Site Panning 1.1 Ø Food prepared in a central kitchen Ø A large proportion of food purchased pre- Description within the facility and distributed hot to prepared; panned in a central receiving kitchen RHAs; on site and chilled; distributed to RHAs and reheated there 1.2 Ø About 421.77 sq. m. (4,540 sq. ft.) are Ø About 366.95 sq. m. (3,950 sq. ft.) are required Space required for central kitchen and for central kitchen and related functions related functions Both assume same kitchens spaces in the RHAs (total 353.02 sq. m. or 3,800 sq. ft.) Ø Estimated construction cost for Ø Estimated construction cost for kitchen space kitchen space is $1,868,160 is $l,736,000 or $132,160 less than Option A 1.3 Ø Estimated capital cost for new central Ø Estimated capital cost for new central ’receiving Relevant Capital ‘production kitchen’ equipment is kitchen’ equipment is $390,000, similar to Equipment $394,000 Option A Costs Ø Estimated capital cost for RHA kitchen Ø Estimated capital cost for RHA kitchen equipment is $315,000 equipment is $413,000 as it requires use of decentral bulk retherm technology for reheating chilled pre-prepared meals

Ø Approximately $98,000 higher than Option A 1.4 Relevant Ø Raw food costs can be managed at or Ø Raw food costs will increase to at least $5-$6 Operating Costs close to the level of MOH/LTC funding per diem in order to maintain a similar level of ($4.49 per diem) quality

Ø Total annual raw food costs would be Ø Total annual raw food costs would be $642,400 $526,768 based on average per diem of $5.50, which is at least $115,632 higher than Option A Ø Food handler staffing would be similar to the present level, approx. Ø Theoretically, food handler staffing could be 0.44 hours per resident day reduced to close to but not lower than the minimum 0.4 hours per resident day; some Ø Combined impact of more facilities still operate above the minimum manageable staffing level and significantly lower and more Ø Assuming the minimum could be achieved, this manageable raw food costs result in would result in an estimated decrease in food net overall operating savings of handler staffing of about 2.3 FTE, saving $24,120 compared to outsourced $91,513 in annual salary and benefits costs; options however, this saving is offset by higher raw food costs 1.5 Ø Quality of food product depends on Ø Increased consistency of menu items – quality Service staff skills and internal quality control standards met by suppliers Implications systems Ø Reduced variety and availability of food Ø Greatest flexibility in terms of choices products geared to meeting the needs of long in food preparation, menu variety and term care residents; particularly with texture- choice and meeting emergency modified food products (e.g. minced foods are needs very difficult to source)

Ø Can adapt to provide for other programs on site and internal catering Ø Many of the food products currently available are geared to acute-care needs (i.e. low salt, low fat, etc.)

Ø There may be some compromise of food quality in order to minimize the increased raw food costs of outsourcing

Ø MOH/LTC has raised concerns regarding outsourcing, re food quality; this may entail increased compliance review or other monitoring by MOH/LTC

Ø While receiving kitchen models save a marginal amount of space and equipment, they also incur long term operational concerns, 22

Factors Option A Option B Conventional Kitchen Outsource With On-Site Panning related to significantly increase raw food costs and issues of variety and quality of product and appropriateness for the LTC environment.

Ø Since MOH/LTC minimum staffing levels limit allowable staff reductions, the likelihood is that increased food costs of outsourcing will more than offset any labour savings.

Summary

Although some capital cost savings can be found primarily in the kitchen size these cost savings are off set with additional costs at the residential area. The MOH/LTC perception of outsourced food appears to be quite negative. The MOH/LTC standards strongly encourage long term care facilities to develop a home like environment, good food quality and focus on pleasurable dining experiences for the residents. Emphasis in food service is based on individual preferences and choices. Outsourcing does not offer the flexibility to provide the service in smaller or individual servings. Monies that are saved from requiring less traditional cooking equipment is needed for additional space for receiving, storage, freezer and refrigerators. Outsourced food items require increased refrigerator space, as the tempering process is lengthy.

A detailed report concerning dietary services is included as Appendix B.

It is recommended that purchase of service for dietary management services continue and that space and equipment is allocated in the new facility for food services to establish a conventional kitchen for food preparation.

Sketch Plan

Overview

The Municipality of Chatham-Kent operates two long-term care facilities, Thamesview Lodge and Victoria Residence with 230 and 90 beds respectively. The beds of these two facilities will be merged into one facility of 320 beds to be located at 519 King Street, West in Chatham. Possession of St. Joseph's site will be on or before January 1, 2004. Estimated time for completion of the new facility is March 2006.

Sketch plans present a “foot print” for all aspects of the building and property site. It includes such features as bed room sizes and location of services such as laundry and dietary. Safety considerations such as fire walls and stair exits are addressed at this stage. The design also considers the functional layout for staff and residents. The sketch plans presented in this report meet and or exceed all MOH/LTC standards and comply with the recommendations of the functional plan. The concerns and suggestions gained from the information meetings held with the public, residents their families and staff in early January 2003, will be addressed in the following sections of the report.

Presentation of the sketch plan is presented here as a tour beginning with the property site, a walk through the ground floor and ending with a tour of a typical residential area.

Tour of the Site

The current site is the St. Joseph’s Hospital that is located in a quiet established residential area on 1.26 ha (3.12 acres) of land next to the Thames River. The property site is large enough for the new proposed long-term care facility but also has potential space for a private senior’s apartment complex. The site is easily accessible to main intersections, hospital, fire and police services. 23

The newest part of the St. Joseph’s Hospital built in 1974 that faces King Street will be utilized as part of the new long-term care facility. The remainder of the building and existing parking lot will be removed to make way for the construction of the two new wings. The two new sections will make the total building U shaped. The new building will consist of five residential floors starting on the second floor resulting in six floors with mechanical services and enclosures located on top of the sixth floor.

Viewing the site with your back to the Thames River you will see a “U” shaped building of six floors and a penthouse. In the middle of the “U” there is a closed courtyard with a small open shelter area for resident’s outdoor activities, trees and benches for sitting. You can see balconies on each floor overlooking the courtyard. Within the courtyard is a closed secure area for residents.

Along the Thames River is a winding walkway and sitting areas overlooking the river. A protective fence mixed with natural barriers separate the property from the riverbank.

On both sides close to the building there are parking areas. To the left side of the building is the staff parking area, part of this area is taken up by a covered receiving and garbage pickup area. There is ample space for large trucks that will provide goods and services to the building. A small out building is located at the north end of the staff parking lot and will be used to store outdoor equipment, etc.

On the right of the building there is a street (Roberson Ave.) that runs along side the building almost the full length of the property where it curves to the right as it nears the river and enters the local residential area. Also on this side you will see visitor and handicap parking areas along the building allowing close access to the canopy covered side entrance. On the other side of the street is an additional parking area that is in close proximity to the side entrance to the building.

Standing in front of the building with your back to King Street you can see the main entrance to the building with a covered protective canopy. There is space parallel to King Street in front of the main entrance large enough for four cars to drop off visitors. In the event of an emergency fire trucks or ambulances could use this space.

Parking lots and roadways provide easy access for emergency vehicles, fire trucks, ambulance, etc. on all sides of the building.

The total gross floor area of the building including all RHA’s, communal, facility service, mechanical and electrical space of 23,362.77 sq. m. (251,483 sq. ft.) for a total of 72.93 sq. m. (785 sq. ft.) per resident. A detail listing of space allocation for various aspects of the building will be included with the sketch plans submitted to the MOH/LTC. The Summary Space Table outlining all areas of the facility has been attached as Appendix D. 24

Site Plan 25

Tour of Ground Floor

The ground floor will consist of residential communal, administration and support service areas. The west wing will not be required for long-term care and will be available as leasable space. This space will be marketed to provide services that will be of value to the residents such as physicians and/or medical rehabilitation. Access to the ground floor will consist of canopied visitor entries off King Street and on the west side of the building and through the courtyard. A staff/service-canopied entry is located on the east side.

Southwest Section

The southwest section extends from the west entrance to the elevators located in the centre of the building. As you enter the ground floor from the west entrance and looking straight ahead you can see the elevators. On your left is the country shop with an open sitting area. The country shop will provide for the sale of confectionary and toiletry items for residents, staff and visitors and will incorporate a café style provision of food and beverages. This area includes a large congregating space for residents and visitors to enjoy the country shop activities and a view of west side visitor’s entrance. This vicinity allows residents the opportunity to congregate at a central entrance/greeting location.

Across from the country shop is the public and resident washrooms. Next to the washrooms are vending machines to provide hot/cold beverages and snacks; 24 hours a day for residents, their family members and staff.

Moving towards the elevators and to your left is the unisex hair salon that will provide a range of personal services for residents. Next to the hair salon is the spirituality centre. You will then come to a large open space called a town hall consisting of sitting areas including a gas- burning fireplace. From the town hall region you can look out into or access the outside courtyard. A pub and food service area that can be used for special events complements the town hall area. No formal walls exist in this area, however, small gathering places are created through the use of planters and arrangements of tables, couches and chairs.

The spirituality centre has foldaway doors that can be opened to expand into the town hall area, allowing for larger congregational events. The doors can be closed for more private formal communal worship or quiet contemplation.

Across from the town hall are the administrative offices. This area includes administrative and business offices. It is designed to ensure the most efficient use of office, equipment and supply storage space. Included is a reception area for residents, family members and other visitors to the facility.

Standing in front of the elevators facing south you can see the King Street entrance. Coming in through this entrance you approach a landing and a ramp for wheel chairs. As you walk north towards the town hall you will pass the reception area on your left before you reach the elevators on the right. From here you can view the large town hall area where a large group activity may be underway.

There are four elevators located near the King Street entrance. The front two elevators are conveniently situated to accommodate visitors and residents directly to the upper residential and common meeting areas. The two rear elevators will be used for service transportation to the upper floors keeping service carts away from the main lobby.

South East Wing

A door way to the north of the elevators will allow you to enter the southeast wing. To your right is the dietary department and to your left there is the back of the servery for the town hall area and an entry way into offices. This section includes office space for the medical director, dietary manager, volunteer co-ordinator, and additional office space. 26

The dietary department’s main kitchen is a conventional style, where the bulk of the food will be prepared for delivery to RHA’s. In addition it will support other catering functions in the building. A food service supervisor(s) office, coolers and freezers are located east of the food preparation area. Food transportation carts and seasonal dry storage are located west of the food preparation area. Dry food storage and a staff communication centre is located north of the food preparation area. Included in the main kitchen but separate from the food preparation and storage area is the ware washing, pot washing and cart cleaning station. Dishes and utensils used for resident’s meals are washed and kept on each RHA kitchen.

North of this area and adjacent to the kitchen entrance is the housekeeping closet, chemical storage, recycling and refuse cooler.

As you move past the dietary area and enter the east wing you will pass by the volunteer centre. Walking down the east wing you will pass the staff/service entrance. Proceeding down the hall you will pass by the staff locker room; staff lounge; educational centre; receiving area; rooms for refrigerated garbage; storage space for resident’s belongings, supplies, oxygen and archived records; maintenance and building service workshop and ending at the entrance to the laundry department.

The laundry has equipment and space for a full in-house service that will handle both personal clothing and facility flatware. Equipment includes industrial washer/dryers a sorting area, weigh scale, etc. Separate areas are designated for soiled laundry and clean supplies. This area is well ventilated with temperature and humidity control. In addition space is available for cart washing and storage of clean linen carts waiting for transporting to the RHA’s. Soiled linens are returned from the residential areas into the laundry through a separate entry way away from the clean supplies. All residents will have storage space in their own room for at least a daily supply of towels etc.

The service support areas have been designed and located on the ground floor to minimize wherever possible, staff travel. 27

Ground Floor

Tour of a Residential Floor 28

The Resident Home Areas (RHA) are located on the first to the fifth floor of the facility. The RHA is designed based on a resident-centered approach, respecting core values of privacy, dignity and individuality. The building is comprised of 10 RHA’s, 2 on each floor with 32 beds in each RHA. Within each RHA there is a combination of private, semi-private and standard bed room types, which will allow for greater flexibility. In total there are 180 private, 40 semi- private and 30 standard rooms. A floor plan for each type of room is included as Appendix C. All of the five residential floors have been designed based on the same layout.

When you get off the public elevator you will enter a common space for both residential areas. To the left of the elevators is a common lounge area that will be shared with the two RHA’s. The lounge can be used for such activities as family celebrations, and meetings with staff and family members. To your right you will see the dining area. Walking past the dining area in either direction you will enter the residential areas. Upon entering the residential area you will first come to the activity room and nursing station.

The dining rooms are spacious allowing all residents to sit down for meals at the same time. Residents will be encouraged to use the dining area for personal get togethers such as afternoon tea or to entertain their visitors.

Attached to the dining area is the kitchen area for food preparation such as making toast, etc. Residents will be able to see this activity and partake of the aromas these activities bring.

At the opposite end of the dining area is the activity room. The activity and dining area are separated (e.g. moveable planter/furniture) and can be opened to accommodate large events. The activity area will be used for resident’s crafts, recreational and special activities/events or just lounging when not in use. From the activity area you can access the outdoor balcony. The balcony area is large enough to accommodate wheelchairs while still having space for others to wander or sit in a protected landscaped outdoor area.

The front of each RHA also includes bedrooms, tub and shower room, nurses station, lounge, storage and utility space. The two RHA's on each floor will share one laundry facility, one medical examination room and an additional office area. The dietitians’ office will be located on the first floor RHA within this additional office space. As you move down the hallway of the wing you will pass a number of bedroom areas. At the end of the residential wing is a lounge that provides a view of the river, courtyard and the community. The RHA hallways are designed to allow space for residents to have wandering paths. A short wandering path is located in the front section of the RHA and a longer walkway is located in the bedroom area of each wing. Both walkways take the residents past or through lounge areas where they might decide to stop.

Space is allocated for clean linen supply carts in a central location of the RHA. Soiled laundry will be stored in separate rooms and will be transported in carts with regular removal of soiled linens from the RHA to help manage odours. Each RHA has a laundry room with a washer and dryer to allow family members to launder residents’ clothing should they choose to do so. It is anticipated that the laundry department will do most of the personal clothing.

Housekeeping closets are strategically located in the RHA to support these functions both in the resident living area and kitchen/dining area. Chemicals and cleaning equipment will be kept in locked janitor closets.

Each RHA has one tub and one shower room. These rooms are strategically located in the middle section of the RHA to allow staff a mid point for travelling. There is adequate space within the rooms to accommodate up to two staff that will assist the resident. Sufficient space is allowed in the “tub room” for a person on a stretcher or in a wheelchair. A washroom is also included in this area. The room is well ventilated and heat controlled to allow for extra warmth. There is additional space in this area for supplies, including towels, etc. An over-head lifting device has been included to assist staff and to ensure the safety of those residents who need to be lifted in and out of the tub. 29

One of the floors will be allocated for individuals with dementia and/or Alzheimer’s. The door ways to the residential area and the elevator on this floor will be equipped with special sensors to detect residents who may attempt to wander off the area unescorted.

One of the RHA’s will be designated for young individuals. This particular residential area will have the activity rooms and lounges set up to be more conducive to ongoing activities for individuals and small groups.

Resident Home Area

Response to Major Issues and Suggestions Gathered From Information Sessions

Parking

A total of two hundred and twenty-five parking spaces are distributed on both sides of the building including handicap/visitor parking next to the west entrance. This exceeds current parking at the two facilities of 173 by 52 spaces. In addition it exceeds the number required by the Municipal bylaw which specifies one parking space per five beds with an additional parking space for each four staff totaling 99 spaces. A drop off area is located at the front of the building to allow visitors easy access to the building and this entrance is 30 close to the elevators.

Safety of residents

Special sensing devices will be placed on doors of residential areas where residents have a tendency to wander. A secure area will be developed in the courtyard for residents who also have a tendency to wander. This area will be supervised by staff. All balconies will have a guardrail at least five feet high to prevent residents from getting over them. A combination of fencing and natural barriers will be placed along the riverbank to stop residents and visitors from gaining access to the river. The barrier will allow for sitting areas for residents and visitors to enjoy the view of the river. Overhead lifting devices will be installed in tub areas and bedrooms where possible to help provide safe lifting of residents to and from stretchers, wheel chairs and their bed.

Fire and emergency safety

The building will meet or exceed all provincial and local fire safety requirements. This includes firewalls, sprinklers, smoke detectors and strategically placed fire equipment e.g. fire extinguishers. Fire rated doors will separate sections of the building and will close automatically once the fire system is activated. There will be four exit doorways from the ground floor area with exits at the end of each wing. On each residential floor there are two stairway exits, one in the front section and one at the end of the bedroom wing leading directly to the outside. Residents, in the event of a fire will first be evacuated if appropriate away from the fire area laterally to the living area on the same floor. Staff will be trained on how to assist residents in the need of evacuation directly outside.

Prior to moving into the building a fire evacuation plan and fire inspection is required. Staff are required to be trained as to the location of fire equipment and evacuation procedures. Local fire departments will be made familiar with the new building e.g. fire panel location equipment, and access to the building etc. prior to moving residents to the new facility.

Access to the building

The building will have three canopied entrances. There is an entryway on the east side of the building primarily for staff coming from the parking area. Two entrances for visitors are provided. One at the King Street drop-off entrance and the other off of Robertson Avenue close to handicap/visitor parking area. An entry way from the town hall area will allow for access to and from the courtyard. Exit stairways at the end of each of the wings will be used for fire or emergency exits only.

Access for residents to the outdoors

Each of the RHA’s has a balcony that will have a secure railing. This area is large enough for residents in wheel chairs to use it as well as ambulatory individuals at the same time. These areas will be sheltered with a roof overhead and will give a view of the courtyard and Thames River.

The outdoor area enclosed by the wings of the building will form a semi-closed courtyard. This area will have a shelter for outside events and a secure area for residents who have a tendency to wander. Sitting areas will be created in the courtyard. The land along the river will be landscaped with a protective barrier to make a pleasant area for walking with places to sit and view the river.

Removal of environmental hazards

A consulting firm will be engaged to assess the level of environmental hazards that exist in the building. Both in the section to be used for the new building and for the section that will be taken down to make way for the construction of the new wings. Any hazards found will 31 be removed before construction or demolition can begin. The section of the building facing King Street will be completely stripped back to the walls and ceiling leaving the shell of the building. This will ensure all hazardous materials are removed.

Number of elevators

There is a bank of four elevators located in the centre of the front of the building. Two of these elevators will be designated for use of residents and visitors. The other two will be used as service elevators for moving laundry, food etc. In the event that a special event is occurring in the town hall the service elevators could be used for residents if not required for services. A review of other multi-story long-term care facilities found that two elevators solely dedicated for residents and visitors met their needs. Staff will be encouraged to use the service elevators when reporting for or leaving from work.

Special areas for residents

Residential areas will be designated for younger residents as per their request. Also a floor will be dedicated for individuals with Alzheimer’s or those who have a tendency to wander.

Suitability of site for building of a multi-story building

Soil studies will be conducted in the area where the new wings are to be erected. The design of the building calls for pilings that will sit on bedrock. The pilings will provide support for all weight bearing walls of the building.

In Summary

The sketch plan provides a building design that meets or exceeds the MOH/LTC standards. The building is designed to afford residents a home-like, safe, and spacious environment with access to common areas for entertainment, activities and personal needs such as the hair salon.

Outdoor space will be provided for residents who need a secure setting both in the courtyard and on balconies located on each RHA. The grounds area will provide walk ways and a security barrier at the riverbank. Sitting areas and an entertainment shelter will be available for residents and family members.

The major concerns and suggestions of the public, residents, family members and staff have been addressed. Adequate space is included for parking and there is easy access for emergency service vehicles.

Provision of in-house laundry and dietary services will provide residents with a readily available supply of comfortable towels, sheets and pillowcases and good quality home like food.

The projected cost of the building proposed remains on target with contingency funding remaining to address unforeseen circumstances.

It is therefore recommended that Council approve the sketch plans as presented in this report and request Administration to forward them to the MOH/LTC for their review and approval.

Work will proceed with the architect firm and the building planning and support team to prepare the detailed design drawings that will be used by the contractors who will renovate, construct the building and do the landscaping.

The next submission for this project that will come before Council’s review will be the recommendation(s) for engaging the building contractor(s). This report will be presented in 32

August.

COMMUNITY STRATEGIC PLAN

The recommendation in this report support the following objective and strategic direction:

A2 Health: Provide adequate infrastructure to support, enhance and sustain existing and future growth

Expected Result:

· ensure that adequate long-term care residential space is available for the community

A3 Health: Promote community activities that encourage positive social interaction

Expected Result:

· increased use of facilities · increase in user satisfaction

OTHER CONSULTED

· Project Manager/Cost Consultant from Curran, McCabe, Ravindran and Ross (cmrr project management inc.) provided information and costing for the project.

· The sketch plans have been researched and prepared by the Architect firm of Jorden and Cook and associate Dunlop Architect.

· The Building Steering Committee has reviewed the proposed sketch plans and are in agreement with the proposed building layout and landscaping.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The project team has reviewed the sketch plans. The team includes the architect firm of Jorden and Cook and associate Dunlop, the project manager and staff of the facilities. Cost projections as outlined in the sketch plans has been completed by the project manager from cmrr inc. The projected estimated cost of the project remains within the previous established budget target of $32,520,000.

Prepared by:

______Lloyd Jackson, R.N.,B.Sc.N.Ed.,M.H.A Director, Health & Seniors Services

Reviewed by: Reviewed by:

______Greg G. Keating, B.A., M.P.A. Joe G. Pavelka, P. Eng. General Manager Chief Administrative Officer Community Health & Protective Services 33

LJ/mt Attachments- Appendix A – Laundry Review Appendix B – Dietary Review Appendix C – Resident Room Appendix D – Summary Space Table File: RTC/LTC RedevelopmentSketchPlansMar03

The Director, Health and Seniors Services addressed Council and explained the report. He also explained the process of review, changes and recommendations of the report.

Councillor Van Gassen moved, Councillor King seconded:

“That:

1. Purchase of service for laundry management continue and space and equipment be allocated in the new facility for a total laundry service for the provision of personal clothing and flatware.

2. Purchase of service for dietary management continue and space and equipment be allocated in the new facility for food services to establish a conventional kitchen for food preparation.

3. The sketch plans presented in this report be approved and administration be authorized to forward them to the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care for review and approval.”

Councillor Vercouteren sought clarification as to the approval process. The Director, Health and Seniors Services advised of the procedure.

Councillor Coulter questioned the resident workshop and family quiet room. The Director, Health and Senior Services advised that they are to review needs.

Councillor Arbour sought clarification as to whether the problems with the position of the exit areas had been addressed. The Director, Health and Seniors Services advised of the resident exit area, and the access for bus boarding and fire access. He advised that the issue could be addressed in the next stage of the development process.

Councillor King addressed issues related to savings. The Director, Health and Seniors Services advised of the costs of the kitchen. He advised that they should be able to continue with quality given in the past.

Councillor Schnabel questioned the quiet room and the access to be given to pallative care. The Director, Health and Seniors Services advised that specific rooms are not available at this time. Councillor Schnabel questioned the existence of semi-private rooms and sought clarification as to the smoking room. The General Manager advised that the by-law would allow for residents to smoke, but exclude staff. He approached staff as to the issue to ensure that the interpretation would be correct.

The Mayor commented that the response was a disappointment because Council had passed a By-law that Chatham-Kent was to be 100 percent smoke free, with the belief that they would no longer have to debate the issue.

Councillor Watson asked about the number of elevators that would be available to residents. Mr. Cook advised that the issue concerning more elevators is to be reviewed, 34 but current requirements have been met.

There was further discussion as to the issue of smoking.

Councillor Crawford commented on the size of the private and semi private rooms. Mr. Cook advised on the room size and ministry standards.

Councillor Schnabel questioned the layout and position of the nurse’s stations. Mr. Cook advised that the stations are centrally located.

Councillor Schnabel moved an amendment, Councillor Coulter seconded:

“That each floor have a palliative care room.”

Councillor Crew asked if married couples would be would be allowed in the same room. The Director, Health and Seniors Services advised that the issue would be considered.

Councillor Sulman questioned the dimensions of a private room and a semi-private room.

The Mayor put the amendment. Amendment Carried Unanimously

The Mayor put the Motion, as amended. Motion Carried

Councillor Robbins moved, Councillor Vercouteren:

“That meeting go to 10:40 p.m.” Motion Defeated

Councillor Arbour moved, Councillor Fluker seconded:

“That meeting go to 11:00 p.m.” Motion Carried

(e) Jeff Elliott, JEPSI (Jeff Elliott Playground Inspections) - Findings of the Playground Audits.

Councillor Crew moved, Councillor Vercouteren seconded:

“To bring item # 10(d) forward.”

The Mayor put the Motion. Motion Carried 35

MUNICIPALITY OF CHATHAM-KENT

INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

RECREATION FACILITIES

TO: Mayor and Members of Council

FROM: Deb McKillop, R.D.M.R. Manager, Recreation Facilities Division

DATE: March 10, 2003

RE: Funding Options for the 2003 Playground Equipment Requirements ______

RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that:

1.a. The playground equipment deemed to pose major safety concerns during the 2002 playground safety audit be removed by May 15, 2003, using $51,533 from the Playground Equipment Capital Reserve Fund.

b. Notification letters be sent to all residents within a 1000 foot radius of parks where playground equipment will be removed.

c. Public meetings for regional type playground opportunities, take place to evolve the appropriateness of equipment with the public, within the budgeted amount.

2. The following parks have playground equipment replaced:

· Steele Park – Community of Chatham · Campbell Park – Community of Chatham · Taylor Park – Community of Chatham · Ellis Park – Community of Chatham · Lamarsh Park – Community of Wheatley · Victoria Park School Park – Community of Chatham · Memorial Park – Community of Tilbury · Clearville Community Park – Clearville · Optimist Park – Community of Wallaceburg · Stennet Park – Community of Ridgetown · Ross Babcock Park – Community of Chatham · Henry Smith Park – Community of Chatham · Thames Campus Park – Community of Chatham · Meadowbrook Park – Community of Chatham · Thornhill Park – Community of Chatham · Jaycee Park – Community of Chatham · Campbell Park – Community of Chatham · Don Mahon Park – Community of Chatham · Tecumseh Park – Community of Chatham · Wonderwoods Park – Community of Chatham · Wanless Park – Community of Chatham · J.R. Smith Park – Community of Morpeth · Pain Court Park – Community of Pain Court · Glassford Park – Community of Wallaceburg 36

· McDougall Park – Community of Wallaceburg · Water Tower Park – Community of Wallaceburg

3) The required funding of $780,000 come from the following accounts:

$ 30,000 From the 2002 Enhancement Reserve for Playground Equipment From the 2003 Playground Equipment Replacement Capital $144,000 Reserve Fund $100,000 From the increased CRF Community Renewal Fund for 2003 From the Playground Lifecycle Reserve fund for placement of $485,000 equipment for year 2003, 2004 $765,000 Sub-total $ 6,000 Tilbury Legion Donation $ 15,000 CKICS Donation $780,000 TOTAL

4) Playground equipment audit be performed by a third party auditor every 5 years, starting in 2007, to ensure that compliance with CSA Safety Standards is maintained.

BACKGROUND

In the summer of 2002, an independent playground inspection company completed on site playground inspections using CAN/CSA-Z614-98 Children’s Play spaces and Equipment Standards on eighty-four parks in the Municipality. The on site inspections commenced in June and were completed by the end of September 2002. The inspection company then developed the written playground inspection report and forwarded the information to the Municipality in December of 2002. A report detailing a plan to address the issues identified in the report would be dealt with using existing funding sources was presented to Council on February 17, 2003.

At the February 17, 2003, meeting of Council, further information was requested regarding the removal and replacement of playground equipment and funding options available to fund parks that would be void of equipment.

COMMENTS

The CSA Standards indicate that an annual written inspection be completed on all playground equipment as a risk management tool and to ensure the safety of all who use the playground equipment. The Recreation Facilities staff has adopted the following process, which is recommended in the CSA Standards to minimize risk and be diligent in dealing with safety hazards that may arise in Chatham-Kent playground areas:

· Visual Checks – each time in a park for safety hazards or repairs (minimum standard) · Written Inspections – monthly – safety hazards or repairs are noted and repaired (minimum standard)

Playground Audits such as the one completed during the summer months are completed to identify specifically how the equipment measures to the CSA Standards which are the standards for design, operation and maintenance in the industry. These standards have been developed based on actual case history of injuries and factual data gathered from previous cases and injuries.

Playground audits are performed when various conditions exist to include:

· Change or modification to standards · Change of ownership of equipment 37

· Following a new installation to ensure it is done properly · Following a retrofit of an existing piece of equipment · Every three to five years to determine structural compliance

Since the last playground inspection in 1998, several units have been retrofitted and several new units have been installed.

Third party audits are a good risk management tool completed by a highly trained expert in the playground field. The audits are a way of measuring the level of compliance of playground owners and should be completed every three to five years. Originally it was thought that the audits should be done annually however, since the standards are relatively new to Canada, further clarification has noted that audits need to be done every three to five years or if one of the above conditions exist.

During the audit, recommendations were made by hazards identified and the inspection company to remove some pieces of equipment, retrofit others due to design non-compliance and upgrade safety bases to bring all playground equipment to CSA Standards.

While on site, the inspector found 5 pieces of equipment that posed immediate dangers and suggested immediate removal. The units identified to have life threatening immediate safety issues have been removed. The remaining units were cited and based on the combined safety infractions issues were cited for removal in the final report.

The playground equipment audit cited serious infractions such as the items as listed below:

¨ Head and Neck Entrapment Faults · Impalement Hazards · String and Clothing Entanglement Faults · Pinch Points · Fall/Strike Hazards · Sharp Edge Faults · Structural Fault · Safety Surfacing Deficiencies

The playground inspection report identified fifty-one pieces of equipment that do not meet CSA Standards and that would be costly to retrofit. This equipment must be removed and in doing so 26 parks will be void of playground equipment.

The inspection report sited eighty-eight non-compliant safety bases throughout Chatham-Kent parks. Most injuries on playground equipment occur from fall/strike accidents. A properly installed and maintained safety base is an essential part of playground equipment. To meet the standards some safety bases require enlargement, others require additional sand and some require complete removal and a new installation due to hard panning of the surface. Funding is already set aside to address this issue in the Playground Lifecycle Reserve.

Overview of Playground Audit Results

Total # of parks with playground equipment 84

Total # of parks void of equipment due to recommended Removals safety issues 26

· Total # of units recommended for replacement – February 17/03 RTC 9 · Remaining parks void of equipment through-out Chatham-Kent 17

Total # of pieces of equipment requiring retrofits/possible replacements 63 38

As installation of these units and safety bases are time sensitive, and weather dependent, administration contacted concrete construction companies to ensure that they are able to meet the required installation timetable for a possible twenty-six parks, if approved in 2003.

Playground equipment manufacturing companies have also been contacted to develop pricing on the retrofits to playground equipment and confirm the ability to meet production and installation schedules as required to replace the playground equipment in void parks.

Tentative Replacement Schedule: Playground Equipment RFP Called March 10, 2003 Removals of Non-compliant Equipment March – May ( weather dependent) Safety Base & Excavation Work Tender Called April 2003 Playground Equipment RFP Awarded April 17, 2003 Playground Installations Begin May – July 2003

Retrofitting of Equipment for Compliance:

The playground inspection report also identified sixty-three pieces of playground equipment that require retrofits to reduce and/or eliminate hazards and achieve the CSA Standards compliance. These retrofits vary from swing bearing replacements to removal of climbing apparatus and installation of barriers. Prior to retrofitting a piece of equipment, a cost estimate must be obtained and compared against the purchase of new equipment.

A further report to Council outlining the results of the costing of the retrofits for the balance of the playground equipment and further recommended removals if necessary is anticipated to be available mid year of 2003.

To ensure that Council and the public are aware of the recommended removals, letters will be sent to neighbours within a thousand-foot radius of the park to notify them of the removal. As in past practice, signs will also be erected at each park stating that new equipment will be installed and a phone number for further information.

OTHERS CONSULTED

Engineering & Water/Wastewater Services has reviewed the scope of the proposed projects and confirmed they are able to assist with the projects. The Engineering Division will prepare the documentation for the concrete and excavation work.

Frank Cowan Insurance has been contacted and have indicated that all equipment should meet the Canadian Safety Association Standard and that there is no grand-fathering. The courts will begin to consider 5 years (1998-2002) as sufficient time for operators to be nearing compliance. They further note that when assessing what is “reasonable”, compliance with the standard will most likely be one of the key indicators of the standard of care owed to users and serious items should be removed or replaced immediately. (Appendix “A”)

The Municipality’s insurance carrier has indicated that once the Municipality is aware of a piece of equipment not meeting provincial standards it is their obligation to use due diligence and repair or remove as soon as possible. If an accident occurs and the problem has not been rectified the insurers will still defend the Municipality but the defense would be jeopardized and there could be an effect on rates in the future.

The Director of Legal Services indicated that it is clear that a duty of care is owed by a municipality to the users of its parks. Although the CSA Standard does not automatically define the standard of care at common law or under the provincial occupier’s liability statute, from a practical perspective, it is expected the courts will routinely adopt the standards as the applicable legal standard of care. In light of the inspection reports and the advice of our insurers, in the event an injury occurs to a user of the playground equipment, it is extremely likely that these documents and reports will be used in any subsequent court action against the Municipality. 39

In consultation with the Risk Management Officer, it has been suggested that written checks be completed on a weekly basis. However, the inspection frequency recommended in the report follows the CSA Standards, which govern the industry.

The Director of Community & Social Services has indicated that a final reconciliation of the 2002 enhancement reserve will provide for the one-time funding of playground equipment for one park in the amount of $30,000.

COMMUNITY STRATEGIC PLAN

The information in this report supports the following objectives and strategic directions:

A: Providing a safe, caring and healthy environment by: A3: Promote community activities that encourage positive interaction. A5: Promote healthy lifestyle

Expected Results: · Increased use of facilities · Increase in user satisfaction · Increase in activities among youth

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Options for Funding the 2003 Playground Equipment Requirements:

Council requested that administration investigate ways of funding the replacement of equipment in parks that would be void of equipment once removals are completed.

Total Cost to Replace Parks Void Of Equipment

Total number of parks void of equipment 26 Average cost of replacement equipment $ 30,000 Total funds required for equipment replacement $ 780,000

Sources of available 2003 funding:

2003 playground lifecycle capital budget $ 144,000

Community donations – Tilbury Legion - $6,000 CKICS - $15,000 $ 21,000

Enhancement Fund – one playground $ 30,000 Jan 27/03 Council approved one-time project Community Reinvestment Fund (CRF) $ 100,000 $ 295,000 2003 Funding Shortfall: $ 485,000

Two possible sources of funding the additional requirements for Playground equipment have been identified that include:

· Advanced funding from the Playground Equipment Capital Reserve Fund. · Funding from the Strategic Development Fund

The following options were developed for the replacement of equipment in 26 parks:

Option A: Funding from the Strategic Development Reserve Fund/Lifecycle Advance 1 year 40

· reserve allocation from the Strategic Development Reserve and borrow shortfall from lifecycle reserve balances

At the special meeting on January 27, 2003, Council approved one-time projects for 2003 from the increased CRF funding allocation of $1.4M. Council approved $975,000 to one- time recommended projects, an allocation to a reserve for strategic development of $375,000 and $50,000 unallocated in the Community Development area. This option would recommend the usage of $425,000 for playground equipment replacement.

Impact of Option A:

2003 shortfall from above: $ 485,000 Allocation from Strategic Development Reserve & Unallocated portion of community development initiatives 425,000 Difference – loan from Lifecycle reserve accounts $ 60,000

Operational annual impact 2004:

Current playground capital lifecycle budget $ 160,500 Principle repayment to lifecycle loan 60,000 Available for current capital/retrofit playground issues 2004 only: $ 100,500

· allows for the replacement of playground equipment in the 26 parks that are void of equipment in 2003 · operationally, provides flexibility in addressing retrofitting existing equipment or future equipment replacement for the remaining parks · one year operational impact, namely 2004, where prioritization of needs would be paramount · will also cause a reduction in the amount available for 2004 Playground Lifecycle replacements to $100,500 · the original budget allocation of $160,500 to playground capital lifecycle program would resume in 2005 · replacement of playground equipment through the strategic development reserve, is not the intent of Council on the creation of this reserve

Option B: Advanced funding from the Playground Equipment Capital Reserve Fund

· borrow shortfall from lifecycle reserve balances and repay the principle over a five year period from the playground capital lifecycle budget allocations

Impact of Option B:

Loan from lifecycle budget reserves $ 485,000 Repayment from annual playground capital lifecycle budget over 5 years at the rate of $ 97,000 per year

Operational annual impact 2004 - 2008: Current playground capital lifecycle budget $ 160,500 Principle repayment to lifecycle loan $ 97,000 Available for annual capital/retrofit playground issues 2004 - 2008: $ 63,500

· allows for the replacement of playground equipment in the 26 parks that are void of equipment in 2003. · allows for $63,500 annually to address retrofitting issues or future equipment replacement from 2004 – 2008. · Strategic Development Reserve Fund will still be available for its original intent. 41

· The loan of $485,000 from the lifecycle reserve balances would not attract interest charges since the lifecycle reserve balance are not allocated interest.

Option B is the recommended option noting it allows for the intent of the Strategic Development Reserve and provides flexibility for operations in addressing special circumstances for equipment replacement through the use of the future lifecycle budget allocations.

Prepared by:

______Deb McKillop, R.D.M.R. Manager, Recreation Facilities

Reviewed by: Reviewed by:

______Leo Denys, P.Eng. Joe G. Pavelka, P.Eng., General Manager Chief Administrative Officer Infrastructure & Environmental Services

DM/bk c Gord Quinton, Financial & Performance Services Laurie Spearman, Financial & Performance Services Gary Northcott, Engineering and Water/Waste Water Services Facility Supervisors, Recreation Facilities Division Patti McTaggaert, Risk & Property Management Officer Brian Knott, Director, Legal Services Marylou McLeod, Director, Budget and Performance Services Lucy Brown, Director, Community & Social Services Jim Lundy, Lundy Insurance Jeff Elliot, JEPSI

Attachment: Appendix “A” – Letter from Frank Cowan Insurance

(REF: R:/WORKS/2335.doc)

The Manager, Recreation Facilities Division introduced Mr. Jeff Elliott, Inspector, JEPSI. Mr. Elliott provided Council with a presentation on playground safety, inspections, inspections, revised requirements, audits, playground standards, compliance assessment, hazard analysis, and recommendations.

Councillor King sought clarification in regard to funding. The Manager, Recreation Facilities Division explained the recommendations and donations.

Councillor Fluker moved the recommendations from administration and added a recommendation with regard to fund raising.

Councillor Fluker moved, Councillor King seconded:

“That: 42

1.a. The playground equipment deemed to pose major safety concerns during the 2002 playground safety audit be removed by May 15, 2003, using $51,533 from the Playground Equipment Capital Reserve Fund.

b. Notification letters be sent to all residents within a 1000 foot radius of parks where playground equipment will be removed.

c. Public meetings for regional type playground opportunities, take place to evolve the appropriateness of equipment with the public, within the budgeted amount.

d. That any funds raised by communities for specific parks be used to enhance or add to that playground equipment either by the amount or size of equipment.”

2. The following parks have playground equipment replaced:

· Steele Park – Community of Chatham · Campbell Park – Community of Chatham · Taylor Park – Community of Chatham · Ellis Park – Community of Chatham · Lamarsh Park – Community of Wheatley · Victoria Park School Park – Community of Chatham · Memorial Park – Community of Tilbury · Clearville Community Park – Clearville · Optimist Park – Community of Wallaceburg · Stennet Park – Community of Ridgetown · Ross Babcock Park – Community of Chatham · Henry Smith Park – Community of Chatham · Thames Campus Park – Community of Chatham · Meadowbrook Park – Community of Chatham · Thornhill Park – Community of Chatham · Jaycee Park – Community of Chatham · Campbell Park – Community of Chatham · Don Mahon Park – Community of Chatham · Tecumseh Park – Community of Chatham · Wonderwoods Park – Community of Chatham · Wanless Park – Community of Chatham · J.R. Smith Park – Community of Morpeth · Pain Court Park – Community of Pain Court · Glassford Park – Community of Wallaceburg · McDougall Park – Community of Wallaceburg · Water Tower Park – Community of Wallaceburg

3. The required funding of $780,000 come from the following accounts:

From the 2002 Enhancement Reserve for Playground $ 30,000 Equipment From the 2003 Playground Equipment Replacement $144,000 Capital Reserve Fund From the increased CRF Community Renewal Fund for $100,000 2003 From the Playground Lifecycle Reserve fund for $506,000 placement of equipment for year 2003, 2004 $780,000 Total 43

4. Playground equipment audit be performed by a third party auditor every 5 years, starting in 2007, to ensure that compliance with CSA Safety Standards is maintained.”

Councillor Fluker added that he felt that communities who fund raise should have the benefit of having the funds go towards their community, and not towards the whole of Chatham-Kent.

The Mayor reported that should the Parks Department require assistance for work that needs to be done, assistance would be available from the community.

Councillor Van Gassen asked whether the equipment could be retrofitted and what the financial implications would be. The Manager, Recreation Facilities Division advised that there would be a report to go before Council.

Councillor Sulman sought clarification as to removal of equipment. The Manager, Recreation Facilities Division advised that some removal procedures had begun. Councillor Sulman discussed obtaining a schedule of time with regard to installation of additional equipment. The Manager, Recreation Facilities Division explained the tendering process and that after this process a proposed schedule would be given to Council.

Councillor Arbour questioned the installation process. The Manager, Recreation Facilities Division advised that the supplier would be required to install the equipment.

In response to a question from Councillor Crew, the Manager, Recreation Facilities Division advised that the equipment would be steel construction and she further explained the unit design.

Councillor McGregor sought clarification as to the future in regard to funds. The Manager, Recreation Facilities Division responded that it would be difficult to predict the future situation without the knowledge as to the effect of the retrofit equipment.

Councilor Watson asked about the removal of equipment and notification of residents. The Manager, Recreation Facilities Division stated that there would be a draft letter to be provided simultaneous with the removal of equipment. Public meetings would be held to determine age appropriateness of the equipment. She reported that a proposal had already gone out allowing for flexibility for the choice of equipment.

Councillor Crawford sought clarification as to the proposal. The Manager, Recreation Facilities Division stated that they had asked for a proposal in regard to the equipment suggested in the report.

The Mayor put the Motion. Motion Carried

READING OF THE MINUTES

(a) the Council Meeting held on October 28, 2002.

Councillor Arbour moved, Councillor Crawford seconded:

“That the minutes from the Council Meeting held on October 28, 2002 be accepted as presented.”

The Mayor put the Motion. 44

Motion Carried

COMMUNITY, HEALTH & PROTECTIVE SERVICES

Report from administration re

(a) West Nile Virus Operational Plan for Vector Control Measures. As dealt with above

(b) Long-Term Care Redevelopment - Sketch Plans. As dealt with above

(c) Mayor’s Youth Council Coordinator Position.

MUNICIPALITY OF CHATHAM-KENT

COMMUNITY, HEALTH AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES

CULTURE AND RECREATION SERVICES

TO: Mayor and Members of Council

FROM: Evelyn Bish Manager, Culture and Recreation Services

DATE: February 19, 2003

SUBJECT: Mayor’s Youth Council Coordinator Position

RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that:

1. The contract for the Mayor’s Youth Council Coordinator position be extended for a one- year period using unspent funds from the Ontario Works Enhancement Fund.

BACKGROUND

In 2002, the Mayor’s Youth Council (MYC) was created through the work of a Youth Recreation Project Coordinator (position funded by the Enhancement Fund) and a Project Assistant (position funded by Human Resources Development Canada). Since that time, the MYC has been extremely busy initiating a number of projects to benefit the youth of Chatham-Kent.

In November 2002, an application was made to the Community Mobilization Program (CMP) for funding of the MYC Coordinator position for a one-year period. Administration was told the proposal was well written and had an excellent chance of being approved. Based on this, the project was removed from the Ontario Works Enhancement Fund project list during the Budget process. However, on February 13, 2003, administration was informed that CMP was “unable to support our proposal.”

COMMENTS

The MYC is still in the growth stage of its development. It is important that the MYC, an 45 energetic group of young people who are contributing their time to this initiative, has administrative support from the Municipality to give them direction and assistance.

The projects the MYC is currently working on include:

Completion of the Chatham-Kent Skate Park Project - Plans involve: · fundraising approximately $185,000 · finalizing the site selection and design of four skate parks · holding public meetings on the selected sites and designs · reporting to Municipal Council in July to obtain approval on the selected sites · construction of the four parks · grand opening ceremonies for all four parks.

International Youth Week - Youth Week is an internationally celebrated event that highlights the positive contributions made by youth in their local communities. MYC will host a full week of events May 3rd to May 9th, 2003. Duties include: · planning and implementing seven events (one per day) · obtaining event sponsors · approaching existing youth organizations and request that they plan an event during the week.

General Membership - MYC will host six public meetings, one in each of the six wards in Chatham-Kent. These meeting will give youth an opportunity to talk about youth issues and learn more about the MYC. These meetings will be scheduled from April to September 2003. The goal is to recruit youth to sit on MYC on a general membership basis, as well as fill the positions of those Executive members leaving to go to College and University.

Youth Recreation Project (if Recreation Development Fund Grant is approved) - To develop a leadership training workshop to be delivered in each of the six wards in Chatham-Kent (timeframe May 1, 2003 to April 30, 2004). As well, implement a minimum of three new youth recreational activities in Chatham-Kent.

Coordinator’s Responsibilities:

· oversee the development and administration of the Mayor’s Youth Council · facilitate and attend regularly scheduled meetings of the MYC · offer guidance and suggestions for improvement · provide and promote training and leadership opportunities · assist with specialized projects, reports and presentations to Municipal Council, Mayor, staff, and community organizations · manage the MYC operating budget · assist with the planning, organization and supervision of International Youth Week special events and programs (May 3rd to May 9th, 2003) · work with the MYC to establish subcommittees that focus on youth recreation, youth awareness and promotion of youth issues · investigate the opportunity to develop a “Youth Activities Website” which promotes all recreation programs and services for youth in the community · investigate and proceed with the implementation strategies as identified in the Youth Recreation Development Strategy Report · identify funding opportunities and innovative revenue generation sources for youth initiatives. (e.g. private, provincial, federal).

The Ontario Works Enhancement Fund has some unspent funds that were intended for use in the Social Services area. The Social Services Division has been able to secure Ministry funding and is able to reallocate $35,000 for the Mayor’s Youth Council Coordinator position. This position would be for a one-year time period from March 1, 2003 to February 28, 2004. 46

COMMUNITY STRATEGIC PLAN

The information in this report supports the following objectives and strategic directions:

A: Providing a safe, caring and healthy environment A3: Promote community activities that encourage positive social interaction. A5: Promote healthy lifestyles. A6: Foster a safe and caring community.

E: Encourage community leadership that is supportive to the whole of Chatham-Kent E2: Encourage public participation in decision making and input for all community issues. E5: Build visionary leadership capacity in our community.

OTHERS CONSULTED

§ Director, Community and Social Services, who approved the forwarding of this request to Council and who confirmed that there are dollars available in the Enhancement Fund.

BUDGET IMPACTS

There are no base budget impacts with this report, as the funding would come from unspent funds from the Ontario Works Enhancement Fund.

Prepared by:

______Evelyn Bish, B.A. Manager, Culture and Recreation Services

Reviewed by: Reviewed by:

______Greg G. Keating, B.A., M.P.A. Joe G. Pavelka, P. Eng. General Manager, Chief Administrative Officer Community, Health and Protective Services c.: Lucy Brown, Director, Community and Social Services, Community, Health and Protective Services

EB/eb

R:RTC/cult&rec/rec/myccoord/02/03

Councillor Coulter moved, Councillor Gordon seconded:

“That the contract for the Mayor’s Youth Council Coordinator position be extended for a one-year period using unspent funds from the Ontario Works Enhancement Fund.” 47

The Mayor put the Motion. Motion Carried

------

Council determined that due to the late hour of the meeting the remaining items would be deferred until April 7, 2003.

------

ENGINEERING, WATER/WASTEWATER SERVICES

Report from administration re

(a) Tender Award: Slope Stabilization, Grand River Line, Community of Dover. Deferred

(b) Sidewalk and Concrete Repair Program – 2003. Deferred

(c) Chatham-Kent, 2003 Asphalt Resurfacing Program. Deferred

(d) Culvert Structures: Lucas, Wetherford and Howard Drains Detour Considerations, Community of Harwich. Deferred

INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

Report from administration re

(a) Community Use Agreement for the Playground Area with Chatham-Kent Integrated Children’s Services. Deferred

(b) Proposed Distribution of $250,000 Lifecycle Budget Reduction. Deferred

(c) Leveling Lining Services for Sport Field Users.

Councillor Sulman moved, Councillor Vercouteren seconded:

“That report be tabled for two weeks so that administration and user groups can get together to discuss possible solutions and bring a report back to Council.”

There was discussion as to time constraints and concerns associated with the tabling of item #10(c).

The Mayor put the Motion. Motion Carried

(d) Funding Options for 2003 Playground Equipment Requirements. As Dealt with above 48

FINANCIAL AND PERFORMANCE SERVICES

Report from administration re

(a) Support for the Prime Minister’s Caucus Task Force on Urban Issues Final Report. Deferred 49

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

Report from administration re

(a) Retail Business Holidays Act Exemption By-law. As dealt with above

(b) Excellence in Manufacturing Consortium (EMC) OSTAR Funding Agreement.

MUNICIPALITY OF CHATHAM-KENT

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

TO: Mayor and Members of Council

FROM: G.J. (Greg) Borduas, Director, Economic Development Services

DATE: March 24, 2003

SUBJECT: Excellence in Manufacturing Consortium (EMC) OSTAR Funding Agreement

RECOMMENDATIONS:

It is recommended that:

1. A bylaw ratifying and confirming the actions of the Mayor and Clerk in signing an OSTAR funding agreement between Midwestern Ontario Excellence in Manufacturing Consortium carrying on business at Excellence in Manufacturing, The City of Brockville, The Municipality of Chatham-Kent and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, be approved.

BACKGROUND:

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has developed the Rural Economic Development Program – on Ontario Small Town and Rural (OSTAR) development initiative. This program is intended to address barriers to economic growth and ensure small town and rural communities remain viable, healthy and vibrant places in which to live work and invest.

Chatham-Kent, in conjunction with the City of Brockville and EMC applied for a grant under the program which is intended to lead to the formation of two new clusters of rural-based manufacturing businesses, one in the St. Lawrence Valley, centered in Brockville, in Eastern Ontario and one in Southwestern Ontario, in Chatham-Kent. The purpose of fostering these clusters or networks of manufacturing companies is two-fold:

· To enable them to have peer-to-peer relationships, under expert facilitation, to solve common problems and access solutions to their needs in such key areas of their operation as technical/engineering, human resources, quality assurance, marketing and inbound and outbound logistics. · To enable them to realize economies of scale in accessing training programs and internships for new hires or raising the skills of existing employees to handle more complex and changing technologies. 50

The lead co-applicant Excellence in Manufacturing Consortium (EMC) is a not-for-profit association of manufacturers and exporters, incorporated to facilitate each of its member’s development, both individually and collectively towards world-class competitiveness, as a strong community infrastructure of business. All EMC members are globally competitive and produce a variety of high precision products and services that are marketed throughout the world. EMC offers programming and project assistance for the manufacturing sector in support of their business operations. Advice and consultation with respect to industry issues being faced by the manufacturing sector is a major role of EMC.

COMMENTS:

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has now approved 50% grant funding in the amount of $1,800,000 for a total project value of $3,600.00.

As part of the approval process, it is necessary for applicants to enter into a funding agreement with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. A copy of the agreement will be available in the Councillor’s Lounge and Legal Services, for Council’s review.

Originally, OSTAR secretariat had determined that approvals through the budget process and Routine Approvals bylaw were adequate for the signing of the agreement, but a request has now been made for a formal stand-alone bylaw to deal with the execution of the agreement. The bylaw has been prepared and is listed on the Agenda for approval.

COMMUNITY STRATEGIC PLAN:

The EMC project supports the following objectives and strategic directions:

B – Working aggressively to develop a diversified economic base.

B 1 – Brand and promote Chatham-Kent B 2 – Nurture complementary new and existing businesses B 3 – Develop and promote Chatham-Kent as a desirable tourist destination B 4 – Ensure that agriculture continues to be a key economic sector of the Chatham-Kent economy

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

The Municipality of Chatham-Kent’s contribution to this project is $5,000.00 and is included in the 2003 budget of Economic Development Services.

OTHERS CONSULTED:

The Legal Services Department was consulted in the preparation of this report.

Prepared by:

______G.J. (Greg) Borduas, Ec.D. (F) Director, Economic Development Services 51

Reviewed by: Reviewed by:

______Mike Phipps Joe G. Pavelka, P. Eng. General Manager Chief Administrative Officer Strategic and Development Services

Councillor Van Gassen moved, Councillor Vercouteren seconded:

“That a bylaw ratifying and confirming the actions of the Mayor and Clerk in signing an OSTAR funding agreement between Midwestern Ontario Excellence in Manufacturing Consortium carrying on business at Excellence in Manufacturing, The City of Brockville, The Municipality of Chatham-Kent and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, be approved.”

The Mayor put the Motion. Motion Carried

REPORTS FROM COUNCIL IN-CAMERA

(a) Council In-Camera held on March 17, 2003.

REVISED COUNCIL IN-CAMERA REPORT

MARCH 17, 2003

The Council met In-camera on the above noted date and would report the following for the approval of Council.

APPOINTMENT TO COURT OF REVISION

Council considered a report from Gary Northcott, Manager, Engineering Division, Engineering and Water/Wastewater Services with respect to an appointment to the Court of Revision. It was moved and carried In-Camera.

Councillor Van Gassen moved, Councillor Vercouteren seconded:

“1. That the appointment of Mr. Ron Vince to the Court of Revision be approved and;

2. The appointment by-law be amended by including Mr. Ron Vince.”

The Mayor put the Motion. Motion Carried

(b) Council In-Camera held on March 17, 2003.

The Council met In-camera on the above noted date and would report the following for the approval of Council.

Councillor Van Gassen moved, Councillor King seconded: 52

“That items 1-4 in regard to CAO restructuring be accepted.”

The Mayor put the Motion.

Motion Carried

READING OF BY-LAWS

(a) FIRST READING

Councillor Robbins moved, Councillor Schnabel seconded:

“That by-laws (i) to (iii) be taken as read for the first time.”

The Mayor put the Motion. Motion Carried

(c) SECOND READING

Councillor Robbins moved, Councillor Schnabel seconded:

“That by-laws (i) to (iii) be taken as read for the second time.”

The Mayor put the Motion. Motion Carried

(c) COUNCIL TO GO INTO COMMITTEE, IF REQUIRED, TO DISCUSS BY-LAWS

(d) RESUMPTION OF COUNCIL

(e) THIRD AND FINAL READING

Councillor Crew moved, Councillor King seconded:

“That by-laws (i) to (iii) be taken as read for the third time.”

The Mayor put the Motion. Motion Carried i. By-law to provide for holiday openings in the Community of Chatham within the Municipality of Chatham-Kent (Zehrs Market – 835 Queen Street and 801 St. Clair Street). ii. By-law to confirm proceedings of the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of Chatham-Kent at its meeting held on the 24 day of March, 2002. iii. By-law to ratify and confirm the action of the Mayor and Clerk in executing an agreement under the Rural Economic Development Program (OSTAR – File 4252). 53

RE: IN-CAMERA MEETING AND ADJOURNMENT

Councillor Fluker moved, Councillor Crew seconded:

“That Chatham-Kent adjourn to its next Meeting to be held at 6:00 p.m. on Monday April 7, 2003 and that Chatham-Kent Council authorize itself to meet in closed session prior to such Meeting to discuss any matters permitted by The Municipal Act to be considered at a closed meeting.”

The Mayor put the Motion. Motion Carried

The Meeting adjourned at 11:25 p.m.

______Mayor

______Clerk

/TQ