THE DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA CORPORATE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES COMMITTEE A G E N D A

Transcription

1 THE DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA CORPORATE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES COMMITTEE A G E N D A Meeting No. CES Thursday October 20, 2016 Following the Joint Meeting of Planning and Economic Development Committee and Corporate and Emergency Services Committee Council Chamber, District Administration Building 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY INTERESTS 3. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES a) IT Services Webcasting Analysis Report No. CES Recommendation THAT the cost of a one (1) year contract for webcasting services of $7,125 and the cost of the equipment and installation services of $13, BE INCLUDED in the 2017 Draft Tax Supported Operating Budget for deliberation. 4. FACILITIES SERVICES a) Carbon Cap and Trade Program Report No. CES Recommendation This report is provided for information. 5. BUDGETS AND FINANCIAL PLANNING a) Results of the Removal of Individual Capital Project Budget Estimates in the 2016 Roads Capital Budget and Forecast Documents Report No. CES Recommendation THAT the pilot project for the removal of the individual capital project budget estimates for the Roads Capital Budget and Forecast BE EXTENDED to the 2017 budget; AND THAT the results of the pilot project BE REPORTED to Council through a report in the fall of 2017.

2 6. FINANCE a) Inflation Index Development Charges Report No. CES Recommendation. THAT an increase of 1.2% in Development Charges in accordance with Section 33 (1) of By-law be authorized effective January 1, b) Paramedic Services User Fees Report No. CES Recommendation THAT when the User Fee By-law is considered at the November 21, 2016 District Council meeting, that Paramedic Services fees, as attached, BE INCLUDED as Section 12 of Schedule A of said by-law to become effective January 1, c) OPP s 2017 Municipal Policing Billing Statement Report No. CES MOTIONS Recommendation This report is provided for information. a) Association of Municipalities of Ontario What s Next Ontario? Project District Chair J. Klinck and Councillor G. Smith requested that the following motion be considered by Corporate and Emergency Services Committee: Moved by J. Klinck and seconded by G. Smith WHEREAS recent polling, conducted on behalf of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario indicates 76% of Ontarians are concerned or somewhat concerned property taxes will not cover the cost of infrastructure while maintaining municipal services, and 90% agree maintaining safe infrastructure is an important priority for their communities; AND WHEREAS infrastructure and transit are identified by Ontarians as the biggest problems facing their municipal government; AND WHEREAS a ten-year projection ( ) of municipal expenditures against inflationary property tax and user fee increases, shows there to be an unfunded average annual need of $3.6 billion to fix local infrastructure and provide for municipal operating needs; AND WHEREAS the $3.6 billion average annual need would equate to annual increases of 4.6% (including inflation) to province-wide property tax revenue for the next ten years;

3 8. NEW BUSINESS 9. ADJOURNMENT AND WHEREAS this gap calculation also presumes all existing and multi-year planned federal and provincial transfers to municipal governments are fulfilled; AND WHEREAS if future federal and provincial transfers are unfulfilled beyond 2015 levels, it would require annual province-wide property tax revenue increases of up to 8.35% for ten years; AND WHEREAS Ontarians already pay the highest property taxes in the country; AND WHEREAS each municipal government in Ontario faces unique issues, the fiscal health and needs are a challenge which unites all municipal governments, regardless of size; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this Council supports the Association of Municipalities of Ontario in its work to close the fiscal gap; so that all municipalities can benefit from predictable and sustainable revenue, to finance the pressing infrastructure and municipal service needs faced by all municipal governments. Recommendation THAT the Corporate and Emergency Services Committee adjourns to meet again on Monday November 21, 2016 at 3:00 p.m. or at the call of the Chair. This agenda can be viewed in a larger font by increasing the magnification of the page. Please note that hearing-assistive devices are available in the Council Chamber.

4 TO: FROM: Chair and Members Corporate and Emergency Services Committee Chantelle Denstedt Director, IT Services DATE: October 20, 2016 SUBJECT: IT Services Webcasting Analysis REPORT NO: CES RECOMMENDATION THAT the cost of a one (1) year contract for webcasting services of $7,125 and the cost of the equipment and installation services of $13, BE INCLUDED in the 2017 Draft Tax Supported Operating Budget for deliberation. ORIGIN On February 15, 2016 the Communications Committee requested that Staff provide a cost analysis on the provision of webcasting services, including live streaming and archiving of District Council and Standing Committee meetings. ANALYSIS On March 16, 2016 IT Services submitted a Request for Information (RFI) to five (5) potential vendors. Two (2) vendors conducted an onsite visit of the Council Chamber at 70 Pine Street, and submitted proposals: Advanced Inc. isi Global Webcasting (Integrating Solutions Inc.) isi Global Webcasting stated that they provide webcasting services only, yet could assist with the equipment required for the video capture, if required. Advanced Inc. stated they could provide the equipment required for the video capture but could not provide the webcasting services. Upon further investigation this split of services seems to be common among other webcasting and audio/visual providers. Both providers felt that a wide-angle camera, located in the back of the right hand corner by the public entry door to the Council Chamber, would capture the full room. Both proposals are based on a stationary camera capturing the full room versus a camera that requires an operator to scan people in the room. In a Council session, viewers would see members of Council and would see the backs of staff, due to the layout of the Council Chamber. Page 1

5 Advanced Inc. Advanced Inc. is a leading audio/visual and collaborative communications company that works with Fortune 500 corporations and all levels of government and government agencies. Advanced Inc. is the provider of the existing audio/visual equipment in the District s Council Chamber today and has intimate knowledge of the existing equipment. The following is included in Advanced Inc. s proposal: Two static wide shot cameras; Installation of the cameras; Ability for staff to switch on the touch panel between a presenter view and a room shot; A device for video and audio capture with the capacity of 400 GB of storage. The device can record and stream simultaneously; and The reprogramming of the existing control system for the ability to pick the view (presenter versus room), as well as a simple way to turn off recording features during closed sessions. The following is not included in Advanced Inc, s proposal: Webcasting services isi Global Webcasting (Integrating Solutions Inc.) isi Global Webcasting (isi) is a hosted webcasting service provider that offers professional service, support, expertise, storage (archiving) and bandwidth, and can host and stream exclusively through Canadian servers. While isi does not include cameras and production equipment, they state they can integrate with any existing Audio/Video (AV) infrastructure and can assist with the integration of any new AV. In 2015, the Town of Bracebridge entered into a one-year trial webcasting service with isi. After a successful trial, the Town renewed their contract for a three (3) year term. The following is included in isi s proposal: The ability to capture and stream meetings live from the District s Council Chamber; The ability to archive meeting videos that are made available from the District s website; The ability to automatically switch the output of the presentation feeding the projectors; An unlimited number of webcasts for both live and archived material; An unlimited number of viewers for live and archived material; Access to metrics of live and archived views; and The ability to index the archived material for faster search capability. The following is not included in isi s proposal: Cameras and production equipment. Further, isi has offered a discount to both the Town of Bracebridge and the District of Muskoka if the District of Muskoka enters into an agreement with isi. Further cost reductions would be extended if other Muskoka lower-tier municipalities decide to utilize isi as a webcasting service provider. Page 2

6 Staff Considerations District Staff spoke with the Town of Bracebridge staff regarding their webcast implementation. Overall, the implementation was a success and has received positive feedback from members of the public. Bracebridge staff indicated that staff time is required for troubleshooting and resolving issues, and that training is required for the staff that will be supporting the equipment. Audio Visual (AV) support is not part of the IT Shared Services contract. Issues that have arisen that required support may include: Internet browser compatibility issues and support of public members; Switching between presentations, and closed and open sessions; Delays when moving from closed to open session; Lack of synchronization of voice with the recording; and Upload issues to the video provider. Town of Bracebridge staff suggested that creating index points on the main agenda items for webcast fast forward capabilities is manageable. Further Town of Bracebridge staff confirmed that the webcasts are transitory records for records management purposes and as such, if an issue with the webcast technology is not easily resolved, the meeting will progress without the webcast. To date only half a meeting has not been recorded. Closed session agenda items will not be webcast, as the technology allows for the integrity of closed session portions of any meetings to be preserved. Additional uses will also be explored to fully leverage the investment in this technology, such as, webcasting of training, engagement sessions or other stakeholder meetings that take place in the Council Chamber. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS Advanced Inc. The District of Muskoka currently owns a portion of the equipment that is required for the audio/video capture of the Council and Standing Committee meetings that take place in Council Chamber. The owned equipment has been reflected in the quote below. Description Qty Unit Price Total Creston CP-2E Processor (existing) Crestron STX-1700C touch panel (existing) Crestron TPS-2000L (existing) Crestron C2N-IO Interface control module Extron H.264 Streaming Media Processor 1 5, , Vaddio Wideshot QUSB camera 2 2, , VGA-HDMI converter adapter Shop stock Integration Services 1 4, , Total (pre-tax) $16, Page 3

7 isi Global Webcasting isi offers webcasting services at a base price of $7,500 per year, and an incentive rate of $6,000 per year for a 3-year commitment. isi has offered to extend a 5% discount to both the Town of Bracebridge and the District of Muskoka, if the District of Muskoka commits to enter into either a 1-year or 3-year plan. For each Muskoka lower-tier municipality that decides to offer webcasting services using isi, each municipality will receive an additional 5% discount up to a maximum of 20%. *1 Current State Annual Cost Town of Bracebridge 3 years $6,000 District Joins Town of Bracebridge $5,700 District of Muskoka 1 year $7,125 District of Muskoka 3 years $5,700 Additional Lower Tier Town of Bracebridge 3 years $5,400 District of Muskoka 1 year $6,750 District of Muskoka 3 years $5,400 Additional Lower Tier 1 year $6,750 Additional Lower Tier 3 years $5,400 *1 Discount to be applied at time of yearly renewal date. Other Financial Considerations: Advanced Inc. included two (2) cameras in their quote. The intent of their proposal was to provide the ability to switch between the meeting and a presentation, in the event of a projected presentation. isi offers new technology that enables the platform to automatically switch the output of the presentation that is feeding the projectors. The encoder will identify if a presentation is live, and will automatically switch the video source to the presentation source. This new technology is currently being implemented at the Town of Bracebridge. Staff recommend that only one (1) camera is required which would reduce Advanced Inc. s quote by $2, to a total (pre-tax) of $13, The existing 100 Mbps circuit will meet the needs of the webcasting service. No additional funds are required for circuits. Summary Assuming the District of Muskoka enters into a 1-year contract with isi and purchases additional equipment from Advanced Inc. to accommodate one (1) wide angle camera, the first year cost would be: Advanced Inc. (one time) $13, isi Global Webcasting $7, Total $20, Page 4

8 The expense for Webcasting Services has not been included in the 2016 Operating Budget, but is being recommended to be included in the 2017 Draft Tax Supported Operating Budget for consideration. COMMUNICATIONS The outcome of this report will be communicated back to the Communications Committee. STRATEGIC PRIORITIES This report supports the following Strategic Priorities: 9.1 Maintain a close and effective working relationship between Muskoka and all Area Councils and administrations. Work collectively for the betterment of Muskoka Improve the information available to the public on the responsibilities of Muskoka District. Update the corporate website as a source of Muskoka information and move toward an online business transaction capability. Respectfully submitted, Original signed by Chantelle Denstedt Director, IT Services Original signed by Julie Stevens CPA, CA Commissioner of Finance and Corporate Services Page 5

9 TO: FROM: Chair and Members Corporate and Emergency Services Committee Jeff Yeo Manager, Facilities Services DATE: October 20, 2016 SUBJECT: Carbon Cap and Trade Program REPORT NO: CES RECOMMENDATION This report is provided for information. ORIGIN On May 18, 2016, the Ontario government passed the Climate Change Mitigation and Low- Carbon Economy Act (Act). Included in the act is a carbon cap and trade regulation which took effect on July 1, 2016 and will be based on specified greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on or after January 1, ANALYSIS Within the Act, Organizations that operate facilities which generate more than 25,000 tonnes of GHG or perform specified production activities that generate more than 10,000 tonnes of GHG annually will be mandatorily required to participate in the provincial cap and trade program as capped emitters. Capped emitters will have specified annual caps on GHG emissions for their specific operation. The emission caps will be reduced over time requiring capped emitters to invest in reducing emissions or purchase additional emission credits for any emissions over the established cap. The provincial government has estimated that the cap and trade program will generate about $1.9 billion per year which is planned for reinvestment into projects that reduce GHG pollution. Some examples of the expected project investments include public transit, electric vehicle incentives and social housing retrofits. A staff review of the regulation and related information regarding the cap and trade program indicates that the District will not be required to participate in the program as a capped emitter. This is based on the fact that the District does not perform any specific capped activities addressed in the regulation and generates a combined annual average of 3,330 tonnes of Page 1

10 equivalent GHG emissions as a result of electricity and natural gas consumed to operate all District facilities. This combined annual average is well below the annual threshold of 25,000 tonnes of GHG per facility for capped emitters. The regulation includes opportunities for organizations to voluntarily participate in the cap and trade program, however staff are not recommending participation until more is understood about voluntary participation in the program. Staff will continue to monitor and report annually on GHG emissions resulting from District facility operations through the Corporate Energy Conservation and Demand Management Plan. Natural gas, gasoline and diesel suppliers will be required to participate in the carbon cap and trade regulation. As a result, it is expected that commodity rates will increase as of January 1, 2017 when the carbon cap and trade regulation comes into effect. Preliminary estimates indicate that natural gas will increase $0.033/m 3, gasoline will increase $0.043/L and diesel will increase $0.05/L on January 1, Electricity generation using fossil fuels, such as natural gas, will be affected by carbon cap and trade. The Provincial Government has maintained that the cost of electricity for residential consumers under the regulated price program (RPP) will not be affected. It is however expected that non-residential consumers paying for electricity at the hourly Ontario electricity price (HOEP) will be charged for any price premiums as a result of carbon cap and trade. Preliminary estimates of these premiums have been estimated at $0.006/kWh but have not yet been confirmed. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS Natural gas purchases for District facility operations are included in the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) and the Housing Services Corporation (HSC) purchasing groups. These purchasing groups have secured natural gas purchases at a rate that is $0.02/m 3 lower than the previous rate. The resulting net impact of carbon cap and trade and decreased natural gas rates means the District will pay $0.013/m 3 more for natural gas in 2017 or approximately $6,000. The impact of price increases for gas and diesel are estimated at just under $30,000 annually for the District, based on litres consumed in operations in 2015 and price increases of $0.043/L for gasoline and $0.05/L for diesel. The estimated impact on electricity costs as a result of carbon cap and trade based on electricity consumed in 2015 is $120,000. Staff will include these carbon cap and trade related considerations in the 2017 Draft Tax and Rate Supported budgets, in addition to any other cost pressures on these commodities. COMMUNICATION As additional details relating to the carbon cap and trade program are made available by the Province, staff will provide updates on the impact to the District. Page 2

11 STRATEGIC PRIORITIES The information in this report supports the following Strategic Priority: 5.11 Report annually to Council on the carbon footprint reductions achieved. Respectfully submitted, Original signed by Jeff Yeo, A.Sc.T. Manager, Facilities Services Original signed by Julie Stevens, CPA, CA Commissioner of Finance and Corporate Services Page 3

12 TO: FROM: Chair and Members Corporate and Emergency Services Committee Julie Stevens Commissioner of Finance and Corporate Services DATE: October 20, 2016 SUBJECT: Results of the Removal of Individual Capital Project Budget Estimates in the 2016 Roads Capital and Forecast Documents REPORT NO: CES RECOMMENDATION THAT the pilot project for the removal of the individual capital project budget estimates for the Roads Capital Budget and Forecast BE EXTENDED to the 2017 budget; AND THAT the results of the pilot project BE REPORTED to Council through a report in the fall of ORIGIN Report CES requested the implementation of a pilot project for the removal of the individual capital project budget estimates in the 2016 Roads Capital Budget document in order to evaluate the impact on bids received for individual projects. ANALYSIS The 2016 Roads Capital Budget and Forecast document that was included in the budget binders for public release did not show dollar amounts for individual capital projects. Instead, there was a triangle symbol which indicated the year that the specific project was scheduled to be undertaken. The expectation was that the District may see improved pricing on projects as the project budget would not be known or available. In order to evaluate the impact of this pilot project, staff compared the average unit prices in 2016 against four groups: Average unit prices between 2010 to 2015, using both actual prices and inflated prices based on the annual construction index, and Average unit prices from 2015 only, using both actual and inflated prices. Page 1

13 The comparison to the 2010 to 2015 group analyzed unit prices for 41 different activities or materials from 24 projects. The comparison to 2015 contracts analyzed unit pricing for 27 different activities or materials from five projects. The following table summarizes the results of the analysis by showing the percentage of 2016 unit prices that were below and above the comparator groups. Average Unit Price Comparator Group % of 2016 Unit Prices Below Comparator Group % of 2016 Unit Prices Above Comparator Group Actual Prices Actual Prices 2015 Inflated Prices Inflated Prices % 35% 49% 37% 61% 65% 51% 63% As the summary table above shows, 2016 unit prices were above the comparator groups between 51% and 65% of the time. As such, there is not significant evidence to support that the elimination of individual capital project budget estimates from the Capital Budget and Forecast documents resulted in reduced construction contract pricing. However, it should be noted that there were only three contracts in 2016 used in the comparison, which is likely not a suitable sample size to rely upon for any meaningful conclusions. Given this limited number of contracts in 2016, staff s recommendation is to extend the pilot for another year and report back on the results. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS There are no financial considerations at this time. COMMUNICATIONS If Committee and Council agree with the recommendation, staff will exclude the budget estimates for individual projects in the 2017 Roads Capital Budget and Forecast documents. STRATEGIC PRIORITIES This report supports the following Strategic Priority: 2. Build financial strength and demonstrate fiscal responsibility and accountability through the budget process, public reporting of budget results, the corporate credit rating and debt reduction. Respectfully submitted, Original signed by Julie Stevens, CPA, CA Commissioner of Finance and Corporate Services Original signed by Michael Duben, B.A., LL.B. Chief Administrative Officer Page 2

14 TO: FROM: Chair and Members Corporate and Emergency Services Committee Julie Stevens Commissioner of Finance and Corporate Services DATE: October 20, 2016 SUBJECT: Inflation Index Development Charges REPORT NO: CES RECOMMENDATION THAT an increase of 1.2% in Development Charges in accordance with Section 33 (1) of By-law be authorized effective January 1, ORIGIN By-law which is the District s Development Charge by-law, provides for annual indexing of the charges upon approval of the Corporate and Emergency Services Committee. ANALYSIS Indexing of Development Charge Fees By-law imposed development charges for roads, water and sewer effective July 14, 2014 and is valid for five years. Section 33 provides for the indexing of the charges in accordance with the regulations to the Act. Since the adoption of the Development Charges by-law in 2014, which reduced the fees as outlined in Resolution 114/2014, no increases have been instituted. Indexing the development charges by the CanaData Construction Cost Index, Ontario Series, twelve-month average of 1.2% will ensure that the purchasing power of the fees collected will not be further eroded through inflationary increases. The following table shows the scheduled development charges, as amended by the 1.2% increase, for a single detached home in the urban service and rural areas. Single Detached Home In Current Charges As of January 1, 2017 Proposed Increase Urban Service Area $9,332 $9,444 $112 Rural Area $3,386 $3,427 $41 Page 1

15 A revised rate schedule has been included as Schedule A for your information, which shows the present rates and the adjusted rates for the next year noted under the Effective January 1, 2017 columns. COMMUNICATION The DC pamphlet and supporting schedule will be updated with the revised rates. Staff will communicate the changes to each of the lower-tier municipalities and send out reminders close to or immediately after the calendar year-end. The development community will be also be notified of any approved changes through circulation of the updated DC pamphlet. The information on the District website will be updated to reflect Council s decision. STRATEGIC PRIORITIES This report supports the following Strategic Priorities: 2.1 (in part) Strengthen the overall financial position by adopting and implementing a set of clearly defined financial objectives, including reducing the capital debt associated with sewer and water capital projects. 2.9 Continue the development of a long range financial plan for the replacement and upgrade of corporate infrastructure that is both financially viable and consistent with the needs and expectations of Council and other governing regulatory bodies. Respectfully submitted, Original signed by Julie Stevens, CPA, CA Commissioner of Finance and Corporate Services Original signed by Michael Duben, B.A., LL.B. Chief Administrative Officer Page 2

16 Schedule "A" Schedules indexed effective January 1, 2017 (a) (b) SCHEDULE "B1" TO BY-LAW SCHEDULE OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGES Single Family Residential Development, Duplexes and Semi Detached Residential Development Low Density Multiple Unit Residential Development (i) Townhouses and Row Housing (c) High Density Residential (i) Buildings, Suites, Apartments or Units containing 2 or more sleeping areas (d) (ii) Triplexes, Quadplexes and Other greater multiples (ii) Buildings, Suites, Apartments or Units containing less than 2 sleeping areas Uncategorized Residential Development Charge per Occupant November 1, July 14, 2014 Effective 2012 to July to December January 1, CHARGE 13, , TYPE CHARGE CHARGE for each unit Roads $6,151 $2,713 $2,746 Water $6,290 $2,522 $2,552 Urban Sewer $6,499 $4,097 $4,146 Total Urban $18,940 $9,332 $9,444 Rural Area Septage $620 $673 $681 Total Rural $6,771 $3,386 $3,427 for each unit Roads $5,413 $2,474 $2,504 Water $5,535 $2,300 $2,328 Urban Sewer $5,719 $3,560 $3,603 Total Urban $16,667 $8,334 $8,435 Rural Area Septage $546 $506 $512 Total Rural $5,959 $2,980 $3,016 for each unit, suite or apartment within the development Roads $5,413 $2,474 $2,504 Water $5,535 $2,300 $2,328 Urban Sewer $5,719 $3,560 $3,603 Total Urban $16,667 $8,334 $8,435 Rural Area Septage $546 $506 $512 Total Rural $5,959 $2,980 $3,016 for each unit, suite, apartment or sleeping area within the development Roads $4,060 $1,913 $1,936 Water $4,151 $1,778 $1,799 Urban Sewer $4,289 $2,560 $2,591 Total Urban $12,500 $6,250 $6,326 Rural Area Septage $409 $322 $326 Total Rural $4,469 $2,235 $2,262 for each unit, suite, apartment or sleeping area within the development Roads $2,706 $1,353 $1,369 Water $2,768 $1,285 $1,300 Urban Sewer $2,860 $1,529 $1,547 Total Urban $8,334 $4,167 $4,216 Rural Area Septage $273 $137 $139 Total Rural $2,979 $1,490 $1,508 per occupant Roads $2,059 $1,030 $1,042 Water $2,105 $967 $979 Urban Sewer $2,175 $1,174 $1,188 Total Urban $6,339 $3,171 $3,209 Rural Area Septage $208 $104 $105 Total Rural $2,267 $1,134 $1,147 Page 3

17 Schedule "A" Schedules indexed effective January 1, 2017 SCHEDULE "B2" TO BY-LAW SCHEDULE OF NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGES July 14, November 1, Effective 2014 to 2012 to July January 1, December 13, CHARGE 31, 2016 TYPE CHARGE CHARGE CHARGE A. RATES APPLICABLE TO COMMERCIAL ACCOMMODATION PREMISES (a) Single Family Residential Development, for each unit Duplexes and Roads $6,151 $2,713 $2,746 Semi Detached Residential Development Water $6,290 $2,522 $2,552 Urban Sewer $6,499 $4,097 $4,146 Total Urban $18,940 $9,332 $9,444 Rural Area Septage $620 $673 $681 Total Rural $6,771 $3,386 $3,427 (b) Low Density Multiple Unit Residential Development (i) Townhouses and Row Housing (c) High Density Residential (i) Buildings, Suites, Apartments or Units containing 2 or more sleeping areas (d) (ii) Triplexes, Quadplexes and Other greater multiples (ii) Buildings, Suites, Apartments or Units containing less than 2 sleeping areas Park Model Trailers (e) Uncategorized Commercial Accommodation Premises Charge per Occupant B. GENERAL NON-RESIDENTIAL RATE CHARGE TYPE for each unit Roads $5,413 $2,474 $2,504 Water $5,535 $2,300 $2,328 Urban Sewer $5,719 $3,560 $3,603 Total Urban $16,667 $8,334 $8,435 Rural Area Septage $546 $506 $512 Total Rural $5,959 $2,980 $3,016 for each unit, suite or apartment within the development Roads $5,413 $2,474 $2,504 Water $5,535 $2,300 $2,328 Urban Sewer $5,719 $3,560 $3,603 Total Urban $16,667 $8,334 $8,435 Rural Area Septage $546 $506 $512 Total Rural $5,959 $2,980 $3,016 for each unit, suite, apartment or sleeping area within the development Roads $4,060 $1,913 $1,936 Water $4,151 $1,778 $1,799 Urban Sewer $4,289 $2,560 $2,591 Total Urban $12,500 $6,251 $6,326 Rural Area Septage $409 $322 $326 Total Rural $4,469 $2,235 $2,262 for each unit, suite, apartment or sleeping area within the development Roads $2,706 $1,353 $1,369 Water $2,768 $1,285 $1,300 Urban Sewer $2,860 $1,529 $1,547 Total Urban $8,334 $4,167 $4,216 Rural Area Septage $273 $137 $139 Total Rural $2,979 $1,490 $1,508 per occupant Roads $200 $202 Water $0 $0 Urban Sewer $100 $101 Total Urban $300 $303 Rural Area Septage $100 $101 Total Rural $300 $303 per occupant Roads $2,059 $1,030 $1,042 Water $2,105 $967 $979 Urban Sewer $2,175 $1,174 $1,188 Total Urban $6,339 $3,171 $3,209 Rural Area Septage $208 $104 $105 Total Rural $2,267 $1,134 $1,147 November 1, 2012 to July 13, 2014 July 14, 2014 to December 31, 2016 Effective January 1, 2017 rate per square foot Roads $0.16 Water $0.70 Urban Sewer $0.68 Total Urban $1.54 Rural Area Septage $0.15 Total Rural $0.31 Page 4

18 TO: FROM: Chair and Members Corporate and Emergency Services Committee Julie Stevens Commissioner of Finance and Corporate Services DATE: October 20, 2016 SUBJECT: Paramedic Services User Fees REPORT NO: CES RECOMMENDATION THAT when the User Fee By-law is considered at the November 21, 2016 District Council meeting, that Paramedic Services fees, as attached, BE INCLUDED as Section 12 of Schedule A of said by-law to become effective January 1, ORIGIN Section 391 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, Chapter 25 provides the authority to impose fees and charges for services or activities provided or done by or on behalf of the municipality, or for the use of municipal property including property under a municipality s control. The purpose of user fees and charges is to ensure that services used by specific individuals align with appropriate cost recovery mechanisms rather than having these services paid for through the general tax levy. ANALYSIS The transition of Paramedic Services to the District in September 2016 resulted in a review of user fees associated with Paramedic Services. Staff are recommending that a new section for Paramedic Services, as outlined in Schedule A, be included in the District of Muskoka s User Fees and Charges By-law that would include fees related to: Paramedic Stand-By for special events; Paramedic Services vehicles and supplies; Equipment Rental; and Requests for Ambulance Call Records. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS Annual reviews of services and user fees will ensure that these fees remain up-to-date and are reflective of the cost to provide these services. Page 1

19 The General User Fees, Charges and Rates By-law is scheduled to be presented to Council on November 21, 2016, with an effective date of January 1, The schedules outlining the fees will reflect Council s decision on paramedic services fees. Staff have not included a revenue projection resulting from these fees in the 2017 Draft Tax Supported Operating Budget due to the fact that this service was just assumed and the number and type of revenue generating events is unknown. Revenue projections may be included within the operating budget in the future based on experience. COMMUNICATIONS Upon approval of the 2017 General User Fees, Charges and Rates By-law by Muskoka District Council, the District s website will be updated and District staff will be notified. STRATEGIC PRIORITIES The Annual Review and Update of The District Municipality of Muskoka s User Fees supports the following goal and strategy included in the District s Strategic Priorities: 2. Build financial strength and demonstrate fiscal responsibility and accountability through the budget process, public reporting of budget results, the corporate credit rating and debt reduction. 2.6 Financial reports should be presented in clear and concise language that can be understood by as many people as possible. The public should continue to be invited to participate in the annual budget preparation. Financial reports prepared internally or by the auditor should be posted on the website. Respectfully submitted, Original signed by Julie Stevens, CPA, CA Commissioner of Finance and Corporate Services Original signed by Michael Duben, B.A., LL.B. Chief Administrative Officer Page 2

20 ACTIVITY OR SERVICE Paramedic Services 2016 APPLICABLE FEES AND CHARGES HST EXTRA 2017 APPLICABLE FEES AND CHARGES Proposed Amendment for 2017 HST EXTRA REFUNDABLE Yes / No TO BE REVIEWED Yes / No (if yes, frequency & year of next review) 2016 SUPPORTING BY-LAW / AUTHORIZATION ANNUAL INDEX IF APPLICABLE 12.1 Paramedic "Stand-by" for Paid Special Events, ad-hoc event / incident stand-bys and "unauthorized activities" Actual administration, logistics and staffing costs calculated per hour Yes PLUS Paramedic "Stand-by" - Standard Use of Supplies $50.00 Excessive use of supplies over standard use is added at cost recovery $50.00 Yes PLUS Paramedic "Stand-by" - Vehicles $15.00 per hour per vehicle $15.00 Yes 12.2 Equipment Rental Actual Cost Yes 12.3 Ambulance Call Record Requests $20.00 per request $20.00 Yes

21 TO: FROM: Chair and Members Corporate and Emergency Services Committee Julie Stevens Commissioner of Finance and Corporate Services DATE: October 20, 2016 SUBJECT: OPP s 2017 Municipal Policing Billing Statement REPORT NO: CES RECOMMENDATION This report is provided for information. ORIGIN The 2017 Municipal Policing Billing Statement was received from the OPP during the week of September 26, ANALYSIS Summary: The OPP Annual Billing Statement for 2017 is attached as Appendix A. The total cost of policing for the District of Muskoka is increasing by $940,510 in The 2017 cost is $15,955,352 compared to $15,014,842 for 2016 which included a phase-in adjustment or cap. This increase excludes the court security and prisoner transportation (CSPT) grant as those figures have not yet been released for The CSPT grant in 2016 totalled $150,245. In 2017, this grant will be received separately instead of being applied to the OPP monthly billing amounts. In the 2017 Budget Guidelines (CES ), staff estimated that the increase in policing costs would be almost $16.5 million which is approximately $500,000 more than the actual bill. The Guidelines also assumed that the 2015 surplus of $802,000 would be used to partially offset the increase in OPP Policing costs in Staff are now proposing that this surplus be distributed over 2017 and 2018 to reduce the tax levy impact of the increasing OPP cost for another year. Table 2 highlights the impact of using $670,000 of the surplus in 2017 and $132,000 in The use of the surplus in this manner results in an estimated tax levy increase related to OPP costing of 1.35% in 2017, 1.24% in 2018 and 0.57% in This proposed distribution of the surplus will be included in the 2017 Draft Tax Supported Operating Budget for deliberation. Page 1

22 Invoice Breakdown: The billing model allocates costs in three components: 1. Base service costs, which are approximately 59.5% of the total OPP municipal policing costs, are allocated to each municipality according to the number of properties in the municipality. The per-property charge is $ in 2017 compared to $ in The total cost of municipal policing has increased 1.08% year over year, however, the proportion of costs attributed to the base has decreased and the number of properties has increased which has reduced the per-property cost. For the District, the 2017 bill indicates that there are 51,239 properties (48,480 households and 2,759 commercial and industrial properties) resulting in a base policing cost of $9,829,690 which is slightly lower than in 2016 of $9,886,149, before the phase-in adjustment. 2. Calls for service, which are approximately 40.5% of the total OPP municipal policing costs, are allocated to each municipality according to the municipality s proportionate share of the total cost of municipal calls for service across the province. A rolling fouryear historical average of calls for service, broken down into 9 categories and average time standards, is used to calculate a municipality s portion of the weighted total for all municipalities in the province. The District s 4-year average is % of the provincial total and represents $5,112,513 in While the 4-year average has dropped from % in 2016, the total cost to the District has increased by just under $38,600 due to a general shift in costs from the base category to the calls for service category. Page 5 of Appendix A identifies the breakdown of calls for service for the District. 3. Other costs include overtime, contract enhancements, court security, prisoner transportation, accommodation and cleaning services. These costs are allocated on different methodologies as outlined within the billing statement in Appendix A. The total impact of these other costs to the District in 2017 is $1,013,150 ($999,935 in 2016). The main reason for the year-over-year increase is the charge for Court Security which increased by $16,058 due to an increase in staffing of 5.2% (from 1.34 FTE in 2016 to 1.41 FTE in 2017) as determined by the detachment. Court Security represents the cost of providing OPP staff at designated Criminal and Provincial Offences courts for security purposes. Pages 17 and 18 of Appendix A show the calculation of Court Security costs. The following chart shows the progression of the cost of OPP policing for the District since the inception of the new billing model. As shown in 2017, the District is no longer eligible for the phase-in cap and as such, the cost of policing before and after phase-in is the same. Table 1: Annual Cost of Policing Comparison for Muskoka Base Service 9,895,169 9,886,149 9,829,690 Calls for Service 4,970,742 5,073,919 5,112,513 Other 937, ,935 1,013,150 Total Police Cost before phase-in adjustment 15,803,187 15,960,003 15,955,353 Police Cost after phase-in 11,879,748 14,864,597 15,955,353 Page 2

23 The total bill in 2017 at $15.96 million is less than the forecasted amount included in the budget guideline of $16.47 million. In addition, the budget guideline assumed that the surplus from 2015 of $802,000 would be used to reduce the policing cost impact. Due to the fact that the 2017 bill is less than forecasted, staff reviewed the use of surplus funds beyond 2017 in order to assess whether policing cost increases could be smoothed out over 2018 and Although, the exact amount of the OPP billing beyond 2017 has not been provided, staff has estimated the cost in 2018 and 2019 in Table 2, by assuming the following: the total cost of policing will increase by an inflation factor of 2.7% in 2018 and 2.0% in 2019 which matches the negotiated wage increases for the current agreement, the total number of properties in the Province will increase by 0.47% per year and properties in Muskoka will grow by 34 which is consistent with the results in 2017, and the Court Security Prisoner Transport Grant will increase in accordance with the Provincial upload. Table 2 below shows the actual cost of policing charged in 2015 and 2016 and the fact that OPP credit of $712,471 was utilized fully in 2016 to offset the cost of policing in that year. For 2017, the OPP invoice has been used, but staff have estimated the CSPT Grant amount as noted above. The figures for 2018 and 2019 are projections based on the assumptions above. Based on these projections, staff are proposing that $670,000 of the 2015 surplus be utilized in 2017 and $132,000 in 2018 to partially offset the OPP cost increases as shown in Row E of the table below. These amounts were selected in order to smooth the tax levy increase between 2017 through Row I in the table, shows the levy increase due to policing is estimated at 1.35% in 2017, 1.24% in 2018 and 0.57% Phase-In Actuals and Estimates 2015 Invoice Table Invoice 2017 Estimated Invoice 2018 Estimate 2019 Estimate Cost per Property from OPP Billing Statement A $ $ $ # of Muskoka Properties B 49,350 51,205 51,239 51,273 51,307 OPP Cost for 2015 to 2017 and Staff estimate for 2018 & 2019 C $12,077,519 $15,014,842 $15,955,352 $16,345,496 $16,630,937 CSPT Grant (actual 2015 & 2016, estimate for ) D (87,657) (150,245) (180,264) (210,000) (210,000) Surplus held in Reserve E (712,471) (670,000) (132,000) Actual or Estimated OPP Impact F $11,989,862 $14,152,126 $15,105,088 $16,003,496 $16,420,937 Increase from Prior Year G $1,234,820 $2,162,264 $952,962 $898,408 $417,442 Total Increase in OPP Policing H 11% 18% 7% 6% 3% % Levy Increase I 1.93% 3.25% 1.35% 1.24% 0.57% Estimated Tax Increase for a Property Assessed at $200,000 for policing only J $10.32 $17.92 $7.86 $7.37 $3.41 Page 3

24 The following table provides a comparison of the tax levy increases related to the cost of policing over the period from 2017 to 2019 for various surplus utilization scenarios. Table 3 % Tax Levy Increase for Policing only Surplus Scenario Description Surplus used as shown in Table % 1.24% 0.57% No surplus used 2.30% 0.50% 0.39% Full surplus used in % 1.61% 0.39% 33% of surplus used in each year 1.92% 0.50% 0.39% 50% of surplus used in 2017 and % 0.50% 0.93% The surplus amounts selected in Table 2, which are highlighted in green above, result in the smoothest reduction in tax levy increases over the forecast period and provides a modest buffer for unforeseen increases in future years. The proposed use of the surplus in 2017 at the rate of $670,000 has been included in the 2017 Draft Tax Supported Operating Budget for consideration during budget deliberations. It should be highlighted that the figures in Table 3 are based on estimates and actual results may differ depending on the assumptions noted above, as well as, the growth in assessment over the forecast period. Year-End Adjustment The arbitrated wage settlement for the OPP has been released since the issuance of the 2017 bills. The following table shows the difference between the wage settlement and the wage assumptions in the billing statement by year. Table 4 Actual Wage Settlement Billing Statement Assumption % 1.50% % 2.64% % 2.54% The difference between the actual and budgeted wages for the base service and calls for service costing will be reconciled in the 2017 year-end adjustment, along with the impact on overtime, court security and prisoner transportation costs. This adjustment will be received for the 2019 billing. The year-end adjustment for 2015 has not been received, as the wage settlement was just released. It is expected that the adjustment for 2015 and 2016 will be released with the 2018 billing. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS The financial considerations related to the 2017 OPP billing statement have been included in the Analysis section of the report. Page 4

25 As noted above, the Total Estimated Billing for 2017 for the District as shown on page one of Appendix A is $ per property. In the past, the OPP has released a listing by municipality of the cost of policing per household. This list has not been published since In order to provide similar data, staff compared the cost of policing for 52 municipalities that have independent police forces (i.e. those municipalities that do not utilize the OPP) based on data submitted with the financial information returns for 2014 and The average cost of policing for all of these forces was just over $800 per household for both years. There were six municipalities that had between 40,000 and 55,000 properties. These six municipalities had municipal police costs that ranged from $663 to $970 per property with an average of $798 for COMMUNICATIONS This report will be provided to the Area Municipality CAO s and Treasurers. STRATEGIC PRIORITIES This report supports the following strategy as identified in The District Municipality of Muskoka s Strategic Priorities: 8.2 Deliver police services to ensure public safety through the Ontario Provincial Police with active participation from the various communities through Community Policing Committees, the Area Councils and District Council. Respectfully submitted, Original signed by Julie Stevens, CPA, CA Commissioner of Finance and Corporate Services Original signed by Michael Duben, B.A., LL.B. Chief Administrative Officer Page 5

26 Appendix A O.P.P. Annual Billing Statement Muskoka D Estimated cost for the period January 1 to December 31, 2017 Please see the accompanying 2017 Municipal Policing Billing General Information summary for additional Information Base Service Property Counts Household Commercial and Industrial Total Properties 48, Cost per Property $ $ Total Cost $ 9,829,690 Calls for Service (see summaries) Total all municipalities Municipal portion $ % ,513 Overtime Contract Enhancements (pre-2015) Court Security Prisoner Transportation AccommodationiCleaning Services Total Estimated Billing for 2017 (see notes) (see summary) (see summary) (per property cost) (per property cost) B , , , ,022 15,955,352 Year over Year Estimated Variance (estimate for the year Is not subject to a phase-in adjustment) 2016 Estimated Billing Cost per Property 2017 Estimated Billing Cost per Property Cost per Property Variance (Increase) =-====-== 2017 Monthly Billing Amount 1,329,613 Note: The 2017 Municipal Policing Billing General Information document accompanying this billing provides additional information regarding municipal policing costs and the 2017 OPP municipal policing cost recovery. It includes details regarding the 2015 municipal policing cost reconciliation and the 2017 court security grant allocation. The document will be made available online at OPP.ca for future reference. OPP Billing Statement 1 of 18

27 Appendix A OPP Billing Statement 2 of 18

28 Uniform Members Note 1 FTE % Appendix A OPP TOTAL BASE SERVICES AND CALLS FOR SERVICE COST SUMMARY For the Period January 01 to December 31, 2017 Salaries and Benefits Base Inspector Staff Sergeant-Detachment Commander Staff Sergeant Sergeant Constables 1, Part Time Constables Total Uniform Salaries Contractual Payout (Vacation & Statutory Holidays) Shift Premium Benefits (Full-time 26 90%, lnsp %, Part-time 1694%) Total Uniform Salaries & Benefits Detachment Civilian Members Note 1 Court Officer Detachment Administrative Clerk Detachment Clerk Typist Detachment Operations Clerk Crime Stopper Total Detachment Civilian Salaries Benefits (25. 92% of Salaries) Total Detachment Civilian Salaries & Benefits Support Staff (Salaries and Benefits) Note 2 Communication Operators 6020 Prisoner Guards 1,535 Office Automation Support 534 TelephoneSupport 120 Operational Support 4,254 Total Support Staff Salaries and Benefits Costs Total Base Services and Base Calls for Calls for Service Services Service $IFTE $ $ $ ,744,339 3,744, ,871 1,864,183 1,864, ,184 3,651,453 3,651, ,055 25,868,966 14,977,860 10,891,106 97,350 I81,845, ,288,893 76,557,014 77, , , , , ,440, ,796,249 87,644,066 4,290 9,265,542 5,485,752 3,779, ,605, , ,954 58,308,790 34,752,053 23,556, , ,620, ,963, ,656,548 64, , , ,070 63,190 10,881,318 6,300,043 4,581,275 55,974 II 755 6,717 5,038 60,650 70,354 40,636 29,719 58,489 35,093 20,471 14,622 11,967,119 6,928,395 5,038,723 3,101,877 1,795,840 1,306,037 79,688 15,068,996 8,724,235 6,344,761 13,038,176 7,718,904 5,319,272 3,324,518 1,968,192 1,356,326 1,156, , , , , ,032 9,213,356 5,454,521 3,758,834 26,992,490 15,980,183 11,012,307 Total Salaries & Benefits 328,681, ,668, ,013,615 Other Direct Operating Exoenses Note 2 Communication Center 223 Operational Support 758 RHO Municipal Support 2,290 Vehicle Usage 7,896 Telephone 1,228 Detachment Supplies 503 Uniform & Equipment Mobile Radio Equipment Maintenance 845 Office Automation. Uniform 1,454 Office Automation - Civilian 1,485 Uniform & Equipment Court officer 741 Mobile Radio Equipment Maintenance Court Officer 845 Total Other Direct Operating Expenses Total 2017 MunIcipal Base Services and Calls for Service Cost 482, , ,043 1,641, , ,769 4,959,705 2,936,261 2,023,444 17,101,236 10,124,330 6,976,906 2,659,615 1,574,554 1,085,061 1,089, , ,451 3,768,108 2,230,672 1,537,436 1,835,188 1,086, ,780 3,149,088 1,864,333 1,284, , , ,236 11,063 6,402 4,661 12,616 7,301 5,315 36,991,493 21,895,639 15,095,854 S 365,673,216 $ 217,563,747 $ 148,109,469 Total OPP-Pollced Municipal PropertIes 1,134,106 BASE SERVICES COST PER PROPERTY $ OPP Base and Calls for Service 3 of 18

29 Appendix A app TOTAL BASE SERVICES AND CALLS FOR SERVICE COST SUMMARY For the Period January alto December 31, 2017 Notes: Total Base Services and Call for Service Costs are based on the cost of salary, benefit, support and other direct operating expenses for staff providing policing services to municipalities. Staff is measured in full-time equivalent (FEE) units and the costs per FTE are described in the notes below. 1) Full-time equivalents (FTEs) are based on average municipal detachment staffing levels for the years 2012 through Contract staff enhancements are excluded. The equivalent of FEEs with a cost of $13,779,231 has been excluded from the Base Services and Calls for Service to reflect the average municipal detachment FTEs required for provincially-mandated responsibilities eligible for Provincial Service Usage credit. Salary rates are based on weighted average rates far municipal detachment staffing by rank, level and classification, The 2017 salaries were estimated based on the 2014 rates set in the 2011 to 2014 Compensation Framework Agreement between the OPPA and the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services with an estimated overall general salary rate increase of 1.5% for 2015, 2.64% for 2016, and 2.54% for 2017 applied. Updated benefit rates for 2017 were unavailable at the time of calculating this statement therefore the 2016 benefit rates have been applied. The salary and benefit rates will be reconciled to actual. FTEs have been apportioned between Base Services and Calls for Service costs based on the current ratio, 57.9% Base Services: 42.1% Calls for Service. 2) Support Staff Costs and Other Direct Operating Expenses for uniform FTEs are calculated on a per FTh basis as per rates set in the 2016 Municipal Policing Cost-Recovery Formula. app Base and Calls for Service 4 of 18

30 Muskoka D Appendix A Calls for Service Billing Summary For the Period January 1 to December 31, 2011 Calls for Service Billing Workgroups Calls for Service Count 2017 %oftotal 2017 Four Total Average ProvincIal Estimated Year Weighted Time Weighted Calls for Average Time Standard Time ServIce Cost A B CA R (Nots 1) (Note 3) (Note 3) Drug Possession , % $ 113,212 Drugs , % $ 136,433 Operational ,359 5, , , % $ 1,604,585 Operational 2 4,828 4,309 4, D.3123% $ 482,525 Other Chmjnal Code Violations % $ 220,224 PmperlyCiineViolatlons 1,967 1,939 1,594 1,523 1, , % $ 1,082,125 Statutes &Ads , % $ 246,813 Traffic 1,384 1, ,295 1, , % $ 444,440 ViolentChminalCode % $ 802,175 Total ,317 14,246 13,039 14,497 55, % $ 5,112,513 Provincial Totals 404, , , , ,587 1,610, D% $ 148,109,469 Note I) Note 2) Note 3) Show ng no decimal places, for bi::ing purposes the exact calculated numbers have been used Showng 2 aecirna places here, for calculations 9 decimal places have been used Costs rou9deo too decimas Calls for Service Summary 5 of 18

31 Appendix A Calls for Service Summary 6 of 18

32 Appendix A Calls For Service Details For the Calendar Years 2012 to 2015 Muskoka D Calls for SeMce Count [Calls for Service Billing Workgroups Four Year Average Grand Total , Drug Possession DRUG Operation - Master Code DRUG related occurrence Fail to disclose previous prescription (double doctoring) Possession-Cannabis Possession - Cocaine Possession - Heroin Possession - Methamphetamine (Crystal Meth) Possession - Methylenedioxyamphetamine (Ecstasy) Possession - Other Controlled Drugs and Substances Act Drugs CDSA * Sec.6 - Sec DRUG Operation - Residential Grow [indoor] DRUG Operation - Residential Grow [outdoor] DRUG Operation - Rural Grow Import? Export - Other Drugs Production - Cannabis (Marihuana) (Cultivation) Production - Other Controlled Drugs & Substances Trafficking - Cannabis Trafficking - Cocaine Trafficking - Other Controlled Drugs and Substances Act Operational , Accident - non-mvc - Commercial Accident - non-mvc - Construction Site Accident - non-mvc - Industrial Accident - non-mvc - Master Code Accident - Non-MVC - Others Accident - non-mvc - Public Property Accident - non-mvc - Residential Alarm - Holdup Alarm - Master Code Alarm - Others Animal - Bear Complaint Animal - Dog Owners Liability Act Animal - Left in Vehicle Animal - Master Code Animal - Other Animal Bite Calls for Service Details 7 of 18

33 Computer, Appendix A Calls For Service Details For the Calendar Years 2012 to 2015 Muskoka D Calls for Service Count Calls for Service Billing Workgroups Four Year Average Animal Injured Animal Rabid Animal Stray Assist Fire Department Assist Public By-Law - Master Code Child Neglect Compassionate Message Distressed! Overdue Motorist Dogs By-Law Domestic Disturbance False Fire Alarm - Building False Fire Alarm - Other False Fire Alarm - Vehicle Family Dispute Fire - Building Fire - Master Code Fire - Other Fire -Vehicle Fire Alarm - Master Code Firearms (Discharge) By-Law Found - Accessible Parking Permit Found - Bicycles Found - parts & accessories Found - Domestic Appliances Found-Gun Found - Household Property Found - Jewellery Found - License Plate Found - Machinery & Tools Found - Musical Instruments Found - Office Machines & Equipment Found - Others Found - Personal Accessories Found - Photographic Equipment Found - Radio, TV, Sound-Reprod. Equip Found - Sci., Optical, Measuring Devices Found - Sporting Goods, Hobby Equip Found - Vehicle Accessories Calls for Service Details 8 of 18

34 Appendix A Calls For Service Details For the Calendar Years 2012 to 2015 Muskoka D Calls for Service Count Calls for Service Billing Workgroups Four Year Average Found Property-MasterCode Hawkers & Peddlers By-Law Insecure Condition - Building Insecure Condition - Master Code Insecure Condition - Others Insecure Condition -Vehicle Lost - Accessible Parking Permit Lost - Bicycles Lost - Computer, parts & accessories Lost-Gun Lost - Household Property Lost - Jewellery Lost-LicensePlate Lost - Machinery & Tools Lost - Musical Instruments Lost - Office Machines & Equipment Lost-Others Lost - Personal Accessories Lost - Photographic Equipment Lost - Radio, TV, Sound-Reprod. Equip Lost - Sci., Optical, Measuring Devices Lost - Sporting Goods! Hobby Equip Lost - Vehicle Accessories Lost Property - Master Code Medical Assistance - Master Code Medical Assistance - Other Missing Person - Master Code Missing Person 12 & older Missing Person 12 & older- Foul play suspected Missing Person Located 12 & older Missing Person Located Under Missing Person Located Under 12- Foul play suspected Missing Person under Neighbour Dispute Noise By-Law Noise Complaint - Animal Noise Complaint - Business Noise Complaint- Master Code Noise Complaint - Others Calls for Service Details 9 of 18

35 Nuisance No Appendix A Calls For Service Details For the Calendar Years 2012 to 2015 Muskoka D Calls for Service Count Calls for Service Billing Workgroups Four Year Average Noise Complaint - Residence Noise Complaint - Vehicle Other Municipal By-Laws Phone - Master Code Phone - - Charges Laid Phone - Obscene - No Charges Laid Phone - Other - No Charges Laid Phone - Text-related incident Phone - Threatening - No Charges Laid Protest/ Demonstration Sudden Death -Accidental Sudden Death - Master Code Sudden Death - Natural Causes Sudden Death - Others Sudden Death - Suicide Suspicious Package Suspicious Person Suspicious vehicle Taxi By-Law Traffic By-Law Trouble with Youth Unwanted Persons Vehicle Recovered - All Terrain Vehicles Vehicle Recovered -Automobile Vehicle Recovered - Construction Vehicles Vehicle Recovered - Farm Vehicles Vehicle Recovered - Master Code Vehicle Recovered - Motorcycles Vehicle Recovered - Other Vehicle Recovered - Snow Vehicles Vehicle Recovered - Trucks Operational , call - Dropped Cell call/911 hangup hangup-pocketdial False Alarm - Accidental Trip False Alarm - Cancelled False Alarm - Malfunction False Alarm - Others Calls for Service Details 10 of 18

36 Appendix A Calls For Service Details For the Calendar Years 2012 to 2015 Muskoka D Calls for Service Count Calls for Service Billing Workgroups Four Year Average False Holdup Alarm - Accidental Trip False Holdup Alarm - Malfunction KeepthePeace Other Criminal Code Violations Animals - Cruelty Animals - Keeping wild animals Animals - Kill or injure Animals - Others Animals - Unnecessary suffering Bail Violations - Appearance Notice Bail Violations - Disobey Summons Bail Violations - Fail To Appear Bail Violations - Fail To Comply Bail Violations - Master Code Bail Violations - Others Bail Violations - Promise To Appear Bail Violations - Recognizance Breach of Firearms regulation - Unsafe Storage Breach of Probation Breach of Probation - In relation to children Child Pornography - Import/distribute child pornography Child Pornography - Master Code Child Pornography - Other Child Pornography - Possess child pornography Child Pornography - Print/publish child pornography Counterfeit Money - Master Code Counterfeit Money - Others Disobey court order / Misconduct executing process Disturb the Peace FailtoAttendCourt False Fire Alarm (CC. Charge) Frauds upon Government (fraud-corruption) Impede attempt to save a life Indecent acts - exposure to person under Indecent acts - Master Code Indecent acts - Other Libel - Extortion Making Counterfeit Money Nudity - public/private property Calls for Service Details 11 of 18

37 Appendix A Calls For Service Details For the Calendar Years 2012 to 2015 Muskoka D Calls for Service Count Calls for Service Billing Workgroups Four Year Average Obstruct Justice! Fabricate Evidence Obstruct Public Peace Officer Offences relating to affidavits (fraud-corruption) Offensive Weapons - Careless use of firearms Offensive Weapons - Carry concealed Offensive Weapons - Explosives Offensive Weapons - In Vehicle Offensive Weapons - Other Offensive Weapons Offensive Weapons - Other Weapons Offences Offensive Weapons - Possession of Weapons Offensive Weapons - Prohibited Offensive Weapons - Restricted Offensive Weapons - Weapons Trafficking Other Criminal Code * Sec Sec Personate Peace Officer Possess Firearm while prohibited Possession of Burglary Tools Possession Of Counterfeit Money Proceeds of Crime - Laundering Prostitution - Other Prostitution Public Mischief- mislead peace officer Public Morals Receive interest at criminal rate Trespass at Night Utter Threats to damage property Utter Threats to injure animal Utter Threats to Property/Animals Uttering Counterfeit Money Property Crime Violations , Arson -Auto Arson - Building Arson - Others Breach of Trust (fraud-corruption) Break & Enter Break & Enter - Firearms False Pretence - Other Fraud - Account closed Fraud - False Pretence Over $5, Fraud - False Pretence Under $5, Calls for Service Details 12 of 18

38 Master Appendix A Calls For Service Details For the Calendar Years 2012 to 2015 Muskoka D Calls for Service Count Calls for Service Billing Workgroups Four Year Average Fraud - Forgery & Uttering Fraud - Fraud through mails Fraud - Master Code Fraud - Money/property/security Over S5, Fraud - Money/property/security Under 55, Fraud - Other Fraud - Steal/Forge/Poss./Use Credit Card Fraud - Welfare benefits Fraudulent Concealment (fraud-corruption) Identity Fraud Identity Theft Interfere with lawful use! enjoyment of property Mischief - Code Mischief Graffiti - Gang Related Mischief Graffiti - Non-Gang Related Mischief with Data Personation with Intent (fraud) Possession of Stolen Goods - Master Code Possession of Stolen Goods over 55, Possession of Stolen Goods under 55, Property Damage Theft from Motor Vehicles Over 55, Theft from Motor Vehicles Under S5, Theft of - All Terrain Vehicles Theft of - Automobile Theft of- Construction Vehicles Theft of - Motorcycles Theft of - Other Motor Vehicles Theftof-SnowVehicles Theft of - Trucks Theft of Motor Vehicle Theft Over - Master Code Theft Over $ Construction Site Theft Over $5,000- Bicycles Theft Over $5,000- Boat (Vessel) Theft Over $5,000- Boat Motor Theft Over $5,000 - Farm Agricultural Produce Theft Over $5,000- Farm Equipment Theft Over $5,000- Mail Calls for Service Details 13 of 18

39 Appendix A Calls For Service Details For the Calendar Years 2012 to 2015 Muskoka D Calls for Service Count Calls for Service Billing Workgroups Four Year Average Theftcver$5,000-OtherTheft Theft Over $5000- Persons Theft Over $5000- Trailers Theft Over $5,000 Shoplifting Theft Under 55,000- Bicycles Theft Under 55,000- Boat (Vessel) Theft Under 55,000- Boat Motor Theft Under $5,000 - Building Theft Under $5,000 - Construction Site Theft Under $5,000 - Farm Equipment Theft Under $5,000- Gasoline Drive-off Theft Under $5,000 - Mail Theft Under $5,000 - Master Code Theft Under $5,000 - Mine Equipment/Property Theft Under $5,000 - Other Theft Theft Under $5,000- Persons Theft Under $5,000-Trailers Theft Under $5,000 Shoplifting Trafficking in Stolen Goods over $5, Unlawful in a dwelling house Willful act /Omission likely to cause mischief Statutes & Acts Children s Law Reform Act - Custody order Custody Dispute Family Law Act - Custody/Access order Family Law Act - Master Code Family Law Act - Order for possession of matrimonial home Family Law Act - Other Family Law Act - Restraining order Landlord/Tenant Mental Health Act Mental Health Act - Attempt Suicide Mental Health Act - No contact with Police Mental Health Act - Threat of Suicide Mental Health Act - Voluntary Transport Trespass To Property Act Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) Traffic , MVC - Fatal (Motor Vehicle Collision) Calls for Service Details 14 of 18

40 Offender Appendix A Calls For Service Details For the Calendar Years 2012 to 2015 Muskoka 0 Calls for Service Count Calls for Service Billing Workgroups Four Year Average MVC - Others (Motor Vehicle Collision) MVC - Pers. lnj. Failed to Remain (Motor Vehicle Collision) MVC - Personal Injury (Motor Vehicle Collision) MVC - Prop. Dam. Failed to Remain (Motor Vehicle Collision) MVC - Prop. Dam. Non Reportable MVC - Prop. Dam. Reportable (Motor Vehicle Collision) MVC (Motor Vehicle Collision) - Master Code Road Rage Violent Criminal Code Aggravated Assault - Level Arson - Disregard for Human Life Assault - Level Assault Peace Officer Assault Peace Officer with weapon OR cause bodily harm Assault With Weapon or Causing Bodily Harm - Level Attempted Murder Conspire to Commit Murder Criminal Harassment Criminal Harassment - Unknown Criminal Negligence - Bodily Harm Discharge Firearm with Intent Extortion Forcible confinement Home Invasion Incest Indecent / Harassing Communications Invitation to Sexual Touching Kidnapping Mischief - Cause Danger to Life Non-Consensual Distribution of Intimate Images Other Assaults I Admin Noxious thing Robbery - Master Code Robbery - Other Robbery - With Threat of Violence Sexual Assault Sexual Assault With a Weapon Sexual Exploitation Sexual Interference Unlawfully Causing Bodily Harm Calls for Service Details 15 of 18

41 Appendix A Calls For Service Details For the Calendar Years 2012 to 2015 Muskoka D Calls for Service Count Calls for Service Billing Workgroups Four Year Average Using firearm (or imitation) in commission of offence UtterThreats-MasterCode Utter Threats to Person Utter Threats to Person - Government Employee Utter Threats to Person - Police Officer Voyeurism Grand Total , Calls for Service Details 16 of 18

42 Part-time Appendix A OPP Court Security Cost Summary Muskoka D Estimated Policing Costs for the period January 01, 2017 to December 31, Cost-Recovery Formula Costs Adjusted on an Annual Basis Salaries and Benefits (Notel) Uniform Members FTE $ Sergeant - - Constables Part Time Constables - - Total Uniform Salaries Contractual Payout (Vacation & Statutory Holidays) 6,061 Shift Premium 1,081 Benefits (26.90% full-time, 16.94% part-time) 36,996 Total Uniform Salaries & Benefits 181,668 Detachment Civilian Members Court Officer - Court Officer Offender Transport - Guards - Total Delachment Civilian Salaries - Benefits (25.92%, Part-time 20.65%) Total Detachment Civilian Salaries & Benefits Support Costs - Salaries and Benefits (NOW 2) Communication Operators 8,505 Prisoner Guards Salaries & Benefits 2,169 Office Automation Support Salaries & Benefits 754 Telephone Support Salaries & Benefits 170 Operational Support Salaries & Benefits 6,010 Total Support Staff Salaries and Benefits Costs 17,607 Total Salaries & Benefits 199,275 Other Direct Operating Expenses (Note 2) Communication Center 315 Operational Support 1,071 RHO Municipal Support 3,235 Vehicle Usage 11,155 Telephone 1,735 Detachment Supplies 711 Uniform & Equipment 2,451 Mobile Radio Equipment Maintenance 1,194 Office Automation - Uniform 2,054 Office Automation - Court Officer - Uniform & Equipment Court Officer Total Other Direct Operating Expenses 23,921 TOTAL2OI7COURTSECURITYCOST $ 223,196 TOTAL OPP POLICED PROPERTIES 51,239 COST PER PROPERTY $ 436 Court Security 17 of 18

43 Appendix A 4 OPP Court Security Cost Summary Muskoka D Estimated Policing Costs for the period January 01, 2017 to December 31, 2017 Notes to Statement 1) Full-time equivalents (FTEs) are based on staffing required to provide court security based on the 2015 activity levels and requirements determined by servicing detachment staff. Salaries rates per FTE are based on weighted average rates for municipal detachment staffing by rank, level and classification. The 2015 salaries were estimated based on the 2014 rates set in the 2011 to 2014 Compensation Framework Agreement between the OPPA and the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services with an estimated overall general salary rate increase of 1.5% applied for 2016, 2.64% applied for 2016, and 2.54% applied for Updated benefit rates for 2017 were unavailable at the time of calculating this statement therefore the 2016 benefits rates have been applied. The salary and benefit rates will be reconciled to actual. 2) Support Staff Costs and Other Direct Operating Expenses for uniform FTEs are calculated on a per FTE basis as per rates set in the 2016 Municipal Policing Cost-Recovery Formula. Court Security 18 of 18

44 2017 OPP Municipal Policing Billing General Information This summary provides general reference material for specific costs detailed in schedules included in the 2017 municipal billing packages as well as general information regarding the OPP 2017 municipal policing cost recovery. Municipal Base Services and Calls for Service Costs The Base Services and Calls for Service costs are the calculated costs of OPP members providing municipal policing services. The costs are determined based on the staffing in detachments and the municipal policing activities performed. Statistical analysis of activity in all applicable detachments is used to determine the municipal policing workload allocation of all detachmentbased staff as well as the allocation of the municipal workload between base services and calls for service activity. For 2017 billing purposes the allocation of the municipal workload has been calculated to be 57.9% Base Services and 42.1% Calls for Service. The total 2017 Base Services and Calls for Service cost calculation is detailed on the Base Services and Calls for Service Cost Summary included in the municipal billing package. Base Services The Base Services costs represent municipal costs related to proactive policing services such as routine patrols, crime prevention, RIDE programs, training, administration, etc. The cost to each municipality is determined by the number of properties in the municipality and the standard province-wide average cost per property. The number of municipal properties is determined based on MPAC data. The property count definition is attached to this summary for your reference, see Appendix A. The calculation of the standard province-wide base cost per property is detailed on Base Services and Calls for Service Cost Summary included in the municipal billing package. Calls for Service The Calls for Service costs represent the municipal costs related to policing services that are typically reactive in nature and usually require a police officer s attendance. A municipality pays a proportionate share of the total cost of municipal calls for service costs calculated for the province. A municipality s proportionate share of the costs is based on weighted time standards applied to the historical calls for service. The municipality s total weighted time is calculated as a percentage of the total of all municipalities. Please refer to Appendix B for a summary of the Calls for Service Billing Workgroups descriptions. Overtime Municipalities are billed for overtime resulting from occurrences in their geographic area and a portion of overtime that is not linked specifically to a municipality, such as training. Municipalities are not charged for overtime identified as a provincial responsibility. The overtime activity for the calendar years 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 has been analyzed, applying the revised billing methodology, and averaged to forecast the 2017 costs. The costs incorporate the estimated 2017 salary rates and a discount to reflect overtime paid as time in lieu. The overtime costs incurred in servicing detachments for shift shortages have been allocated on a per property basis based on 2017 OPP Municipal Policing Billing General Information Appendix A

45 Appendix A straight time. salary rates. Please be advised that these costs will be reconciled to actual 2017 hours and Court Security Municipalities with court security responsibilities in local courthouses have been billed court security costs based on the cost of the staff in the servicing detachment required to provide designated court security activities costs have been based on 2015 security activity and security requirements specified by detachment staff. Please be advised that these costs will be reconciled to actual 2017 hours and salary rates. Prisoner Transportation Prisoner Transport costs have been allocated to municipalities on a per property basis. The total estimated cost of municipal detachment staff providing prisoner transport services across the province has been calculated based on 2015 activities. The standard per property cost was calculated using the total of all OPP-policed municipal properties. Please be advised that these costs will be reconciled to actual 2017 hours and salary rates. AccommodationlCleaning Services The municipal portion of the cost of provincially-owned detachment facilities has been allocated to municipalities on a per property basis. A standard province-wide rate has been set based on the total calculated municipal detachment costs and the property counts of municipalities requiring detachment facilities. The municipal detachment costs are based on the number of municipal officers and the per officer cost set in the 2016 Municipal Policing Cost-Recovery Formula. Cleaning costs have been allocated to municipalities on a per property basis. The cost of the municipal portion of detachment caretakers, garage attendants and cleaning service contracts has been calculated and prorated based on the property counts of municipalities requiring these services. Phase-in Adjustment The municipal cost impacts of the revised municipal billing model are being phased in over a period of five years, 2015 to The 2017 phase-in adjustment is based on the comparison of the 2017 calculated cost per property to the 2016 adjusted cost per property plus a cost growth amount in accordance with 0 Reg. 267/14 of the Police Sen,ices Act. The Cost Growth Amount is calculated based on the 2017 municipal FTEs and the cost difference between the 2016 and 2017 Salary and Benefit Rates, Support Costs and Other Direct Operating Expenses in accordance with 0. Reg. 267/14. For 2017 the Cost Growth Amount is $6.98 per property. The table below details the municipal counts of 2017 phase-in adjustments: 2017 OPP Municipal Policing Billing General Information 2

46 Appendix A 2017vs.2016, Phase-in cap applied Cost_per_Property # of Municipalities Increase greater than $40 Maximum $40 increase 53 (plus cost growth amount) (plus cost growth amount) Oto $40 Increase n/a 177 (plus_cost_growth_factor) Decrease up to $89.87 n/a 81 Decrease greater than Maximum $ $89.87 decrease Year End Adjustments Upon completion of municipal costs based on salaries and benefits components will be recalculated to account for variances between estimated and final rates applicable for the year as determined by collective bargaining agreements and the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services (MGCS) revised benefits calculations, The number of municipal detachment FTEs, base/calls for service ratio, property counts, municipal calls for service allocation rates, and PSU discounts included in the original calculations of the 2017 billing will remain unchanged. Overtime, Court Security, Contract Enhancements and Prisoner Transport costs will be recalculated based on actual 2017 data. The determination of the final 2017 costs may change the per property growth amount and phase-in caps applied in the issued billing. The capped per property rate may be decreased or increased depending on the final year end status of the costs. Any adjustments required as a result of the recalculation of 2017 costs will be included as a Prior Year Adjustment in the 2019 Annual Billing Statement issued in fall The information provided with the 2015 municipal policing cost annual billing statements advised that the 2017 annual billing statement would include a final 2015 year end adjustment resulting from the recalculation of the costs as described in the preceding paragraph. The recalculation of costs is dependent on salary and benefit rates, as well as certain activity levels. The revision of collective bargaining agreements and benefits rates remained outstanding at the time the 2017 billing statements were prepared. The 2015 year end adjustment will be included in the 2018 annual billing statements. Court Security and Prisoner Transportation Grant The Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services (MCSCS) had not finalized the 2017 municipal grant allocations at the time the 2017 annual billing statements were prepared and therefore the grant allocation has not been included in the annual billing statements. Court Security and Prisoner Transport (CSPT) costs are partially offset by the grant allocation. Municipalities will be notified of their 2017 grant allocation in the fall of 2016 and the 2017 municipal CSPT grants will be credited to municipalities in 2017, 25% in February and the remainder by September Please note that a review of 2016 reconciled costs will need to be compared to the actual grant allocated for If the grant amount is more than the reconciled costs, an adjustment will be made to your 2017 grant allocation OPP Municipal Policing Billing General Information 3

47 Appendix A Provincial Service Usage The billing model recognizes all of the detachments that service municipalities (municipal detachments) as one entity supporting each other with investigations, workload pressures and staffing shortages. Provincial Service Usage (PSU) is generated when officers perform provincially-mandated responsibilities requiring them to work outside the municipal detachments or perform certain specialized duties within detachment areas; for example security for a major event such as the G81G20 Conference or 2015 Pan Am Games. To acknowledge the deployment of detachment officers for PSU related activities, municipal costs have been discounted. A PSU discount rate is applied to the total municipal policing FTEs to reflect the reduction in service provided to all municipalities. The rate is based on a four-year average of the annual rates calculated for 2012 through The PSU discount rate applied in 2017 is 3.63%. In total $13,779,231 (88.74 municipal policing FTE5), has been removed from the costs allocated to municipalities. Detachment revenue Revenue collected at detachments on behalf of municipalities has not been included in the billing statement costs. Any detachment revenue owing to municipalities upon completion of the year will be issued to the municipality through a credit. We anticipate the timing of this to be February or March of the following year. Municipalities in Group Policing Service Contract Arrangements Municipalities are allocated police services costs in accordance with their municipal structure and assumed responsibility for policing as dictated by the Police Service Act s.4; that is any lower tier, single tier or regional municipality is billed based on the costs allocated to them. The costs for municipalities who have formed a group OPP Policing Service contract will be the sum of the costs of the individual municipalities and the cost of contract enhancements (if applicable). The group billed phased-in costs for 2017 is a sum of the individual municipalities in the group OPP Municipal Policing Billing General Information 4

48 Appendix A OPP Municipal Policing Cost-Recovery Summary The total municipal cost-recoveries included in the 2015 to 2017 municipal cost annual billing statements are summarized below. Cost (millions) Base Services $217.6 $217.9 $221.1 Calls for Service $148.1 $143.8 $137.9 Overtime $12.3 $12.3 $12.8 Court Security $4.1 $3.7 $3.5 Contract Enhancements $14.1 $13.9 $13.0 Prisoner Transportation $2.6 $2.5 $2.7 Accommodation/Cleaning $4.0 $3.9 $3.9 Total Municipal Cost-Recovery (excludes regulatory discounts) Year over Year% Increase (Decrease) Variance $4028 $398.0 $ % 0.8% Average Cost Per Property $354 $352 $357 :;eiite5 Cost Per $ $ $ OPP Municipal Policing Billing General Information S

49 Appendix A APPENDIX A 2017 OPP Municipal Policing Billing: Property Count Definitions The property counts included in the OPP municipal policing bills are comprised of household, commercial and industrial properties. The property counts data is based on the requirements defined inc. Reg. 267/14 of the Police Services Act (PSA) and will be updated annually based on Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) data. The counts included in the 2017 OPP municipal billing were based upon 2015 year end property counts for 2016 taxation. Households Household counts are the number of residential units (RU), farmlands on which a farm residence exists (FRU), and seasonal dwelling units (RDU). Commercial and Industrial Properties Commercial and Industrial property counts are the number of assessment roll numbers in the commercial and industrial realty tax classes (RTC) detailed in Table 1. The count includes the number of commercial and industrial classifications taxed at the fully occupied tax rates (refer to Realty Tax Qualifier (RTC) descriptions in Table 2). Other Property Count Considerations Households, commercial and industrial properties on Canadian Forces Bases (CFB) have been excluded, as CFBs have their own police. Property counts have been adjusted for municipalities receiving hybrid (OPP and Municipal police) policing services. Timeshares are adjusted in household numbers to count the assessment roll numbers as identified by MPAC Property Codes 385 and 386. There is no distinction made between types of commercial and industrial properties. For example, a single property count would apply to each: a gas station, an office building, or a nightclub. Commercial properties with multiple units, such as shopping centres count as a single property, regardless of the number of commercial units. Similarly, a large industrial property with a small commercial unit attached would be counted as a single property. A commercial or industrial property with residence or apartment on site (e.g., golf courses with houses, apartments above retail), is included in both the household and commercial/industrial counts. The number of residential units is reflected in the household counts and the commercial/industrial portion counted as a commercial or industrial property. A residential property with a commercial or industrial business on site (e.g., residence with a hair salon), is included in both the household and commercial/industrial counts. Institutional properties are excluded, with the exception of those with a residential component (e.g. continuum of care seniors facility), which would be captured in the MPAC is responsible for determining assessed values and classifications for all properties in Ontario (http :// pac.ca) Municipal Policing Billing General Information Appendix A 6

50 Appendix A household count and those with a fully taxable commercial/industrial component which would be counted once in the commercial/industrial count. Vacant lands, including vacant farmland, vacant commercial or industrial lands and managed forest, are not included in the property counts with the exception of those having a structure or unit which is taxed at full commercial/industrial rates or the property is occupied and has residential units. Trailers in campgrounds having an RDU unit class are included in the household counts. If the campground has a commercial/industrial portion, the property is also reflected in the commercial/industrial count. Table I Realty Tax Class (RTC) Descriptions Properties with the following RTC are included in the count: RTC Commercial2 RTC Industrial C - Commercial I - Industrial D - Office Buildings J - New construction: industrial G - Parking Lots K - New construction: large industrial Q - Professional Sports Facility L - Large industrial S - Shopping_Centre X - New Construction: Commercial Y -_New_Construction:_Office_Building Z New_construction:_Shopping_Centre 2 Note Condominium resort is excluded; these properties are captured in the household counts OPP Municipal Policing Billing General Information Appendix A 7

51 Appendix A Table 2 Realty Tax Qualifier (RTQs) Descriptions Please note in the tables below the abbreviation P.I.L. represents Payment-in-Lieu of taxes. INCLUDED - Properties with the following RTQ are taxed as fully occupied and are included in the count, provided that they fall within one of the RTC categories outlined in Table 1: RTQ C D F G H I L M N P S T DESCRIPTION Lower-tier & Education Only Taxable for School Taxes only. Exempt from taxation, but eligible for P.I.L at the full rate. Exempt from taxation, but eligible for P.I.L. at the general rate only (No School Taxes). Taxable, shared as if a P.I.L. Water Intake System, Shared P.I.L. Upper Tier & Education Only Taxable at the General rate (No School rates). Non-Generating Station, Shared P.I.L. Taxable tenant of Provincially owned property, subject to P.I.L. at the full rate. Generating Station, Shared P.I.L. Taxable at the full rate. EXCLUDED - Properties with the following RTQ are excluded from the count: RTQ DESCRIPTION 1 Taxable at the Farmland Awaiting Development- Phase 1 rate (Registered Plan Stage). 2 Exempt from taxation, but eligible for P.I.L. of taxes at the Farmland Awaiting Development- Phase 1 rate (Registered Plan Stage). Exempt from taxation, but eligible for P.I.L. of taxes at the General Farmland Awaiting 3 Development- Phase 1 rate (No School Rates) (Registered Plan Stage). 4 Taxable at the Farmland Awaiting Development- Phase II rate (Building Permit Stage). Exempt from taxation, but eligible for P.I.L. at the Farmland Awaiting Development- Phase II rate 5 (Building Permit Stage). 6 A B E Exempt from taxation, but eligible for P.I.L. at the General Farmland Awaiting Development- Phase II rate (No School Rates) (Building Permit Stage). Taxable at the General Vacant Land rate (No School taxes). Taxable at the General Excess Land rate (No School rates). Exempt 2017 OPP Municipal Policing Billing General Information Appendix A 8

52 Appendix A Taxable at Vacant Land rate, shared as if a P.l.L. (not a PIL but shared as if it was). Taxable at Excess Land rate, shared as if a P.I.L. Taxable tenant of Provincially owned property at Excess Land rate, subject to P.I.L. at the full rate. P,l.L.: Full Vacant Land, Taxable Tenant of Province Taxable at the Excess Land rate Exempt from taxation, but eligible for P.I.L. at the Excess Land rate. Exempt from taxation, but eligible for P.I.L. at the General Excess Land rate (no School rates). Taxable at the Vacant Land rate Exempt from taxation, but eligible for P.l.L. of taxes at the Vacant Land rate. Exempt from taxation, but eligible for P.I.L. at the General Vacant Land rate (no School rates) OPP Municipal Policing Billing General Information Appendix A 9

53 Appendix A APPENDIX B Summary of OPP Municipal Policing Calls for Service Billing Workgroups Descriptions Drugs Includes trafficking, production, and importation of drugs including marihuana, cocaine, heroin, crystal meth or other controlled substances. It also includes occurrences related to indoor/outdoor grow labs. Drug Possession Includes all occurrences where the most serious violation is possession of marihuana, cocaine, heroin, crystal meth or other controlled substance. It also includes other minor drug related offences. Operational Operational calls for service are non-criminal events that police attend to, These include animal complaints, non-criminal domestic disturbances, missing persons, noise complaints, property lost or found, sudden deaths, and assist public calls. Operational 2 Includes false alarms, keep the peace and 911 calls/91 1 hang-ups. Due to the higher frequency of these calls, they have been separated out from the Operational category and allocated a lower time standard. Traffic incidents are excluded. Other Criminal Code Violations The majority of offences counted in the Other Criminal Code Offences group are criminal offences that are not directed to people or related to property. It is similar to the group that Statistics Canada uses when reporting Other Criminal Code. These include prostitution, offensive weapons, bail violations, counterfeiting, disturb the peace, indecent acts, breach of probation, and bribery. Property Crime Violations This category is similar to the group that Statistics Canada uses when reporting Property Crimes. These include arson, break and enter, theft, possession of stolen goods, mischief, identity theft, and some frauds. Statutes & Acts Includes provincial statutes, primarily the Mental Health Act, Residential Tenancies Act and Trespass to property offences. It also includes custody dispute calls. Traffic Includes motor vehicle collisions of all seventies (property damage, personal injury and fatalities) and road rage incidents reported to police. Violent Criminal Code The majority of offences counted in the Violent Criminal Code group are crimes against persons. This category is similar to the group that Statistics Canada uses when reporting Violent Crimes. These include homicides, attempted murders, assaults, threats and robberies Municipal Policing Billing General Information Appendix B 10