The District Municipality of Muskoka. Corporate & Emergency Services Committee. Special Meeting CES Minutes

Transcription

1 The District Municipality of Muskoka Corporate & Emergency Services Committee Special Meeting CES Minutes Place: Time: Council Chamber, District Administration Building 4:00 p.m. Date: April 18, 2017 Present: Officials Present: Committee Chair S. Aitchison; District Chair J. Klinck; Members L. Braid, P. Donaldson, D. Furniss, G. Smith, B. Young M. Duben, Chief Administrative Officer; J. Stevens, Commissioner of Finance & Corporate Services; F. Jahn, Commissioner of Engineering & Public Works; R. Williams, Commissioner of Community Services; J. Clow, District Solicitor; D. Crowder, District Clerk Others Present: Councillors N. Alcock; S. Baker; S. Clement; L. Giaschi-Pacini; P. Harding; P. Kelly; R. Lacroix; R. Nishikawa; D. Smith; K. Terziano; S. Valentine, Director, Planning; A. Landry, Director, Human Resources; M. Misko, Director, Continuous Improvement Unit; M. Ross, Communications Officer Call to Order Committee Chair Aitchison called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. Declaration of Pecuniary Interests None were declared. Finance a) Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) Municipal Policing Review, Legal Opinion Report CES In answer to a query regarding what specific question will be asked of external legal counsel; Ms. Stevens advised that the intent is to provide them with both previous opinions of the District and the Township of Muskoka Lakes and for them to provide their opinion on the allocation of policing costs; is it a tax; and should it be allocated on the general levy, or through a special area levy or a combination of both according to the Municipal Act, Councillor Nishikawa arrived at 4:06 p.m.

2 Moved by G. Smith and seconded by P. Donaldson R30/2017-CES WHEREAS the District of Muskoka obtained a legal opinion regarding the apportionment of policing costs within the District in October 2014; AND WHEREAS the Township of Muskoka Lakes obtained a contrary legal opinion in February, 2015; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, due to the passage of time, a current, second legal opinion regarding the apportionment of policing costs across the District be obtained. Carried. b) Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) Municipal Policing Costing Review Report CES Motions a) Roads Ms. Stevens report provided proposed options for the allocation of policing costs including the current practice of putting costs on the general levy; a special services area levy; or a blending of both. Committee members discussed differing opinions on how policing costs should be allocated. Also discussed was refocusing efforts outwardly with the Province as opposed to inwardly with each other. With the consent of Committee members, Committee Chair Aitchison made a digital presentation and Vice-Chair G. Smith assumed the Chair. Committee Chair Aitchison advised that the way he has approached the issue of OPP costing is to look at services at the District level that can be better handled at the local level, and eliminate overlap and duplication between the two levels of government; specifically the District roads system. He then went through his digital presentation to explain how it would work. In answer to a question regarding the Corporate and Emergency Services Committee considering a Public Works issue, Committee Chair Aitchison advised that he felt that this was really a financial issue as opposed to a public works issue. Councillor Harding advised that C.C. Tatham would be providing its report to the Engineering & Public Works Committee the following day with a recommendation that 30% of the District roads be transferred to the areas and that that alone will take a considerable amount of consultation between the two-tiers. Mr. Williams arrived at 5:10 p.m.

3 Councillors voiced their concerns recognizing that this would be a very large undertaking and didn t fully understand the motivation behind the initiative. Councillor Harding added that the process currently underway through the Engineering & Public Works Committee will also be looking at road classifications to see if some roads can be downgraded. Committee Vice-Chair G. Smith introduced the following motion: Moved by L. Braid and seconded by J. Klinck R31/2017-CES WHEREAS C.C. Tatham has been engaged to perform a road rationalization assessment review which is expected to be received in April 2017; AND WHEREAS the road rationalization findings will be presented to each Area Municipal Council for comments in May and June 2017; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Corporate and Emergency Services Committee of The District Municipality of Muskoka both acknowledges and supports the review of the District road network that is currently underway, as initiated by the Engineering and Public Works Committee; AND FURTHER THAT a working group comprised of staff from all municipalities within The District Municipality of Muskoka as well as an impartial third party consultant review the options of downloading all District roads to the lower-tier municipalities or uploading all municipal roads to The District Municipality of Muskoka; AND FURTHER THAT the review shall include a comprehensive financial, staffing and land use planning implication analysis with respect to the District and/or lower-tier municipal road network; AND FURTHER THAT the working group present its findings to the Engineering and Public Works Committee in October In answer to a question regarding whether C.C. Tatham would be considered as the third-party consultant on the working group; Ms. Stevens advised that it would likely be a firm such as KPMG who do financial analysis type work such as this. In answer to a question regarding the cost of the third-party consultant participation; Ms. Stevens advised that if there were insufficient funds in the capital project, a budget amendment would be required and would come before Committee and Council before proceeding.

4 Committee members discussed the tight timelines for a findings report to be presented to the Engineering & Public Works Committee and the following motion was proposed to remove the specific deadline: Moved by P. Donaldson and seconded by D. Furniss R32/2017-CES THAT motion R31/2017-CES be amended by deleting the words in October, 2017 in the last clause. Carried. The main motion was then considered as amended as follows: Moved by L. Braid and seconded by J. Klinck R31/2017-CES WHEREAS C.C. Tatham has been engaged to perform a road rationalization assessment review which is expected to be received in April 2017; AND WHEREAS the road rationalization findings will be presented to each Area Municipal Council for comments in May and June 2017; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Corporate and Emergency Services Committee of The District Municipality of Muskoka both acknowledges and supports the review of the District road network that is currently underway, as initiated by the Engineering and Public Works Committee; AND FURTHER THAT a working group comprised of staff from all municipalities within The District Municipality of Muskoka as well as an impartial third party consultant review the options of downloading all District roads to the lower-tier municipalities or uploading all municipal roads to The District Municipality of Muskoka; AND FURTHER THAT the review shall include a comprehensive financial, staffing and land use planning implication analysis with respect to the District and/or lower-tier municipal road network; AND FURTHER THAT the working group present its findings to the Engineering and Public Works Committee. Carried.

5 To access Committee Chair Aitchison s report and digital presentation, please click on the following link: Adjournment Moved by D. Furniss and seconded by B. Young P33/2017-CES THAT the Corporate and Emergency Services Committee adjourns to meet again on Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 1:00 p.m. or at the call of the Chair. The meeting adjourned at 5:44 p.m. Carried. District Clerk

6 70 PINE STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO P1L 1N3 Telephone (705) / Fax (705) / (705 area code) To: From: Chair and Members Corporate and Emergency Services Committee Julie Stevens Commissioner of Finance and Corporate Services Date: April 18, 2017 Subject: Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) Municipal Policing Review, Legal Opinion Report: CES Recommendation WHEREAS the District of Muskoka obtained a legal opinion regarding the apportionment of policing costs within the District in October 2014; AND WHEREAS the Township of Muskoka Lakes obtained a contrary legal opinion in February, 2015; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, due to the passage of time, a current, second legal opinion regarding the apportionment of policing costs across the District be obtained. Origin The Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) changed its allocation methodology for policing costs across the Province starting in As a result of this revised billing model, staff were directed to obtain a legal opinion regarding the apportionment of policing costs across the District. Given the passage of time since the original legal opinion was obtained, two councillors from the Corporate and Emergency Services Committee requested that staff bring a report forward to consider obtaining a second legal opinion from a firm other than Aird & Berlis LLP and Barriston LLP. Analysis The District obtained a legal opinion from Aird & Berlis LLP in 2014 regarding whether or not the Area Municipalities can enter into their own contract to deliver police services and whether or not there are rules regarding how the cost of policing is to be raised; whether through levies or other means. Managing Our Legacy Together Page 1

7 A detailed response from Aird & Berlis LLP is available in Appendix B of Report No. CES , however, the short answers to the above-noted questions are as follows: 1. The District is responsible for delivering police services and the lower-tier municipalities have no authority to enter into their own contractual arrangements for police services (whether with the OPP or otherwise). 2. The level of police services is the same across the District and, as such, the cost for police services must be included in the District s general levy; it cannot be raised through other means. The legal opinion provided a detailed review of why the cost of policing must be included in the District s general levy and may not be collected as a special levy. The Township of Muskoka Lakes retained Barriston LLP to provide a separate legal opinion regarding the Township s options for collecting the cost of OPP services under the current legislation. This opinion was provided in February, 2015 and is attached as Appendix A. In summary, this legal opinion disagreed with the Aird & Berlis LLP opinion and argues that the OPP services should be designated a special service under section 326 of the Municipal Act (Act) and thus be subject to a special tax levy in accordance with section 326(4) of the Act. Financial Considerations The cost of obtaining the first legal opinion was approximately $9,500. The 2017 tax supported operating budget does not include the cost of obtaining a second legal opinion. However, should Council wish to proceed, this cost will be shown as a variance from budget and reported during quarterly variance reports. Communications Subject to Council s approval, staff will release a Request for Quotation (RFQ) to obtain a law firm to provide a second legal opinion from a firm other than Aird & Berlis LLP and Barriston LLP. Once this opinion is available, staff will provide it to the Corporate and Emergency Services Committee in a future meeting. Strategic Priorities Click on icons below to view strategies under each priority area: G 2 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

8 Appendix 'A' PLEASE RESPOND TO: THE ADMIRAL BUILDING, ONE FIRST STREET, SUITE 224, COLLINGWOOD, ON. L9Y 1A1 February 10, 2015 BY AND REGULAR MAIL: Mr. Clayton Harris Chief Administrative Officer Township of Muskoka Lakes P.O. Box Bailey Street Port Carling, ON P0B 1J0 Dear Mr. Harris: RE: TOWNSHIP OF MUSKOKA LAKES OPP COSTING REPORT OUR FILE NO You have asked me to provide an independent legal opinion regarding the Township s options for collecting the cost of OPP services under the current legislation. This opinion was to be compared to a legal opinion received by the District Municipality of Muskoka (the District of Muskoka ) by Aird & Berlis in October 2014 (the Aird & Berlis Opinion ). The Aird & Berlis Opinion rests on a critical assumption that the level of police services is the same across the District and as such the cost for police services must be included in the District s general tax level, and cannot be raised through other means. With respect, we disagree. The information provided by the District of Muskoka demonstrates that the level of services across the District is not the same. Accordingly, the Township has the option of arguing that OPP services should be designated as a special service under s.326 of the Municipal Act, and thus subject to special tax levy in accordance with s.326(4). Background: S. 326 of the Municipal Act and the opinion provided by Aird & Berlis: Aird & Berlis was asked whether there are any rules with regards to how the cost for OPP Services is to be raised, whether through general or special levy. They concluded that the cost must be raised through the District s general tax levy, and cannot be raised through other means.

9 The Aird & Berlis Opinion canvassed the possible exception provided by s.326 to collect the OPP services cost by way of a special levy but concluded that s.326 did not apply. In support of this they surmised that policing is an activity undertaken generally throughout the municipality, and that there was no information or reason to believe that services are not being provided generally throughout the District or that they are being provided at different levels or in a different manner in different parts of the District. As such, the Aird & Berlis Opinion determined that tax collection for the cost of OPP Services is governed by s.307 of the Municipal Act which states that: All taxes shall, unless expressly provided otherwise, be levied upon the whole of the assessment for real property or other assessments made under the Assessment Act according to the amounts assessed and not upon one or more kinds of property or assessment or in different proportions. This conclusion does not account for the information provided by the OPP in a memorandum circulated by the District of Muskoka on October 23 rd, 2014, regarding the OPP s 2015 Municipal Police Billing Statement (the OPP Billing Statement Memo ). The Statistics provided by the OPP demonstrate that police services are untaken at different levels in different parts of the municipality: The OPP Billing Statement Memo provides the District of Muskoka with the OPP Annual Billing Statement for 2015, as well as an explanation for the OPP s new billing model. The billing model breaks police service costs down into three categories: base costs, other costs and calls for service costs. The Base Costs make up 60% of the total OPP municipal policing costs and is comprised of costs related to proactive policing services (i.e. routine patrols, crime prevention, RIDE programs, etc.). The calculation for the standard province-wide base cost is per property. For the District of Muskoka, the base cost for 2015 is $9,895, (49,350 properties multiplied by the standard provincial base cost of $200.51). Other Costs are comprised of charges for overtime, prisoner transportation, cleaning services etc. The District of Muskoka s portion for these costs is $937, Letter to Clayton Harris February 3, 2015 Page 2

10 The Calls for Service Costs make up 40% of the total OPP municipal policing costs and is allocated to the District of Muskoka in accordance with the municipality s proportionate share of the total cost of municipal calls for service across the province. The District of Muskoka s total is $4,970, It is important to note that $4,970, is the District-wide total, however the Calls for Service Costs vary between area municipalities. The information provided by the OPP, as contained in the below table from page 4 of the OPP Billing Statement Memo demonstrates this variation. As illustrated, Bracebridge is responsible for 21.1% of the District of Muskoka s share of the OPP Billing Statement, while Huntsville is responsible for 25.9%. In contrast, the Township incurs 17.6% of the individual area OPP services cost, while even more significantly, the Townships of Georgian Bay and Lake of Bays incur 8.9% and 7.8%, respectively. This demonstrates that police services are occurring at a higher level in the Towns than in the Townships. This is not a novel conclusion. It is plainly admitted in the District s OPP Billing Statement Memo on page 4. This means that there is an argument to support that police services would constitute a special service under s.326 of the Municipal Act and thus the cost for OPP Services is eligible to be raised by way of special levy. What is a special service and what does this mean for collecting the cost for OPP Services? S.326 states that: (1) A municipality may by by-law, a. identify a special service; Letter to Clayton Harris February 3, 2015 Page 3

11 b. determine which of the costs, including capital costs, debenture charges, charges for depreciation or a reserve fund, of the municipality are related to that special service; c. designate the area of the municipality in which the residents and property owners receive or will receive an additional benefit from the special service that is not received or will not be received in other areas of the municipality; d. determine the portion and set out the method of determining the portion of the costs determined in clause (b) which represent the additional costs to the municipality of providing the additional benefit in the area designated in clause (c); e. determine whether all or a specified portion of the additional costs determined in clause (d) shall be raised under subsection (4) Subsection (2) defines a special service: (2) A special service means a service or activity of a municipality or a local board of the municipality that is, a. not being provided or undertaken generally throughout the municipality, or b. being provided or undertaken at different levels or in a different manner in different parts of the municipality. Subsection (4) allows either a lower-tier or upper-tier municipality to levy a special local municipal levy to raise its share of the costs: - For each year a by-law of a municipality under this section remains in force, the municipality shall, except as otherwise authorized by regulation, a. in the case of a local municipality, levy a special local municipality levy under section 312 on the rateable property in the area designated in clause (1) (c) to raise the costs determined in clause (1) (e); b. in the case of an upper-tier municipality, direct each lower-tier municipality which includes any part of the area designated in clause (1) (c) to levy a special upper-tier levy under section 311 on the rateable property in that part of the municipality to raise its share of the costs determined in clause (1) (e). In other words, if the Township or District identifies that police services are a special service, either because it is a service, - not being provided generally throughout the District or; - being provided at different levels or in a different manner in different parts of the Township or District; Letter to Clayton Harris February 3, 2015 Page 4

12 Than different tax rates can apply amongst either the District s area municipalities or even as within different areas of a local municipality. In accordance with the information received by the OPP, police services are being undertaken at different levels in different parts of the municipality, and as such they fall under the ambit of subsection (2)(b) of s The Aird & Berlis Opinion suggests that policing is an activity undertaken generally throughout the municipality, and references s.4 (1) of the Police Services Act which sets out the provisions of police services as follows: 4. (1) Every municipality to which this subsection applies shall provide adequate and effective police services in accordance with its needs. (2) Adequate and effective police services must include, at a minimum, all of the following police services: 1. Crime prevention 2. Law enforcement 3. Assistance to victims of crime 4. Public order maintenance 5. Emergency Response. The Opinion states that it is difficult to see how police services could not be provided generally throughout the District. In particular when considering that 4(2) of the PSA sets out a minimum for adequate and effective police services, it leads to the reasonable conclusion that every assessed property in the District would receive police services We do not deny that every property in the District of Muskoka is privy to the same types of police services listed in s.4 (1) of the Police Services Act. The issue is that not every area municipality is privy to the same level of police services as demonstrated by the table above. The definition of what constitutes a special service under s.326 (2) makes reference to different levels of service and not types. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the word level as meaning an amount of something. S.4 (1) of the Police Services Act referenced in the Aird & Berlis Opinion does not describe an amount of something but rather the types of police service offered. Thus s.4 (1) of the Police Services Act does not demonstrate that the level of police services across the District of Muskoka is the same. Level signifies an amount, and the amount of police services is different in different parts of the District of Muskoka, as exemplified by the table above. Letter to Clayton Harris February 3, 2015 Page 5

13 The Aird & Berlis Opinion further stated that policing does not constitute a special service because a revoked regulation, O. Reg 305/02, did not include police services in the list of services constituting special services. O. Reg 305/02 was replaced with O. Reg 585/06. O. Reg 585/06 now only states services that cannot be identified as a special service. The only service identified therein is health programs and services. This demonstrates Legislatures intent to allow more flexibility in determining what constitutes a special service. According to the a Report from the City of Hamilton on Area Rating Options, all services, other than health programs and services, can constitute a special service providing they meet the definition contained in s.326(2). It is persuasive to note that other municipalities have designated police services as a special service under s.326. The City of Hamilton uses s.326 as an authority for area rating, which is a special tax levy structure that accounts for significant differences in service levels or costs of providing services between different parts of the City. Other municipalities, like the Municipality of Chatham-Kent, Kawartha Lakes, Peel Region, Quinte West, and Belleville, use s.326 to levy a special tax rate to account for the difference in urban/rural usage of police services. Conclusion and Recommendations The Township has the option of collecting the cost of OPP services by way of special levy, if it can be argued that police services are a special service under s.326 of the Municipal Act. Our opinion is that police services are a special service because the level of services is provided at different levels or in different parts of the District of Muskoka. The evidence provided by the OPP supports this conclusion. Furthermore, multiple municipalities have set a precedent to demonstrate that police services constitute a special service because the services are provided at different levels in different parts of the community. Practically speaking, this will mean that the District of Muskoka will be required to pass a by-law wherein police services are designated as a special service. The by-law would also call for a special tax to be levied to collect the cost of the OPP bill, and specify the details of how such a levy will be allocated as among area municipalities or areas within municipalities. Letter to Clayton Harris February 3, 2015 Page 6

14 It would be my recommendation that this opinion be presented to the District of Muskoka for their consideration; as a District-wide discussion will be necessary to designate police services as a special service. Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to assist with this matter. We would be pleased to expand on anything in this opinion, or to answer any questions you may have. Yours very truly, Per: Harold Elston helston@barristonlaw.com /LM Letter to Clayton Harris February 3, 2015 Page 7

15 70 PINE STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO P1L 1N3 Telephone (705) / Fax (705) / (705 area code) To: From: Chair and Members Corporate and Emergency Services Committee Julie Stevens Commissioner of Finance and Corporate Services Date: April 18, 2017 Subject: Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) Municipal Policing Costing Review Report: CES Recommendation This report is provided for information. Origin In March 2017, a representative from each of the Towns and Townships in The District, as well as the District Chair, held a conference call with the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services to discuss the Police Services Act and the allocation of policing costs. As a result of that call, a special meeting of the Corporate and Emergency Services Committee has been organized to consider a Made in Muskoka solution to policing issues. Background In 2014, the OPP revised its methodology for apportioning policing costs across the Province starting with the first bill in This revised billing model charges municipalities for policing based on 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 The total cost for base service for the District is just over $9.8 million in 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 four-year 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 in 2017 which represents a cost of just over $5.1 million. Managing Our Legacy Together Page 1

16 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 of report CES and total just over $1.0 million in In October 2014, the District obtained a legal opinion from Aird & Berlis LLP which stated that the level of police services is the same across the District, and as such, the cost of police services must be included in the District s general levy; it cannot be raised through other means such as a special services area levy. With the first year of the OPP s new billing model in 2015, Council considered the apportionment of policing costs across the District. At the May 19, 2015 District Council meeting, staff prepared Report No. 9(2015)-3 outlining three different taxation models to allocate the cost of policing: the general levy, a special area levy, and a special area levy that is phased in over three years. Based on the information provided and legal opinion, the District has continued to bill policing services through the general levy in 2015 and Analysis Staff have prepared tables outlining three different taxation models to allocate the cost of policing: the general levy, a special services area levy and a blended tax rate which utilizes the general levy for the base service and other policing costs and utilizes a special services area levy for the policing costs related to the calls for service. The total billing for OPP policing in 2017 is $15,955,354. The cost of court security and prisoner transportation for the criminal and provincial offences courts is $341,046. These costs have been excluded from this analysis shown below as they represent costs for the entire District and should not be considered for a special service area levy. As a result, the adjusted policing cost noted in the options below totals $15,614,308. General Levy Allocation of Policing Under this allocation methodology, there is a uniform tax rate across the District of Muskoka, such that properties with the same assessed value within the same tax class, are levied the same amount for policing in each Area Municipality. This option is consistent with the current legal opinion obtained in The following table shows the total 2017 OPP Policing Levy by municipality, as well as the property tax that would be levied for policing at various assessment values: Table Weighted Assessment $ Uniform Tax Rate $ Property Tax Levied for Policing for Property Valued at 2017 OPP By Municipality $ $50,000 $250,000 $500,000 $1,000,000 Gravenhurst 3,324,987, ,092,013 $31.46 $ $ $ Bracebridge 3,060,964, ,925,895 $31.46 $ $ $ Huntsville 3,727,195, ,345,074 $31.46 $ $ $ Georgian Bay 2,668,609, ,679,034 $31.46 $ $ $ Muskoka Lakes 9,147,394, ,755,349 $31.46 $ $ $ Lake of Bays 2,887,798, ,816,943 $31.46 $ $ $ Total District 24,816,951,560 15,614,308 Page 2

17 Special Service Area Levy Allocation of Policing Under this allocation methodology, there are six different Special Service Area tax rates across the District of Muskoka for each Area Municipality. As a result, properties with the same assessed value, within the same tax class, are levied at different amounts for policing in each Area Municipality. The following table shows the total 2017 OPP Policing Levy by municipality, as well as the property tax that would be levied for policing at various assessment values under this allocation model: Table 2 Individual Area Municipality OPP Billing Statement $ Property Tax Levied for Policing for Property Valued at Individual Municipal Tax Rate $ $50,000 $250,000 $500,000 $1,000,000 Gravenhurst 2,887, $43.43 $ $ $ Bracebridge 3,212, $52.48 $ $ $1, Huntsville 4,116, $55.22 $ $ $1, Georgian Bay 1,408, $26.40 $ $ $ Muskoka Lakes 2,749, $15.03 $75.15 $ $ Lake of Bays 1,239, $21.46 $ $ $ Total District 15,614,308 Blended General Levy and Special Service Area Levy Allocation of Policing Under this allocation methodology, the base service cost and other costs of policing are included on the general levy ($10,501,795) and the policing costs related to the calls for service are included on a special services area levy ($5,112,513). As a result, there is one General Levy tax rate and six different Special Service Area tax rates across the District of Muskoka for each Area Municipality. Similar to the last method, properties with the same assessed value, within the same tax class, are levied at different amounts for policing in each Area Municipality. The following table shows the total 2017 OPP Policing Levy by municipality, as well as the property tax that would be levied for policing at various assessment values under this allocation model: Table 3 Blended General & Special Area OPP Levy $ Property Tax Levied for Policing for Property Valued at Blended Tax Rate $ $50,000 $250,000 $500,000 $1,000,000 Gravenhurst 2,444, $36.77 $ $ $ Bracebridge 2,553, $41.71 $ $ $ Huntsville 3,357, $45.04 $ $ $ Georgian Bay 1,363, $25.55 $ $ $ Muskoka Lakes 4,449, $24.32 $ $ $ Lake of Bays 1,445, $25.02 $ $ $ Total District 15,614,308 Page 3

18 The options displayed in Table 2 and Table 3 above are not consistent with the District s current legal opinion which states that policing costs should be on the general levy as the same level of service is provided by the OPP across the District. However, it should be noted that staff are recommending in Report CES that a second legal opinion be obtained. If Council approves this recommendation, staff will ensure that the second legal opinion addresses the legality of both of these options. Financial Considerations The impact of the various levy allocation models to residential taxpayers with various assessment valuations and the impact to each Area Municipality, as a whole, have been provided in the Analysis section of this report. The following table provides a comparison of the 2017 property taxes that would be levied for OPP policing for the three allocation models under consideration for a property assessed at $250,000: Table 4 Property Tax Levied ($) for Policing for Property Valued at $250,000 Area Municipality General Levy Full Special Area Levy Blended General & Special Area Levy Gravenhurst $ $ $ Bracebridge Huntsville Georgian Bay Muskoka Lakes Lake of Bays If either of the Full Special Area Levy or Blended Levy option is adopted by Council, there will be neighbouring properties on boundary roads that will pay different amounts for policing, yet receive exactly the same service. Ziska Road is an example of a boundary road between Bracebridge and Muskoka Lakes. If the Full Special Area Levy is adopted, a property valued at $250,000 in Bracebridge would pay almost 3.5 times more than a neighbouring property with the same valuation that is in Muskoka Lakes. If the Blended Levy option is adopted, the Bracebridge property would pay 1.7 times more than the Muskoka Lakes property for the same service. Page 4

19 Similarly, the following table provides a comparison of the 2017 levy by Area Municipality for OPP policing for the three allocation models under consideration: Table OPP Policing Levy by Municipality Area Municipality General Levy Full Special Area Levy Full Special Area vs. General Levy Increase/ (Decrease) Blended General & Special Area Levy Blended vs. General Levy Increase/ (Decrease) Gravenhurst $2,092,013 $2,887,910 $795,897 $2,444,970 $352,957 Bracebridge 1,925,895 3,212,767 1,286,872 2,553, ,580 Huntsville 2,345,074 4,116,100 1,771,026 3,357,102 1,012,028 Georgian Bay 1,679,034 1,408,764 (270,270) 1,363,572 (315,462) Muskoka Lakes 5,755,349 2,749,578 (3,005,771) 4,449,945 (1,305,404) Lake of Bays 1,816,943 1,239,189 (577,754) 1,445,244 (371,699) District Total $15,614,308 $15,614,308 - $15,614,308 - Communications This report will be circulated to the Area Municipal CAO s and posted in the OPP Billing Model Review folder on FilePro. Strategic Priorities Click on icons below to view strategies under each priority area: s 2.3 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