The District Municipality of Muskoka

Corporate & Emergency Services Committee

Meeting CES-2-2017

Minutes

Place: Council Chamber, District Administration Building

Time: 1:00 p.m.

Date: March 23, 2017

Present: Committee Chair S. Aitchison; District Chair J. Klinck; Members L. Braid, P. Donaldson, G. Smith

Absent: Members D. Furniss, B. Young

Officials Present: M. Duben, Chief Administrative Officer; J. Stevens, Commissioner of Finance & Corporate Services; D. Crowder, District Clerk

Others Present: Councillor D. Smith; Inspector E. Medved, Inspector J. Graham – Ontario Provincial Police; S. Donald, Director of Budgets and Financial Planning; L. Bissonette, Director of Finance; J. Yeo, Manager, Facilities Services; M. Misko, Director, Continuous Improvement Unit; R. Francis, Manager, Continuous Improvement Unit; L. Kerswell, Coordinator, Records Management; J. Binkley, Administrative Assistant

Call to Order

Committee Chair Aitchison called the meeting to order at 1:04 p.m.

Declaration of Pecuniary Interests

None were declared.

Delegations a) Use of Water Bubblers in Muskoka James Boyd, Director, Muskoka Ratepayers Association CES-2-2017-DEL-A – Presentation

Earlier in the week, it was determined that Mr. Boyd would appear at the April 18, 2017 District Council meeting.

Invited Presentations a) Ontario Provincial Police Inspector Ed Medved Inspector John-Paul Graham Re: OPP Reporting CES-2-2017-DEL-B

Ms. Stevens advised that the Detachment Commanders were in attendance in order to receive input from Committee on what they would like to see the OPP report to District Council. Committee members suggested that they could report on emerging trends, critical issues and items with broader social implications.

Ms. Stevens reiterated the differences between contracted services and the provision of police services through a section 5.1 agreement which is currently the case for the District. Some Committee members and staff advised that the Detachment Commanders already exhibit a good level of open communication.

It was felt that the OPP could provide a ‘policing 101’ session to educate members of Council and as comfort level increased, could bring forward more imminent and pressing issues at future Council meetings.

Councillor D. Smith and the OPP Detachment Commanders left the meeting at 1:35 p.m. b) Grant Thornton LLP, Auditors Mike Bunn, CA Principal Re: Report to Council – Initial Communication on Audit Planning The District Municipality of Muskoka, for the year ended December 31, 2016 CES-2-2017-INFO-A

Mr. Bunn highlighted the 2016 year-end audit.

Facilities a) Award of Provincial Offences Basement Development Project Report CES-2-2017-1 (Delegated Decision)

Moved by G. Smith and seconded by L. Braid D12/2017-CES

THAT the District Municipality of Muskoka be authorized to negotiate the final terms and enter into a contract with Davicor Construction Inc. for the development of the basement area of the Provincial Offences building within the project funding amount under Capital Project 130118;

AND THAT the final terms of the contract be to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Finance and Corporate Services and the District Solicitor; AND THAT the District Chair and Clerk be authorized to sign the contract on behalf of The District Municipality of Muskoka.

Carried.

Administration a) Corporate Records and Information Management Program Update Report CES-2-2017-2

Ms. Kerswell highlighted her PowerPoint presentation and answered questions regarding project timelines; duties of the Project Manager; the future Electronic Document and Records Management System (EDRMS) and composition of participating municipalities.

Ms. Stevens advised that once the project management component had been completed, a business case will be brought forward and a budget amendment will be required for an EDRMS.

To access Ms. Kerswell’s presentation, please click on the following link: https://muskoka.civicweb.net/document/29395

Ms. Kerswell left the meeting at 2:11 p.m.

Mr. Clow provided an overview of the following two reports: b) The District Municipality of Muskoka ats. Van Slyutman (CV-16-158) Report CES-2-2017-3 c) The District Municipality of Muskoka ats. Van Slyutman (CV-16-159) Report CES-2-2017-4 d) Shared Services Inventory Report CES-2-2017-5

Moved by G. Smith and seconded by L. Braid R13/2017-CES

THAT the District Municipality of Muskoka continue to pursue shared service opportunities with the Area Municipalities and other partners;

AND THAT staff be directed to report back to the Corporate and Emergency Services Committee as significant shared service arrangements are undertaken.

Carried.

e) Internal Services and Operational Review Report CES-2-2017-6

Mr. Misko highlighted the information report and answered questions regarding waste diversion.

Mr. Misko and Ms. Francis left the meeting at 2:21 p.m.

Budgets a) Rate Supported Operating Budget Variance Report – December 31, 2016 Report CES-2-2017-7

In answer to a question regarding electricity consumption during peak periods (i.e. water tower filling and pumping), Mr. Yeo advised that staff do endeavour to run equipment in order to optimize operating efficiencies at the least possible cost.

In response to a suggestion that staff investigate the impact of increased rates across the corporation, Ms. Stevens advised that she could bring forward a report to a future meeting and added that housing facilities are eligible for the anticipated reduction in rates as they are considered residential.

Moved by G. Smith and seconded by P. Donaldson R14/2017-CES

THAT the Rate Supported Operating Budget Variance Report as at December 31, 2016 be received. Carried.

b) Corporate and Emergency Services Department Operating Budget Variance Report – December 31, 2016 Report CES-2-2017-8

Moved by G. Smith and seconded by J. Klinck R15/2017-CES

THAT the Corporate and Emergency Services Department Operating Budget Variance Report as at December 31, 2016 be received.

Carried.

c) Capital Project Quarterly Variance Report – December 31, 2016 Report CES-2-2017-9

Moved by J. Klinck and seconded by G. Smith R16/2017-CES

THAT the recommendations related to the individual Tax Supported Capital Budget projects, as summarized in Schedule “A” to Report CES-2- 2017-9, be received. Carried. d) Capital Project Quarterly Variance Report – Corporate Summary – December 31, 2016 Report CES-2-2017-10

Moved by G. Smith and seconded by P. Donaldson R17/2017-CES

THAT the Capital Project Quarterly Variance Report – Corporate Summary – December 31, 2016, as summarized in Schedule “A” to Report CES-2-2017-10, be received.

Carried.

e) Status of Reserve and Reserve Funds – December 2016 Report CES-2-2017-11

Moved by L. Braid and seconded by P. Donaldson R18/2017-CES

THAT Report CES-2-2017-11, Status of Reserves and Reserve Funds – December 2016, be received.

Carried.

Finance a) Financing Leases 2016 Annual Report Report CES-2-2017-12

Moved by P. Donaldson and seconded by G. Smith R19/2017-CES

THAT the report on the status of the 2016 Financing Leases be received.

Carried. b) Policing Cost Comparisons Report CES-2-2017-13

Ms. Stevens highlighted the information report and noted that of all the municipalities serviced by the OPP, the District of Muskoka’s costs fall within the mid-way point of that comparison.

New Business

a) Impact of new Fees and Charges By-law (2016-48)

Committee members discussed the unintentional consequence of section 11.2.7 to the fees and charges by-law whereby charitable organizations would be charged the $200 fee for conducting fundraising “walks” due to required road closures. An amending motion was prepared to include wording to exclude non-profit organizations from paying the $200 fee, and the motion was read and passed. A Councillor suggested that section 11.2.7 be removed in its entirety as the majority of applications to enter into use agreements are from charitable organizations. As the original amending motion had already been approved, the Clerk suggested that by a 2/3 vote, Committee could suspend the rules to allow for the mover and seconder to withdraw their motion to allow for a new amending motion to be considered.

The Committee unanimously voted to suspend the rules by a show of hands and the following motion was withdrawn:

Moved by G. Smith and seconded by L. Braid 20/2017-CES

THAT Section 11.2.7 of Schedule “A” to By-law 2016-48 be deleted and substituted with the following:

11.2.7 Road Closure/Use Agreement $200.00 Yes (non-profits excluded)

Withdrawn

The following amending motion was introduced that would in effect delete section 11.2.7 retroactive to January 1, 2017 when the fees and charges by-law was last updated as follows:

Moved by G. Smith and seconded by L. Braid R21/2017-CES

THAT Section 11.2.7 of Schedule “A” to By-law 2016-48 be deleted effective January 1, 2107;

AND THAT any fees that were received after January 1, 2017, shall be reimbursed.

Carried. b) Special Meeting of the Corporate and Emergency Services (CES) Committee Re: Made in Muskoka Solution to Policing Issues

In response to Councillor Donaldson’s enquiry regarding what information would be made available prior to the Special CES Committee meeting which is to commence on Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 4:00 p.m. and any proposed recommendations that might be considered during that meeting; Ms. Stevens advised that she would be bringing forward two reports. The first report will provide direction to staff to obtain a second legal opinion subsequent to the 2014 Aird & Berlis opinion regarding the taxation of policing costs. The second report will provide information on what the allocation of policing costs would look like if on the general levy or through a special services area levy; or a blended option of the two.

Adjournment

Moved by P. Donaldson and seconded by L. Braid P22/2017-CES

THAT the Corporate and Emergency Services Committee adjourns to meet again on Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. in a joint meeting with the Engineering and Public Works Committee or at the call of the Chair.

Carried.

The meeting adjourned at 3:02 p.m.

______District Clerk

Report to Council—Initial communication on audit planning

The District Municipality of Muskoka For the year ended December 31, 2016

Audit • Tax • Advisory Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd CONFIDENTIAL

February 22, 2017

Grant Thornton LLP Suite 400 85 Bayfield Street Barrie, ON L4M 3A7

T +1 705 728 3397 F +1 705 728 2728 www.GrantThornton.ca

To the members of Council of The District Municipality of Muskoka

We’re pleased to enclose our Report to Council – Initial communication on audit planning. The purpose of this document, and our upcoming meeting to discuss its content, is to initiate effective two way communication with you regarding our financial statement audit engagement of The District Municipality of Muskoka (hereinafter the “District”) for the year ending December 31, 2016. This communication will assist the Council in understanding the terms of the audit engagement; our proposed audit strategy and the level of responsibility assumed by Grant Thornton LLP under Canadian auditing standards (CAS).

This communication has been prepared to comply with the requirements outlined in CAS 260 Communication with those Charged with Governance. The information in this document is intended solely for the information and use of Council and management. It is not intended to be distributed or used by anyone other than these specified parties.

If you have any particular comments, concerns or additional expectations that may require us to undertake additional work over and above that which is currently contemplated, please do not hesitate to raise them at our next scheduled meeting.

Yours sincerely, Grant Thornton LLP

Mike Bunn, CPA, CA Principal

Audit • Tax • Advisory Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd

Contents

Page The District Municipality of Muskoka—Environmental scan – changes in business, regulations and standards 1 Achieving effective governance 3 Quality assurance, independence and communication 4 Our audit approach 5 Client service team 10 Audit timetable 11 Fee schedule 12 Appendix A – PSAB Accounting developments 13

Audit • Tax • Advisory Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd Report to Council – Initial communication on audit planning 1 The District Municipality of Muskoka For the year ended December 31, 2015

The District Municipality of Muskoka— Environmental scan – changes in business, regulations and standards

The following is a summary of recent changes to the District’s business environment, regulatory environment in which it operates, and relevant accounting and auditing standards. We have considered these factors in preparing the audit plan for the District. We consider all relevant District-specific changes factors when preparing an audit plan As part of our audit planning, we have discussions with management and staff in various departments specifically tailored to to determine if there have been any significant changes that would impact our audit approach. We your municipality. noted that The District has taken over the paramedic services previously contracted out to Medavie Ontario. We also noted there is a new CUPE Agreement for 2016. We noted no other significant changes in the processing of revenue, employee compensation and operating expenses. Our planning for the other audits performed as part of our contract did not identify any other significant matters impacting our approach for the 2016 audit of The District.

Accounting standards Accounting standards issued by the Accounting Standards Board which may affect your municipality in the current year and future years include:

• Section PS 3450 Financial instruments, Section PS 2601 Foreign currency translation, Section PS 1201 Financial statement presentation, and PS 3041 Portfolio investments

• Section PS 2200 Related party disclosures

• Section PS 3420 Inter-entity transactions

• Section PS 3210 Assets

• Section PS 3320 Contingent Assets

• Section PS 3380 Contractual rights

• Section PS 3430 Restructuring transactions

Audit • Tax • Advisory Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd Report to Council – Initial communication on audit planning 2 The District Municipality of Muskoka For the year ended December 31, 2015

Further details of the changes to accounting standards, including management’s preliminary comments on their applicability to the District, are included in the Appendices. If you have any questions about these changes we invite you to raise them during our next meeting. We will be pleased to address your concerns.

Auditing standards Canadian Auditing Standards are in effect for the current year-end and will constitute Canadian Generally Accepted Auditing Standards (GAAS). These standards have been incorporated into Grant Thornton’s audit approach.

Audit • Tax • Advisory Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd Report to Council – Initial communication on audit planning 3 The District Municipality of Muskoka For the year ended December 31, 2016

Achieving effective governance

There are several fundamental components of effective governance. The Council plays a key role in achieving strong governance, particularly with respect to financial reporting.

Roles in ensuring strong financial reporting The Council helps set the tone for the District by emphasizing honesty, Role of Council • Help set the tone for the District by emphasizing honesty, ethical behaviour and ethical behaviour and fraud prevention fraud prevention • Oversee management, including ensuring that management establishes and maintains internal controls to provide reasonable assurance regarding reliability of financial reporting • Oversee the work of the external auditors including reviewing and discussing the audit plan

Role of • Prepare financial statements in accordance with Canadian public sector management accounting standards • Design, implement and maintain effective internal controls over financial reporting processes, including controls to prevent and detect fraud • Exercise sound judgment in selecting and applying accounting policies • Prevent, detect and correct errors, including those caused by fraud • Provide representations to external auditors • Assess quantitative and qualitative impact of misstatements discovered during the audit on fair presentation of the financial statements

Role of • Provide an audit opinion that the financial statements are in accordance with Grant Thornton Canadian public sector accounting standards LLP • Conduct our audit in accordance with Canadian GAAS • Maintain independence and objectivity • Be a resource to management and Council • Communicate matters of interest to Council • Establish an effective two-way communication Council, to report matters of interest to them and obtain their comments on audit risk matters

Audit • Tax • Advisory Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd Report to Council – Initial communication on audit planning 4 The District Municipality of Muskoka For the year ended December 31, 2016

Quality assurance, independence and communication

Quality control Grant Thornton LLP has a robust quality control Grant Thornton LLP has a robust quality control program that forms a core part of our client service. program We combine internationally developed audit methodology, advanced technology, rigorous review procedures, mandatory professional development requirements, and the use of specialists to deliver high quality audit services to our clients. In addition to our internal processes, we are subject to inspection and oversight by standard setting and regulatory bodies. We are proud of our firm’s approach to quality control and would be pleased to discuss any aspect with you at your convenience.

Independence We have a rigorous process where we continually monitor and maintain our independence. The process of maintaining our independence includes, but is not limited to:

• Identification of threats to our independence and putting into place safeguards to mitigate those threats. For example, we evaluate the independence threat of any non-audit services provided to the District; • Confirming the independence of our engagement team members; We have identified no information regarding our independence that in our judgement should be brought to your attention.

Communication with Council Throughout the audit Effective and timely communication is key to quality service. In conducting our audit we will process we encourage you to contact us if there communicate frequently with Council so that issues and concerns are addressed in a timely and are any questions or productive manner. We also require your input and perspective on various risk assessment matters such concerns as fraud risk and compliance with laws and regulations, and we welcome your view on the District’s system of internal controls.

We encourage you to contact us at any time if questions or concerns arise.

Audit • Tax • Advisory Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd Report to Council – Initial communication on audit planning 5 The District Municipality of Muskoka For the year ended December 31, 2016

Our audit approach

An understanding of the District and your municipality drives the Grant Thornton LLP audit approach. The audit methodology is risk based and specifically tailored to the District as depicted below:

Our tailored audit approach results in procedures designed to respond to an identified risk. The greater the risk of material misstatement associated with the account, class of transactions or balance, the greater the audit emphasis placed on it in terms of audit verification and analysis.

Throughout the execution of the audit approach, we will maintain our professional skepticism, recognizing the possibility that a material misstatement due to fraud could exist notwithstanding our past experiences with the District or our beliefs about management’s honesty and integrity.

Audit • Tax • Advisory Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd Report to Council – Initial communication on audit planning 6 The District Municipality of Muskoka For the year ended December 31, 2016

Other communications As a result of our audit process we will communicate in our “results report” information on the following matters:

• Misstatements, other than trivial errors; • Fraud; • Misstatements that may cause future financial statements to be materially misstated; • Illegal or possibly illegal acts, other than those considered inconsequential; and • Material weaknesses and significant deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting.

Internal control Our audit includes gaining an understanding of the District’s internal control over financial reporting. Our understanding will focus on processes associated with the identified risk areas (see below). We use this understanding to determine the nature, extent and timing of our audit procedures.

Our understanding may also result in valuable internal control findings for your consideration. Note that the auditor’s objectives with regards to internal control are different from those of management and Council. For example, we primarily target controls that relate to financial reporting and not those that relate to the District’s operations or compliance which may also be relevant to the District's objectives. Therefore, management and Council cannot solely rely on our findings to discharge their responsibilities in this area.

Audit • Tax • Advisory Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd Report to Council – Initial communication on audit planning 7 The District Municipality of Muskoka For the year ended December 31, 2016

Risk assessment Our risk assessment process has identified the following areas where we will focus our attention:

Risk area Audit procedures Payables understated or not recorded in the • Trace the last payments for the current year and the correct period first payments for the subsequent year and validate (Expenses – completeness) that they are recognized in the correct period. • Perform a search for unrecorded liabilities.

Contingent liability from environmental • Inquire with the appropriate personnel regarding matters unrecognized events or conditions that may give rise to (Expenses – existence/occurrence) contingencies and corroborate by obtaining supporting documentation for example site assessments, environmental impact studies, etc. • Obtain an understanding of management’s process for the determination of any estimates. • Determine the appropriateness of the data used to create estimates by agreeing to supporting documentation.

Recorded tax revenues and receivables not • Analytical review of tax revenues based on valid expectations. (Tax Revenues – existence/occurrence) • Recalculation of the net tax revenues based on verified assessment rolls and approved tax rates. • Confirmation and review of subsequent receipts of taxes receivable.

Recorded grant revenues and receivables • Perform subsequent receipting testing and agree to not valid supporting documentation. (Grant Revenues – completeness)

Recorded water and sewer revenues and • Analytical assessment of water and sewer revenues receivables not valid. based on expectations. (Water and Sewer Revenues – existence/occurrence)

Provision for employee benefits • Review the assumptions used by management • Test supporting documentation (i.e. actuarial valuations) relating to the various amounts and disclosures

Materiality The purpose of our audit is to provide an opinion as to whether your financial statements are prepared, in all material respects, in accordance with Canadian public sector accounting standards as of December 31, 2016. Therefore, materiality is a critical auditing concept and as such we apply it in all stages of the engagement.

The concept of materiality recognizes that the audit team cannot verify every balance, transaction or judgment made in the financial reporting process. During audit planning, we made a preliminary assessment of materiality for the purpose of developing our audit strategy, including the determination of the extent of our audit procedures. During the completion stage, we consider not only the

Audit • Tax • Advisory Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd Report to Council – Initial communication on audit planning 8 The District Municipality of Muskoka For the year ended December 31, 2016

quantitative assessment of materiality, but also qualitative factors, in assessing the impact on the financial statements, our audit opinion and the matters reported to your attention.

Fraud can occur in Fraud risk factor considerations any municipality, at We are responsible for planning and performing the audit to obtain reasonable assurance as to whether any time, and can be perpetrated by the financial statements are free of material misstatement caused by error or by fraud. Our anyone. responsibility includes:

• The identification and assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements due to fraud through procedures including discussions amongst the audit team and specific inquires of management; • Obtaining sufficient appropriate audit evidence to respond to the fraud risks noted; and • Responding appropriately to any fraud or suspected fraud identified during the audit. We would like to obtain your input on these matters. With this regard, we are required to communicate with you on fraud-related matters, including:

• Obtaining an understanding of how you exercise oversight of management's processes for identifying and responding to the risks of fraud in the District and the internal control that management has established to mitigate these risks. • Inquiring as to whether you have knowledge of any actual, suspected or alleged fraud affecting the District.

The following provides a summary of some of the fraud related procedures we plan to perform during the audit:

• Test the appropriateness of journal entries recorded in the general ledger and other adjustments made in the preparation of the financial statements. • Review accounting estimates for biases. • Evaluate the business rationale (or the lack thereof) for significant transactions that are or appear to be outside the normal course of business.

We would like to Laws and regulations obtain your input on these matters. During the course of our audit, we will perform specified audit procedures to help identify instances of non-compliance with laws and regulations that may have a material effect on the financial statements. An audit of financial statements is not designed to detect all instances of non-compliance with laws and regulations and does not represent an audit of the District’s compliance with applicable laws and regulations. In this respect, we would like to know if you are aware of instances of the District not being in compliance with laws and regulations.

Client assistance and readiness Client assistance and readiness are integral to the successful meeting of our targeted audit report date. As presented further below, it is also critical in meeting our agreed fee. To facilitate the communication process, we have provided management with a letter detailing expected assistance and the critical milestone dates.

Audit • Tax • Advisory Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd Report to Council – Initial communication on audit planning 9 The District Municipality of Muskoka For the year ended December 31, 2016

Deliverables We are committed to We are committed to executing our audit in the most effective, efficient and timely manner. We will executing our audit in provide the following deliverables to Council: the most effective, efficient and timely manner • Initial communication on audit planning; • Audit report on the financial statements of the District; • Communication of audit results; • Management letter that provides our observations and recommendations regarding internal controls based on matters identified during the course of our audit

Audit • Tax • Advisory Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd Report to Council – Initial communication on audit planning 10 The District Municipality of Muskoka For the year ended December 31, 2016

Client service team

We have assembled a team of outstanding professionals to demonstrate our commitment to quality and service to the District.

Engagement member Role Phone Email Mike Bunn Engagement Principal 705-797-3012 [email protected] Thomas Turnbull Audit senior manager 705-797-2999 [email protected] Samantha Bialas Audit manager 705-797-2998 [email protected] Megan Hiltz Audit senior 705-797-2984 [email protected]

Audit • Tax • Advisory Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd Report to Council – Initial communication on audit planning 11 The District Municipality of Muskoka For the year ended December 31, 2016

Audit timetable

November 2016 Audit planning

November 22 – 24, Interim visit 2016

December 31, 2016 Date for all confirmations, including bank, taxes receivable, loans, etc.

February 22, 2017 Meeting with Council and presentation of Report to Council – Initial Communication on Audit Planning

Weeks of May 1, Year-end visit 2017 and May 8, 2017

May 2017 Preliminary clearance to be provided on draft consolidated financial statements

June 2017 Meeting with Council and presentation of Report to Council – Communication of Audit Results

Audit • Tax • Advisory Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd Report to Council – Initial communication on audit planning 12 The District Municipality of Muskoka For the year ended December 31, 2016

Fee schedule

Our approach to dealing Current period Service Prior period actual fees* with fees is to avoid proposed/estimated fees surprises The District Municipality of $ 43,000 $ 42,500 Muskoka

Non-profit housing corporation 600 600 tax returns

Social Assistance Audits – 3 3,600 3,300 Financial Statements

Total (before applicable taxes) $ 47,200 $ 46,400

*before office costs, disbursements and applicable taxes

Fee proposal considerations Upfront and periodic discussions are central to our approach in dealing with fees. Our goal is to avoid surprises by having early and frank communication. We wish to provide the District with a competitive price and fair value, while also allowing sufficient audit hours to conduct an effective audit and deliver quality service.

We have established a proposed fee for the audit for the year ended December 31, 2016 that is based on the level of activity and the anticipated complexity of the audit of the District’s financial statements.

The proposed fee is based on receiving the following from management:

• Draft financial statements including the notes to the financial statements, • All working papers and schedules as outlined in our requirements letter, • Trial balance together with reconciled control accounts, • All books and records made available to us when requested, and • Use of the District’s staff to help us locate information and provide explanations.

Our ability to deliver the services outlined in the agreed timetable and our proposed fee will depend upon these schedules being available/tasks being completed by the due dates. If there are any variances to the above plan, we will discuss them with you and agree on any additional fees before costs are incurred, wherever possible. Any unforeseen work outside the scope of this proposal will be billed separately after discussion with appropriate District officials and/or Council.

Audit • Tax • Advisory Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd Report to Council – Initial communication on audit planning 13 The District Municipality of Muskoka For the year ended December 31, 2016

Appendix A – PSAB Accounting developments

Management Public Sector Accounting Board Effective date assessment of applicability

Introduction to the PSA Handbook

The Introduction to the PSA Handbook has been Government Management is amended to add a new type of public sector entity components that adopt assessing the called a government component. A government the PSA standards - applicability. If component is an integral part of a government, such as Fiscal periods applicable, a department, ministry or fund, that is not a separate beginning on or after Management will apply entity with the power to contract in its own name and January 1, 2017. in the fiscal year that can sue and be sued. Government components Earlier adoption is ending December 31, that want to prepare general purpose financial permitted. 2017. statements must apply the standards for governments GBPs that adopt the in the PSA Handbook. standards applicable to As a result of adding the definition of a government PAEs - Fiscal periods component, the definition of a government organization beginning on or after was amended. A government organization is any January 1, 2017. organization controlled by a government that is a Earlier adoption is separate entity with the power to contract in its own permitted. name and that can sue and be sued. Government Government organizations include government business enterprises partnerships, other (GBEs), government not-for-profit organizations than GBPs, that (GNFPOs) and other government organizations determine the (OGOs). As a result of the change in the definition of a standards applicable to government organization, some entities that were PAEs are most formerly classified as GNFPOs or OGOs may now be appropriate for their classified as government components which may result partnership - Fiscal in a change in the accounting framework that they are periods beginning on required to apply. or after January 1, Government business partnerships (GBPs) between 2017. Earlier adoption two or more public sector entities that want to issue is permitted. general purpose financial statements must apply the Government standards for PAEs in Part I of the CPA Canada components, GBPs Handbook – Accounting – IFRS. and other government Non-business government partnerships between two or partnerships that more public sector entities that want to issue general expect to change their purpose financial statements would normally apply the basis of accounting PSA Handbook, unless it does not meet the needs of must disclose this fact the partnership’s financial statement users. In that in the periods case the partnership can apply, the standards preceding the period applicable to PAEs in Part I of the CPA Canada the change becomes Handbook – Accounting – IFRS. Factors to consider in effective. assessing users' needs include, but are not limited to, whether the partnership: • has issued, or is in the process of issuing, debt or equity instruments that are, or will be, outstanding

Audit • Tax • Advisory Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd Report to Council – Initial communication on audit planning 14 The District Municipality of Muskoka For the year ended December 31, 2016

Management Public Sector Accounting Board Effective date assessment of applicability and traded in a public market; • holds assets in a fiduciary capacity for a broad group of outsiders as one of its primary businesses; • has commercial-type operations and substantially derives its revenue from these activities; and • receives limited government assistance on an ongoing basis. Government components and government partnerships that adopt the PSA Handbook must account for the transition retroactively, with the restatement of prior periods in accordance with Section PS 2125 First-time adoption.

Section PS 3450 Financial instruments, Section PS 2601 Foreign currency translation, Section PS 1201 Financial statement presentation, and PS 3041 Portfolio investments

PS 3450 Financial instruments is a new Section that The new requirements Management will apply establishes standards for recognizing and measuring are all required to be the new standards in financial assets, financial liabilities and non-financial applied at the same the fiscal year ending derivatives. time. December 31, 2020 PS 2601 Foreign currency translation revises and For governments - Fiscal replaces Section PS 2600 Foreign currency translation. years beginning on or PS 1201 Financial statement presentation revises and after April 1, 2019. This replaces Section PS 1200 Financial statement effective date was presentation. amended in September 2015. PS 3041 Portfolio investments revises and replaces Section PS 3040 Portfolio investments. For government organizations that The issuance of these new sections also includes applied the CPA Canada consequential amendments to Handbook – Accounting • Introduction to accounting standards that apply only prior to their adoption of to government not-for-profit organizations the CPA Canada Public • PS 1000 Financial statement concepts Sector Accounting Handbook - Fiscal years • PS 1100 Financial statement objectives beginning on or after • PS 2125 First-time adoption by government April 1, 2012. organizations For all other government • PS 2500 Basic principles of consolidation organizations - Fiscal years beginning on or • PS 2510 Additional areas of consolidation after April 1, 2019. This • PS 3050 Loans receivable effective date was • PS 3060 Government partnerships amended in September 2015. • PS 3070 Investments in government business enterprises Earlier adoption is permitted. • PS 3230 Long-term debt • PS 3310 Loan guarantees • PS 4200 Financial statement presentation by not-for- profit organizations PSG-6 Including results of organizations and partnerships applying fair value measurement was withdrawn as a result of the issuance of these sections.

Section PS 2200 Related party disclosures Fiscal years beginning Management will apply the new standard in This Section defines a related party. It also establishes on or after April 1, 2017. the fiscal year ending the disclosures required for related party transactions, December 31, 2018 including disclosure of information about an entity’s Earlier adoption is related party transactions and the relationship between permitted.

Audit • Tax • Advisory Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd Report to Council – Initial communication on audit planning 15 The District Municipality of Muskoka For the year ended December 31, 2016

Management Public Sector Accounting Board Effective date assessment of applicability the related parties when the transactions: • have occurred at a value different from that which would have been arrived at if the parties were unrelated; or • have or could have, a material financial effect on the financial statements. As a result of the issuance of this Section, at its June 2015 meeting, the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) approved an Exposure Draft proposing the withdrawal of Section PS 4260 Disclosure of related party transactions by not-for-profit organizations. This proposal would require not-for-profit organizations to apply Section PS 2200. PSAB will also propose amendments to the transitional provisions of Section PS 2200 for not-for-profit organizations applying the 4200 series.

Section PS 3420 Inter-entity transactions

This Section establishes how to account for and report Fiscal years beginning Management will apply transactions between public sector entities that on or after April 1, the new standard in comprise a government's reporting entity from both a 2017. the fiscal year ending provider and recipient perspective (i.e., related parties Earlier adoption is December 31, 2018 within a government reporting entity). The main permitted. features of the new Section are: • Transactions are measured at their carrying amounts, except in specific circumstances. • Transactions occurring on similar terms and conditions as an arm’s length transaction are measured at the exchange amount. • Cost allocation and recovery is the allocation of costs of activities associated with providing goods or services to another entity and the recovery of the costs incurred from the other entities. Under a policy of cost allocation, revenues and expenses are recognized on a gross basis at their exchange amount. • Unallocated costs are the cost of resources recorded by the providing entity in its operating activities that are incurred on behalf of a recipient entity. A recipient may choose to recognize unallocated costs for the provision of goods and services and measure them at their carrying amount, fair value or other amount dictated by policy, accountability structure or budget practice. • The transfer of an asset or liability for nominal or no consideration is measured by the provider at its carrying amount and by the recipient at its carrying amount or fair value. • Inter-entity transactions must be disclosed in accordance with Section PS 2200 Related party disclosures.

Section PS 3210 Assets

This new Section provides guidance for applying the Fiscal years beginning Management will apply definition of an asset set out in Section PS 1000 on or after April 1, the new standard in Financial statement concepts and establishes general 2017. the fiscal year ending disclosure standards for assets. Earlier adoption is December 31, 2018 Disclosure of information about the major categories of permitted. assets that are not recognized is required. When an asset is not recognized because a reasonable estimate

Audit • Tax • Advisory Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd Report to Council – Initial communication on audit planning 16 The District Municipality of Muskoka For the year ended December 31, 2016

Management Public Sector Accounting Board Effective date assessment of applicability of the amount involved cannot be made, the reason(s) for this should be disclosed.

Section PS 3320 Contingent assets Management will apply This new Section defines and establishes disclosure Fiscal years beginning the new standard in standards for contingent assets. on or after April 1, the fiscal year ending Contingent assets are possible assets arising from 2017. December 31, 2018 existing conditions or situations involving uncertainty. Earlier adoption is That uncertainty will ultimately be resolved when one or permitted. more future events not wholly within the public sector entity's control occur or fail to occur and that resolution will confirm the existence or non-existence of an asset. Disclosure of information about contingent assets is required when the occurrence of the confirming future event is likely.

Section PS 3380 Contractual rights

This new Section defines and establishes disclosure Fiscal years beginning Management will apply standards on contractual rights. Contractual rights are on or after April 1, the new standard in rights to economic resources arising from contracts or 2017. the fiscal year ending agreements that will result in both an asset and Earlier adoption is December 31, 2018 revenue in the future. permitted. Disclosure of information about contractual rights is required, including a description about their nature and extent and the timing.

Section PS 3430 Restructuring transactions

This new Section defines a restructuring transaction Fiscal years beginning Management is and establishes standards for recognizing and on or after April 1, assessing the measuring assets and liabilities transferred in a 2018. applicability restructuring transaction. Earlier adoption is A restructuring transaction is a transfer of an integrated permitted. set of assets and/or liabilities, together with related program or operating responsibilities without consideration based primarily on the fair value of the individual assets and individual liabilities transferred. The main requirements in the new Section are: • The net effect of a restructuring transaction is recognized as revenue or an expense by the entities involved (transferor/recipient). • The recipient must recognize the individual assets and liabilities received in a restructuring transaction at their carrying amounts with applicable adjustments at the restructuring date. • The transferor and recipient cannot restate their financial position or results of operations as if the transaction had happened from inception. • The transferor and recipient must disclose sufficient information to enable users to assess the nature and financial effects of a restructuring transaction on their financial position and operations. The issuance of this new Section also resulted in consequential amendments to Section PS 3050 Loans receivable.

Audit • Tax • Advisory Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd Report to Council – Initial communication on audit planning 17 The District Municipality of Muskoka For the year ended December 31, 2016

Proposed modifications to the accounting standards for not-for-profit organizations in the private and public sectors

In April 2013, the Accounting Standards Board (AcSB) and the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB and collectively, the Boards) published a joint statement of principles (SOP) entitled Improvements to Not-for-Profit Standards. The changes proposed in the SOP would apply to private sector NFPOs that apply Part III of the CPA Handbook – Accounting Standards for Not-for-Profit Organizations and public sector NFPOs that apply the CPA Canada Public Sector Accounting Handbook (PSA Handbook) including the Section PS 4200 to 4270 series of standards contained within the PSA Handbook. The consultation document issued by the Boards proposed improvements to better meet the needs of financial statement users and, where possible, to align accounting standards for private and public sector NFPOs. The Boards received an overwhelming 292 responses from interested parties of which 11% related to the proposals for public sector NFPOs. The Boards analyzed the responses and discovered some common concerns with certain proposed principles, including: • contributions and pledges o only recognizing contributions and pledges receivable when the NFPO has control over the contribution and can exercise its control; o recognizing contributions as revenue immediately unless the contribution gives rise to an obligation that meets definition of liability; • controlled and related entities o consolidating all controlled NFPOs; o equity accounting for all controlled for-profit entities; • financial statement presentation o presenting expenses by function in the statement of operations and disclosing expenses by object in the notes to the financial statements; and o presenting total fundraising and general expenses separately in the statement of operations (or disclosing the amounts in the notes). The Boards met in March 2015 to develop a process to address the SOP. They discussed key issues including: user needs, a need for symmetry between both private and public NFPOs and future timing of the project. In late June 2015, PSAB discussed their own project plan to improve its standards for not-for-profit organizations. They have proposed to remove Section PS 4260 Disclosure of related party transactions by not-for-profit organizations and require NFPO to apply Section PS 2200. In addition, PSAB will propose amendments to the transitional provisions of Section PS 2200 for NFPO applying the 4200 series. At this point in time, it is uncertain what further direction PSAB will take as a result of the comments they have received on the SOP.

Audit • Tax • Advisory Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd

70 PINE STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO P1L 1N3 Telephone (705) 645-2231 / Fax (705) 645-5319 / 1-800-461-4210 (705 area code) www.muskoka.on.ca

To: Chair and Members Corporate and Emergency Services Committee

From: Jeff Yeo Manager, Facilities Services

Date: March 23, 2017

Subject: Award of Provincial Offences Basement Development Project

Report: CES-2-2017-1 ______

Recommendation

AND THAT the final terms of the contract be to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Finance and Corporate Services and the District Solicitor;

AND THAT the District Chair and Clerk be authorized to sign the contract on behalf of The District Municipality of Muskoka.

Origin

This report includes information related to the request for proposal (RFP) for the development of the Provincial Offences basement under Capital Project 130118.

Analysis

The RFP was preceded by a contractor pre-qualification process which required respondents to demonstrate their experience and ability to deliver this project successfully.

A total of four requests for pre-qualification submissions were received. Two submissions were deemed to be non-compliant with the request for pre-qualification and therefore not considered. The table below lists the two remaining proponents that were pre-qualified for this project:

Greystone Project Management Inc. Huntsville, ON Davicor Construction Inc. Huntsville, ON

Managing Our Legacy Together Page 1

The requirements for this project were developed in consultation with the Chief Administrative Officer, Commissioner of Finance and Corporate Services, the District Solicitor and staff who will be occupying and utilizing the space. Duncan Ross of Duncan Ross Architect was retained to provide a base floor plan design to ensure the development would meet the Ontario Building Code and applicable accessibility standards.

The RFP closed on March 1, 2017. The table below provides a comparison of the costing provided.

Davicor Greystone Project Scope of Work Construction Inc. Management Inc.

General Conditions $ 27,420.00 $ 43,200.00 Permit Fees $ 3,000.00 $ 4,000.00 Demolition & Removals $ 3,900.00 $ 12,052.00 Framing $ 22,600.00 $ 36,544.00 Drywall $ 19,580.00 $ 49,674.00 Doors and Hardware $ 25,674.00 $ 26,712.00 Ceiling $ 9,420.00 $ 24,020.00 Painting $ 8,625.00 $ 13,146.00 Flooring $ 15,980.00 $ 16,680.00 Plumbing $ 15,000.00 $ 21,966.00 Mechanical $ 48,000.00 $ 33,814.00 Sprinkler System $ 16,620.00 $ 18,730.00 Electrical $ 63,100.00 $ 65,400.00 Accessories & Equipment * $ Included above $ 9,462.00

Total excluding H.S.T. $ 278,919.00 $ 375,400.00

Both proposal packages were reviewed and proponents individually questioned regarding their proposals to ensure compliance with the project requirements and to confirm that the cost breakdowns were directly comparable.

The floor plan of the proposed basement development is attached to this report as Appendix A. The finished area included in the scope of this project is approximately 3,500 square feet (sqft). The Davicor Construction Inc. proposal yields a relative cost per sqft of $79.70 which is in line with the expected cost per sqft in the project estimate.

Page 2

Financial Considerations

This project is included in the 2017 Tax Supported Capital Budget and Forecast as project 130118 with a total approved budget of $430,000 financed from the Corporate Capital Reserve Fund. The table below provides an overview of the total project forecast to complete the project and includes the costs associated with this recommendation:

LTD Commitments/ Forecast to Total Project

Actuals Complete Cost Expenditures Capital Coordination 1,935 13,065 15,000 Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment 60,000 60,000 Consultant 3,238 30,762 34,000 Prime Contractor (including HST) 284,500 284,500 Contingency Allowance 36,500 36,500 Total Expenditures 5,173 424,827 430,000 Sources of Funding

Corporate Capital Reserve 5,173 424,827 430,000 Total Sources of Funding 5,173 424,827 430,000

Communications

Notice of Committee’s decision resulting from this recommendation will be provided to both pre- qualified respondents.

Strategic Priorities

Click on icons below to view strategies under each priority area:

s. 2.3

Respectfully submitted,

Original signed by Original signed by

Jeff Yeo, A.Sc.T. Julie Stevens, CPA, CA Manager, Facilities Services Commissioner of Finance and Corporate Services

Page 3

APPENDIX A Proposed POA Basement Development Plan

Page 4

70 PINE STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO P1L 1N3 Telephone (705) 645-2231 / Fax (705) 645-5319 / 1-800-461-4210 (705 area code) www.muskoka.on.ca

To: Chair and Members Corporate and Emergency Services Committee

From: Leanna Kerswell Coordinator, Records Management

Date: March 23, 2017

Subject: Corporate Records and Information Management Program Update

Report: CES-2-2017-2 ______

Recommendation

This report is provided for information.

Executive Summary

The Corporate Records and Information Management Program is underway, however, it is still in its early stages of development. Of The Information Professionals' seven major recommendations, three are complete, three are in progress/under development and one is outstanding. Of their thirty- seven recommendations in total, four are complete (11%), fourteen are in progress/under development (38%), and nineteen are outstanding (51%). Limited staffing resources, increasing volumes of paper and electronic records and the increasing complexity of legislation and records management compliance requirements continue to represent challenges as the District develops its Records and Information Management Program. The District will continue to pursue the implementation of an Electronic Document and Records Management System (EDRMS) in partnership with the Towns of Bracebridge and Gravenhurst and the Township of Muskoka Lakes, and with the assistance of a contracted Project Manager. The preferred proponent, Schroeder & Schroeder Inc., has been identified and each municipality is now in the process of presenting reports to their respective Councils (refer to District Report 3(2017)-5). Legal Services is finalizing the Agreement between the District of Muskoka and the preferred proponent along with either a separate Agreement or an amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the District of Muskoka and the participating municipalities to reflect the shared services of the Project Manager.

Origin

Program update as requested by Committee.

Background

Subsection 241(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25 ("Municipal Act, 2001") sets out the requirement that municipal institutions “shall retain and preserve the records of the municipality and its local boards in a secure and accessible manner.” In addition to the Municipal Act, 2001 there are over 133 pieces of federal and provincial statutes and regulations that identify records retention requirements for Ontario Municipalities. Privacy legislation and rulings from the Privacy Managing Our Legacy Together Page 1 Commissioner of Canada and the Information Privacy Commissioner of Ontario call for increased transparency and access to information while balancing the increased need to protect privacy rights. In addition, recent amendments to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990 (MFIPPA) have expanded the liability for offences under the Act to include individuals who wilfully disclose personal information or who alter, conceal or destroy a corporate record.

The District of Muskoka recognized the need for a corporate records and information management (RIM) program in order to improve service delivery, improve access to and control of information and to meet legislative compliance requirements. In August 2013, The Information Professionals were awarded a contract for consulting services related to records management. A report entitled "Records and Information Management Review, Findings, Recommendations & Strategic Plan Report" (Appendix "I" to Report CES-11-2014-1) was presented by The Information Professionals to the Corporate and Emergency Services Committee in November 2014.

Analysis

Records management is more than just collecting, organizing and filing records. Components of a successful and comprehensive RIM program take time to develop in order to ensure that they meet the needs of the corporation, the operating departments and staff. Due to limited resources, the District's program is also based upon a decentralized approach in which departments and divisions are responsible for maintaining records in their own custody and control.

The District's Corporate Records and Information Management program is being developed to provide an accountability framework for the management of the District’s information assets, regardless of format or media, which is fundamental for:

• Improving program and service delivery through improved efficiencies and productivity; • Improving decision-making by making information more easily accessible and complete; • Improving collaboration across departments and divisions; • Protecting private and confidential information from unlawful access and official records from premature destruction; • Reducing risk to the District and staff members through regulatory compliance; • Creating space and cost savings; • Contributing to transparency, accountability and public confidence; and • Ensuring that the archival legacy of the District is preserved.

Where are we now?

The District's RIM program is currently under construction. It is being developed to address ARMA's (Association of Records Managers and Administrators) Generally Accepted Record Keeping Principles® (compliance, transparency, accountability, integrity, protection, availability, retention and disposition) and the above fundamental goals through the recognition and development of frameworks which take into consideration many interrelated components (see Figure 1).

Figure 1 District's RIM Program Page 2

The Information Professionals' report identified seven major recommendations which are identified below along with their status.

Recommendations Details Status 1. Create a new position within District A temporary Coordinator of Records Management position is OUTSTANDING Clerk's department with responsibility for in place. Approved in November 2014, filled in June 2015, and the District's RIM program. extended in September 2016 to the end of 2017. 2. Establish corporate responsibility for the Corporate Records and Information Management Policy AD- COMPLETE RIM program with the Clerk’s office as part 009-2016. Passed by Council on August 8, 2016. of an "umbrella" policy for the RIM program. 3. Continue the development of the Corporate Records Classification System (modified COMPLETE/ corporate classification structure using the TOMRMS), Scope Notes and Retention Periods finalized in ONGOING modified TOMRMS (The Ontario Municipal August 2016. Annual reviews are required. ANNUAL Records Management System) structure. - The Records Consortium members have adopted REVIEWS TOMRMS, which will allow for a more streamlined REQUIRED approach to a joint EDRMS. 4. Update the District retention By-law to Records Retention By-law No. 2016-37 including the following COMPLETE/ reflect current legislative and operational schedules: Records Retention Policy AD-008-2016 and ONGOING requirements and apply it to current Records Retention Schedule. Passed by Council July 18, 2016. ANNUAL physical and electronic record holdings. Annual reviews are required. REVIEWS REQUIRED 5. Proceed as soon as possible with the EDRMS Joint RFP (15-130317-01) including the District of CANCELLED development of system requirements for a Muskoka, Town of Bracebridge, Town of Gravenhurst and comprehensive Electronic Document and Township of Muskoka Lakes. It was determined during the Records Management System (EDRMS). process that the Records Consortium members were not implementation ready. Cancelled in January 2016.

Project Manager EDRMS Joint RFP (16-130317-01). Preferred IN PROGRESS proponent identified in Report 3(2017)-5. Anticipate entering into a contract in early spring, dependent on each Consortium member's Council schedule. 6. Create and deliver a series of training Initial Training Session for Super Users. Conducted by The COMPLETE sessions for all staff on the principles of Information Professionals, May 2014. RIM, the District policy, classification In-Depth Training Session for Department and Division UNDER scheme and retention By-law and how to Records Coordinators. DEVELOPMENT implement them within their work areas. Basic Training Sessions for Staff, Tailored to Specific Roles UNDER and Levels of Records Management Responsibilities. DEVELOPMENT 7. Use the corporate classification scheme Apply Classification System on all Physical Records: to OUTSTANDING for all physical and electronic records, coincide with Training Sessions. including shared drives and Outlook folders. Electronic Folder Structure Based on Classification System: COMPLETED created and rolled out to Muskoka Paramedic Services' shared drive prior to onboarding (pilot).

Rollout of Electronic Folder Structure Based on Classification IN PROGRESS System to Corporate Collaborative Shared Drive: pending completion of project planning with IT Services, implementation of infrastructure and approval of change management procedures.

Application of Classification System to Staff Outlook Folders: OUTSTANDING to coincide with Training Sessions. Table 1 Status of The Information Professionals' Key Recommendations

Page 3

Figure 2 Percentage Completion of Recommendations

Of The Information Professionals' thirty-seven total recommendations, four are complete, fourteen are in progress or under development and nineteen are outstanding. The recommendations relate to: vision/accountability/staffing; policies and procedures; records content identification; capture, access and use; storage and disposition; user engagement, training and communication; protection and security; technology use; and monitoring compliance and quality. Progress has been made in each of these areas along with several other projects, tasks and requirements not identified by The Information Professionals which have required the attention of the Coordinator, Records Management (i.e. FilePro security clean-up, change management procedures, and staff RIM tools and resources).

Immediate Challenges:

Many of the issues noted in previous reports continue to persist as the Corporate Records and Information Management Program has been in the development stages. As the program is implemented, improvements to these concerns and those noted below will be realized.

Staff Resources While the departments and divisions have expressed enthusiasm for the benefits of a corporate RIM program, they have also expressed concern regarding limited resources that they have available to take on the additional responsibilities related to records and information management within the District's decentralized environment. In response to these concerns, the implementation of the classification system has been proposed on a "new or as touched" basis; as staff create or receive new records or access old ones for reference, new classifications are applied and records are filed according to the Corporate Records and Information Management Program Policy and supporting procedures. Records due for destruction, however, must be classified and logged prior to destruction to ensure that they have met the requirements under the Records Retention By-law. IT Services has a large volume of projects currently identified for the District and the other municipalities and libraries involved with the Shared Services Initiative. Pending the Project Intake and Prioritization process, staffing resources from a technical implementation perspective may represent a challenge for this department as well.

Paper Records Space constraints continue for active and inactive records. Many inactive records are being held beyond their legislative and operational retention requirements. Security measures for records containing confidential and personal information need to be addressed in active filing areas as well as within the "Archives Room" in order to restrict access to authorized individuals only. Searching for records in inactive storage remains a time consuming process for many departments and divisions. Formalized procedures, training and the allocation of resources will assist in resolving these challenges, along with the creation of additional inactive records storage space.

Page 4 Electronic Records The Records Retention Schedule requirements cannot be enforced on staff email or My Document folders. As a result, there is the potential for official records to be deleted prior to meeting their retention period or retained past their retention period. Access to staff emails and My Documents is currently restricted to the individual employee. Staff training and technical solutions through Outlook integration with an EDRMS are key solutions.

Exponential growth also continues with electronic documents saved on department and division shared drives. With the addition of new servers, volume capacity is no longer an immediate concern; however, the elimination of transitory and duplicate records can decrease volumes and improve search efficiencies. Security is successfully being applied through the application of user groups defined through Active Directory and access permissions of either "read" or "modify" are being applied to folders within the shared drives, as required. The Records Retention Schedule requirements cannot be enforced on shared drives, and as a result, records can be deleted before they have reached their total retention period and they can also be retained past their retention period. The implementation of an EDRMS will assist in resolving these challenges.

Staff are seeking solutions to increase opportunities for electronic record collaboration in order to increase efficiencies, ensure access to documents required for decision-making, and streamline interdepartmental workflows. A temporary collaborative shared drive on the network has been established for immediate collaborative requirements between departments and divisions on a limited basis; however, it is a primary shared drive for one of the departments. The temporary collaborative shared drive does not adhere to the new classification system and lacks the infrastructure to support volume expansion, advanced search capabilities, business continuity and reporting functionality. The creation of a new corporate collaborative shared drive based on the new classification system is currently in the planning stages and is being designed to ensure that the infrastructure will be properly developed to support staff until an EDRMS is in place. Vital records necessary for the continuation of District business and the delivery of services during a disaster, crisis or business interruption have yet to be identified. Once identified, the Coordinator, Records Management will need to work with IT Services to develop a project plan for incorporation into the Business Continuity Plan (BCP) and BCP site.

Change Management Defined change management procedures need to be in place to ensure the integrity of the RIM program. The Coordinator has been working closely with IT Services in the development of a procedure and supporting forms which will be used to document changes to folder requirements and access permissions for electronic records in shared drives. This process will help to ensure accuracy, protect confidential and sensitive records and provide opportunities for auditing the program. IT Services also hopes to standardize the procedure and forms with all Shared Services partners.

Training As staff recognize the value that the records and information management program represents, they have begun requesting records management training on such aspects as: • What records need to be kept (official records) and where should they be saved or filed; • What records can be destroyed (transitory) without requiring approval; • Email management to assist with volume management and capturing official records; • Classifying paper and electronic records according to the new classification system; • Disposition procedures in order to purge records and make space for 2017 records; • How to increase collaboration in order to increase efficiencies, decrease duplication and decrease versioning issues; and • How to create workflows in order to automate elements of a process and improve efficiencies and accuracy.

The provision of access to policies and procedures will not be enough to ensure that staff understand the expectations and have the ability to apply them. Training will be required for all current and new Page 5 full, part-time and temporary staff as part of their onboarding, along with regular communications. A training program is currently being developed which will be tailored to the various roles in order to assist them in meeting their specific records management responsibilities.

Support Framework Records management knowledge and experience needs to be cultivated within each of the departments and divisions in order to maintain the decentralized approach and ensure compliance.

The RIM program is large in scale and has many components requiring a great deal of change which is contrary to many current practices. There have been significant projects and tasks completed to date, many others are in progress or under development, and there are still a large number of outstanding items to be accomplished. It is important for staff and Council to keep in mind that many of these tasks are required regardless of the implementation of an EDRMS, and will prove to be even more critical if implementation is not imminent. The Project Manager will provide additional assistance in identifying gaps associated with the District's RIM program and will identify how to best become implementation ready through their business plan.

Financial Considerations

There are no financial considerations as a result of this report.

Communications

The Corporate Records and Information Management Program update is submitted to the Corporate and Emergency Services Committee to provide information on activities completed to date and outstanding items to be completed.

Strategic Priorities

Click on icons below to view strategies under each priority area:

s 2.2, 2.9

Respectfully submitted,

Original signed by Original signed by Original signed by

Leanna Kerswell Debbie Crowder, AMCT Jamie Clow, B.A., LL.B. Coordinator, Records Management District Clerk District Solicitor

Page 6

70 PINE STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO P1L 1N3 Telephone (705) 645-2231 / Fax (705) 645-5319 / 1-800-461-4210 (705 area code) www.muskoka.on.ca

To: Chair and Members Corporate and Emergency Services Committee

From: Jamie Clow District Solicitor

Date: March 23, 2017

Subject: The District Municipality of Muskoka ats. Van Sluytman (CV-16-158)

Report: CES-2-2017-3 ______

Recommendation

This report is provided for information.

Origin

On November 21, 2016, Mr. Rory Van Sluytman, a Muskoka resident, commenced a legal Action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, alleging certain negligent acts and omissions on the part of representatives of several parties, including the District of Muskoka, relating to the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) and Ontario Works (OW).

The Claim named the Government of Ontario, Ministry of Community and Social Services and The District Municipality of Muskoka as defendants. The Action sought several million dollars in alleged damages, including a claim for $6,500,000.00 in damages from the District.

As against the District specifically, Mr. Van Sluytman alleged that the District provided “incompetent staff who committed inappropriate acts” with respect to an ODSP application.

Analysis

The matter was referred to the District’s insurance providers, who advised that no coverage would be provided for this matter.

Following a review of the claim and the surrounding circumstances it was determined that carriage of the matter be referred to the District Legal Department to prepare a defence on behalf of the District. In the meantime, a request for reconsideration was made to the District Insurance provider regarding its refusal to provide coverage.

On behalf of the District, the Legal Department prepared and filed a Statement of Defence.

On January 23, 2017, the Superior Court of Justice released an Endorsement advising that it had commenced a Review of the Statement of Claim pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure. The Managing Our Legacy Together Page 1 Court noted that the Plaintiff had commenced 12 additional actions in the Bracebridge and Oshawa Court offices. With respect to the Claim at hand, the Court noted that the Claim as filed failed to comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure in that it contained no factual assertions, was otherwise vexatious and was barred by the Limitations Act.

The Court provided the District with thirty (30) days in which to seek costs as against the Plaintiff.

On February 20, 2017 Mr. Van Sluytman commenced proceedings to appeal the Order of Justice Wood to the Ontario Court of Appeal. Proceedings are in the initial stages, however District staff are co-ordinating with the other parties with respect to the matter.

Financial Considerations

The District of Muskoka’s costs with respect to the matter up to the time of Justice Wood’s Order were limited to staff time incurred in reviewing and responding to the matter and filing fees. There will be additional fees and cost incurred to respond to the appeal.

Communications

All Parties are aware of the appeal.

Respectfully submitted,

Original signed by Original signed by

Jamie Clow, B.A. LL.B. Michael Duben, B.A. LL.B. District Solicitor Chief Administrative Officer

Page 2

70 PINE STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO P1L 1N3 Telephone (705) 645-2231 / Fax (705) 645-5319 / 1-800-461-4210 (705 area code) www.muskoka.on.ca

To: Chair and Members Corporate and Emergency Services Committee

From: Jamie Clow District Solicitor

Date: March 23, 2017

Subject: The District Municipality of Muskoka ats. Van Sluytman (CV-16-159)

Report: CES-2-2017-4 ______

Recommendation

This report is provided for information.

Origin

On November 21, 2016, Mr. Rory Van Sluytman, a Muskoka resident, commenced a legal Action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, alleging that members of the Ontario Provincial Police (“O.P.P.”) stationed and providing police services within the geographic boundaries of the Town of Bracebridge committed certain negligent acts and various violations of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Claim named the Government of Ontario, Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services – Ontario, Ontario Provincial Police, Bracebridge’s Ontario Provincial Police Detachment and The District Municipality of Muskoka as defendants. The Action sought several million dollars in alleged damages.

As against the District specifically, Mr. Van Sluytman alleged that the District provided a peace officer service that “did not adhere to the constitution and who provided inadequate, unlawful, unconstitutional, unpatriotic service.”

Analysis

The matter was referred to the District’s insurance provider, who advised that they were prepared to engage the services of a third party law firm to defend the matter on behalf of the District. However, the District was also advised that a $25,000.00 deductible would be applicable to this claim.

Following a review of the Claim, the response from the District’s insurer and the surrounding circumstances, it was determined that carriage of the defence of the matter should be referred to the District Legal Department.

Managing Our Legacy Together Page 1 On behalf of the District, the Legal Department filed a Statement of Defence on December 20, 2016. Additionally, the Legal Department commenced preliminary proceedings to strike the Statement of Claim on the basis that the Claim did not disclose a reasonable cause of action against the District.

On January 23, 2017, the Superior Court of Justice released an Endorsement advising that it had commenced a Review of the Statement of Claim pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court noted that the Plaintiff had commenced 12 additional actions in the Bracebridge and Oshawa Court offices. With respect to the Claim at hand, the Court noted that the Claim, as filed, failed to comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure in that it contained no factual assertions, was otherwise vexatious and was barred by the Limitations Act.

The Court provided the District with thirty (30) days in which to seek costs as against the Plaintiff.

Financial Considerations

Communications

All Parties are aware of the appeal.

Respectfully submitted,

Original signed by Original signed by

Jamie Clow, B.A. LL.B. Michael Duben, B.A. LL.B. District Solicitor Chief Administrative Officer

Page 2

70 PINE STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO P1L 1N3 Telephone (705) 645-2231 / Fax (705) 645-5319 / 1-800-461-4210 (705 area code) www.muskoka.on.ca

To: Chair and Members Corporate and Emergency Services Committee

From: Rebecca Francis Manager, Continuous Improvement Unit

Date: March 23, 2017

Subject: Shared Services Inventory

Report: CES-2-2017-5 ______

Recommendation

THAT the District Municipality of Muskoka continue to pursue shared service opportunities with the Area Municipalities and other partners;

AND THAT staff be directed to report back to the Corporate and Emergency Services Committee as significant shared service arrangements are undertaken.

Origin

To reduce the cost of municipal government service delivery, both the internal services and operational reviews undertaken by the District of Muskoka included a recommendation that the District explore further opportunities to work with the Area Municipalities in developing a Shared Service Program (Operational Review OE4 and Internal Services Review CES-11 as referenced in Report CES-15-2015-9).

Analysis

Muskoka Shared Service Inventory

Among all six Area Municipalities there appears to be a collective interest in further exploring opportunities to share services. To this end, an inventory of services currently shared between municipalities and other organizations in and beyond Muskoka has been developed (Appendix ‘A’). The inventory is divided into four sections: 1. Existing shared services between District and Area Municipalities. 2. Existing shared services between Area Municipalities (excluding District). 3. Existing shared services with Muskoka Area Municipalities and organizations outside Muskoka. 4. Possible future shared services (all levels).

Managing Our Legacy Together

Page 1 Each Area Municipality has had the opportunity to provide comment in order to ensure it best reflects the current situation in Muskoka. Appendix A includes consolidated comments from the Area Municipalities.

Highlights: Existing Shared Services

For some time, service agreements between District and some Area Municipalities have existed in Information Technology (I.T.), Geographic Information Systems (G.I.S.) and Roads. The new Fire Hall and Paramedic Station project currently underway is an enterprising example where both capital procurement and future operations of the facility are a collaborative effort between two levels of municipal government.

Separately from District functions, the Area Municipalities have existing working agreements among them and with neighbouring municipalities and organizations outside of Muskoka. Such is the case with: • Building inspection and by-law enforcement (on an as-needed basis). • Joint Fire-Services and automatic aid agreements. • Library reciprocal borrowing.

Highlights: Possible Future Shared Services

There is momentum with some District services to develop new sharing relationships with the Area Municipalities. For example: • There is currently work underway at the staff level to develop such a program for Legal Shared services among interested Area Municipalities in Muskoka; • District Staff are currently investigating fuel supply servicing with Area Municipalities; • District and Area Municipal marketing and communications staff have scheduled regular meetings to explore possibilities for collaboration and leveraging their reach; • Collection of field-level data and process for Area surveying requirements; • Exploring Economic Development initiatives beyond collaboration with MTMA and Explorers’ Edge to establish alliances with municipal neighbours (in the Central Ontario geographic area); • Investigation of a shared group to execute Health & Safety Audits at District and Area Municipalities.

The Benefits of Shared Services

Sharing services between municipalities is widespread in Ontario and beyond. In Muskoka, there are already numerous examples of shared services that assist in delivering services, attaining required service levels or realizing cost savings. Some of these services would not be attainable otherwise. It is incumbent on all of us to be as efficient as reasonably possible in order to best serve the taxpayers of Muskoka.

The exact benefits of shared services are case-specific, but typically include: • Reduced and/or avoided costs through economies of scale, especially for small municipalities. • Reduced costs through economies of scope. • Enhanced, sustained and consistent levels of service. • Standardized processes that incorporate best practices. • Heightened capacity to solve problems which use existing staff skill-set. • Better efficiency by providing the service from those who have the expertise.

Page 2 Going Forward

Existing shared services have provided these and other benefits in Muskoka. A collaborative spirit and openness between partners, flexibility and continued commitment have played a role in their success. While some functions of a municipality are more efficient when an organization maintains autonomy for reasons of geography or a specialization of services, there is the opportunity to share many services in Muskoka to a greater degree and explore new relationships that can ultimately result in better service to taxpayers.

Financial Considerations

There are no financial considerations at this time. Financial considerations will be dealt with within the context of each shared service arrangement as undertaken.

Communications

The Communications Officer will incorporate the shared services benefits and successes into the public education and community outreach campaign planned for this summer. The goal of the campaign is to raise awareness of the roles and responsibilities of the District and the Area Municipalities (i.e. “What does the District do?”) and promote the municipal programs and services available to residents and visitors. Staff will report back to the Corporate and Emergency Services Committee as significant shared service arrangements are undertaken.

Strategic Priorities

Click on icons below to view strategies under each priority area:

S 2.4, 2.9

Respectfully submitted,

Original signed by Original signed by

Rebecca Francis, M.E.S. Michael Duben, B.A., LL.B Manager, Continuous Improvement Chief Administrative Officer

Page 3 SHARED SERVICES INVENTORY Appendix 'A'

Current Municipal Department Service Relationships 1. EXISTING SHARED SERVICES BETWEEN DISTRICT & AREA MUNICIPALITIES CAOs/Clerks Work collaboratively to organize and host Joint Muskoka Council Orientation Sessions (beginning of term / mid-term). ALL Muskoka Area Clerks meet quarterly to share best practices, receive Ministry of Municipal Affairs (MMA) updates, and work collectively on Clerks ALL projects / initiatives of mutual interest. Activities also include staff secondments, as required and coordination of by-laws and fees. Clerks Electronic Data Records Management System (EDRMS) DMM - BB, GV, ML Clerks Muskoka Area Clerks host municipal election information sessions with MMA representation. ALL Muskoka Records Management Support Group – representation from each municipality working collaboratively on records management Clerks ALL initiatives to meet legislation and provide similar records retentions, policies and procedures. DMM - Areas Communications Facilitation support DMM - Community Partners Community Services Shared position with Georgian Bay Township to deliver services in that location DMM, GB Economic Development Economic development projects frequently require cross-border resources and information sharing by several municipalities. ALL

Muskoka Paramedic Services (MPS) and its emergency planning department proactivley provide public education events and information Emergency Services MPS (DMM) - public in all Areas throughout the year through public sessions, social media, school visits and the distribution of educational material via multiple avenues Emergency Services Fire Departments work closely with Muskoka Paramedic Services (MPS) on medical call response agreements and training. DMM - Areas Emergency Services District staff participate in meetings of the Emergency Operations Control Groups in the Areas as required DMM - Areas Emergency Services Purchasing of medical aid equipment and supplies through the Muskoka Paramedic Service for Muskoka Lakes Fire Department. MPS (DMM) - ML Facilities Project Management for capital build (e.g. LOB roads building) DMM, LOB Facilities Shared build for the Bracebridge Fire and District MPS Facility DMM, BB Facilities Shared operation of the Bracebridge Fire and District MPS Facility DMM, BB Facilities Co-operative tendering for services. i.e. snowclearing and grass cutting DMM, BB Finance Common financial application (iCity). DMM, BB, GH, ML Shared licence for Cartegraph Finance DMM, BB, GV Opportunity for future application as an Asset Management System Finance Area Municipality debt financing (regulated) All Finance The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) is a non-profit corporation funded by all Ontario municipalities. The agreement with DMM - Areas I.T. MPAC is with The District of Muskoka and the charges are included in the District general tax levy.

3/10/2017 1 of 7 District Municipality of Muskoka SHARED SERVICES INVENTORY

Current Municipal Department Service Relationships 1. EXISTING SHARED SERVICES BETWEEN DISTRICT & AREA MUNICIPALITIES GIS Sharing of GIS data DMM - BB, GV, ML The District Municipality of Muskoka develops and maintains spatial information to aid in the creation of maps and data analysis to support GIS DMM - Areas District-wide initiatives. District provides "Muskoka Web Map", an online interactive mapping application. Anyone can search for a specific address, road or lake and view GIS high resolution aerial photography for the entire District of Muskoka. Also, new to Muskoka Web Map is a Relief map. This representation of the DMM - Areas local terrain makes it easy for the user to discern hills, valleys, and significant landforms. This information is utilized by lower-tier municipalities.

Teranet is the company that provides digital parcel fabric to District. There are 2 separate agreements: the Assessment Parcel and Ownership GIS Parcel which have separate agreements. GIS joins these layers with MPAC data and distributes to all the Areas. The GIS Department manages DMM - Areas the Teranet agreements which save $15K per year by way of District getting the data and sharing the information with the Areas. Staff at the lower-tier municipalities work in conjunction with MPAC and the District of Muskoka to ensure assessed property values and all GIS related data is accurate. MPAC classifies and assesses all properties in Ontario under the Assessment Act and regulations established by the ALL Provincial Government. GIS 911 Service addressing amd CERB agreement (Central Emergency Reporting Bureau) Areas - DMM Twice annual meeting of HR staff from District and the Areas. Activities include staff secondments, as required; co-ordination of Health and Human Resources DMM - Areas Safety Policies and Procedures; sharing of best practices, etc. Human Resources District provides fee-for-service assistance on Labour Relations and Collective Bargaining matters and sensitive investigations. DMM - Areas Human Resources Benefits program DMM - GB, ML, GV Human Resources Training & Professional Development (for e.g. Mohawk Leadership Course, Roads, etc) DMM - Areas Human Resources Background work on operations manuals, policies, WSIB, AODA, Finance, HR, Health & Safety, SOP DMM - Areas Human Resources Compensation Survey DMM - Areas Human Resources Internal consultation and guidance on HR issues, policies and practices, etc. DMM - Areas I.T. I.T. is a primary shared service with the District of Muskoka and three lower-tier municipalities DMM - BB, GV, ML, PINES I.T. I.T. is a primary shared service with the District of Muskoka and the libraries in BB, GH, ML DMM - BB, GV, ML I.T. Website up-dates to undertaken through a joint development proposal DMM - BB, GV Information Technology Services provides the underlying systems, infrastructure and software used by all participating business units in the I.T. DMM - BB, GV, ML, PINES provision of their services. I.T. Contract negotiation, pooling and billing (such as landlines and mobility) DMM - BB, GV, ML, PINES Legal Work with staff on special projects that may require the acquisition of property (e.g. trails, municipal building) DMM - Areas Although not yet officially retained by the lower-tier municipalities, the District Solicitor provides advice and guidance on a wide variety of topics Legal of broad municipal interest and has completed some fee-for-service work. A Shared Services Agreement for Legal Services is under consideration DMM - HV, BB, GB at the staff level.

3/10/2017 2 of 7 District Municipality of Muskoka SHARED SERVICES INVENTORY

Current Municipal Department Service Relationships 1. EXISTING SHARED SERVICES BETWEEN DISTRICT & AREA MUNICIPALITIES Shared services with both lower-tier and upper-tier municipalities in the District of Muskoka. There are a wide variety of District Planning and Policy matters that are undertaken in cooperative manner with the lower-tier municipalities including: • Policy reviews and revisions • Development of Strategies and preparation of background studies • Development of population and economic data • Preparation of Natural Heritage and Environmental Studies and Policies • Monitoring of Provincial Initiatives • Approval of Area Official Plans and amendments • Applications for approval of Plans of Subdivision and Condominium Descriptions • Planning Approval of Area Municipal Part Lot Control By-laws • Review of Area Municipal development applications for conformity to the Muskoka Official DMM - Areas Plan • Provision of planning services to Area Municipalities as requested • Muskoka Water Strategy • Watershed Health • Support for Muskoka Watershed Council • Support for Lake System Health • Maintenance of demographic and economic information and profiles • Support for Muskoka Tourism Marketing Agency • Support for Muskoka Airport • Muskoka 9-1-1 civic addressing data base maintenance • Road name reviews • Contract management of central emergency routing function • Area Municipalities collect Development Charges on behalf of District Planning Shared consultant for Water Quality matters/peer reviews DMM - Areas Planning Municipalities utilize shared consultant services as feasible for common projects or initiatives ALL Planning District offers Planning Services to Areas on a cost-recovery basis DMM - Areas

The Muskoka Parry - Sound Public Purchasing Group (MPSPPG) is a forum in which staff from area municipalities and local agencies can sit and discuss ways of saving money through shared information and joint purchasing. The group also helps save money by ALL Procurement providing opportunities to tender or quote in a combined format for bulk purchases of items common to all. To date, tendered items include: • Uniforms, hats, shirts and boots • Printing (cheques, water & sewer bills) • Fleet vehicles • Furniture purchases PINES uses Extendicare • Janitorial supplies • Cheque printing • Coffee commodities • Signs • Joint RFP for audit services

Broader Public Sector (BPS) Purchasing: Ontario Vendor of Record (VOR) Arrangements Public sector organizations can access arrangements resulting from a procurement process that has been conducted by the Ontario Government. Procurement ALL There are over 50 arrangements in place such as: • Courier services • Shredding services • Mobile devices • Printers & scanners • Office supplies Recreation & Leisure Work together on subsidy program for camp experience DMM - Areas Services Shared services related to road maintenance include tendering for annual pulverization and base stabilization contract and the contract for the Transportation ALL annual high float program. Transportation Town and District staff work cooperatively on water and sewer projects on Area roads ALL Transportation Working to realign road standards based on classification for all municipal roads ALL Areas perform winter control activities on District roadways. Town costs are recovered from the District under a long-standing contract (which is Transportation BB, GH, LOB, GB, ML - DMM being updated). Water & Wastewater Staff work cooperatively on a variety of property acquisition projects (i.e. road widenings) to facilitate the completion of road/sewer/water projects ALL

3/10/2017 3 of 7 District Municipality of Muskoka SHARED SERVICES INVENTORY

Current Municipal Department Service Relationships 2. EXISTING SHARED SERVICES BETWEEN AREA MUNICIPALITIES (excluding District) Building Inspection & By- Shared services with lower-tier municipalities in the District of Muskoka. Activities include staff secondments, as required; coordination of by- HV - Northern muncipalities Law Enforcement laws and fees; sharing of best practices, etc. Building Inspection & By- Several lower-tier municipalities utilize a common building permit management application and by doing so, share common reporting and record Areas Law Enforcement keeping tools and techniques. Building Inspection & By- Inspections: Building Officals/Inspectors on an as-needed basis HV - LOB Law Enforcement Work collaboratively on municipal election requirements to meet legislation and provide similar voting methods, policies, procedures and best Clerks Areas practices. Clerks Work collaboratively for the recruitment, appointment and training of the Muskoka Compliance Audit Committee (municipal election related). Areas Community Services Directors meet to discuss best practices and possible policy alignment BB, HV, GV Sport Tourism initiatives are undertaken on a inter-municipal basis. Bidding on and/or hosting large events which require multiple facilities, Economic Development Areas such as Lower Lakes Female Hockey League Championships and minor hockey tournaments. Economic Development Volunteer Muskoka – District Wide Volunteer Recruitment and Training program to strengthen and enhance the Volunteer Base in Muskoka Areas The Muskoka Association of Fire Chiefs was formed to serve as a recognized organization for the exchange of knowledge and experience in life Emergency Services Areas safety and fire related matters in Muskoka. Emergency Services Fire Prevention Officers across the District work together to develop public education fire prevention and fire code enforcement programs. Areas Muskoka Fire Departments have worked together to establish a recruit training program to coordinate and streamline the training of new Emergency Services Areas firefighters across the District. All area Fire Departments participate in the District of Muskoka Mutual Aid Plan which was developed under the authority of the Fire Prevention Emergency Services and Protection Act to provide a means whereby Fire departments in the District can share apparatus, equipment and personnel in the event of a Areas major fire or emergency which taxes the resources of any one municipality. Emergency Services Joint Fire Services HV & LOB Automatic Aid agreements under the authority of the FPPA whereby a formed agreement allows the closest fire station response regardless of ML, HV Emergency Services jurisdiction. MLFD has agreements with, Huntsville and others being worked on with Georgian Bay, Bracebridge and Gravenhurst. future with GB, BB, GV Area libraries facilitate reciprocal borrowing for all library cardholders. This enables patrons, who quite often travel throughout Muskoka for Library Areas employment and shopping, to enjoy what the public library has to offer in each community. Recreation District-wide group training sessions Areas Staff work to coordinate program service delivery in between Town facilities and other lower-tier facilities during major maintenance Recreation Areas interruptions or lengthy facility closures. Recreation There is partnering in the purchase of equipment that can be shared between facilities BB, GV, Recreation Staff coordinate District-wide group training sessions for fitness instructors, HIGH FIVE and summer staff. Areas

3/10/2017 4 of 7 District Municipality of Muskoka SHARED SERVICES INVENTORY

Current Municipal Department Service Relationships 3. CURRENT SHARED WITH MUSKOKA MUNICIPALITIES AND ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE MUSKOKA Building Inspection & By- Inspections: Building Officals/Inspectors LOB & Perry Township Law Enforcement Building Inspection & By- By-Law Enforcement LOB & Perry Township Law Enforcement Community Connections: District meetings with Municipalities, Universities, School Boards, and Hospitals (MUSH Sector), services clubs, lake DMM to community CAO/Leadership associations, etc. to better collaborate with community stakeholders with a view to finding more efficient and effective means of delivering stakeholders services to Muskoka residents. DMM & Areas - Tourism Economic Development Collaborative projects with outside organizations (Muskoka Tourism Marketing Agency, Explorers' Edge, Venture Muskoka) Operators Emergency Services Automatic Aid Agreement LOB & Algonquin Highlands Automatic Aid agreements under the authority of the FPPA whereby a formed agreement allows the closest fire station response regardless of Emergency Services ML & Sequin Township jurisdiction. GB - North Simcoe Fire Fire prevention activities, recruitment, training and equipment purchasing done with North Simcoe municipalities municipalities Fire Municipal Forest Fire Management LOB & MNRF Staff at the lower-tier municipalities work in conjunction with MPAC and the District of Muskoka to ensure assessed property values and all GIS related data is accurate. MPAC classifies and assesses all properties in Ontario under the Assessment Act and regulations established by the DMM & Areas - MPAC Provincial Government. Health Dorset Community Partnership Fund and Algonquin Family Health Team – Partners for the Dorset Hub LOB - health partners The Inter-Library Loan system allows libraries throughout Ontario to have access to a common online system that enables libraries to send Library Areas and receive library material around the province and beyond (via courier), expanding each of our collections beyond our walls. Area libraries subscribe to a province-wide e-book collection, which gives Library patrons a broad selection while reducing Library costs Library Areas considerably GB - North Simcoe Public Works Professional development (some) done with Simcoe municipalities municipalities Recreation Dwight Rink LOB - TLDSB Roads Boundary Road Agreements with some northern municipalities HV - to northern municipalities

3/10/2017 5 of 7 District Municipality of Muskoka SHARED SERVICES INVENTORY

Possible Municipal Department Service Notes Relationships 4. POSSIBLE FUTURE SHARED SERVICES (all levels) Policy development, implementation and operations. District already has a relationship with the individuals in Recreation/Leisure need. How can District and municipalities work together – District vets applications and forwards qualified added by HV Services candidates (based on a program) to appropriate municipality (not just child care/camp) Aquatics Staffing challenges in aquatics (keeping and attracting trained/certified people in Muskoka) added by HV By-Law There are Mutual Aid Agreements for Fire and Building but nothing for By-law – should consider added by HV Potential for ALL Clerks DMM running all Elections for lower tier municipalities (would be interested in further discussing) added by HV depending on interest Clerks Shared storage space added by HV Communications Would be interested in pursuing further joint services in this area added by HV Economic Continuation of Volunteer Muskoka – when the funding from the Ontario Trillium Foundation stops in 2 years the goal Possibly led by DMM? added by HV Development of the program would be for the District of Muskoka to take over the management and administration of the program

Emergency Services Shared purchases for the Fire Services and Paramedic Services (where possible). ML expressed interest

Emergency Services Further discussion, and a plan, is needed regarding interoperability for radio communications ML expressed interest Potential for ALL Scheduling Opportunity between MPS & depending on interest Time sheets and work schedules for inside and outside workers PINES Emergency Services • DMM uses timesheets, exploring Time Capture Human Resources Time Capture to be used and • FYCSM uses ADP Explore opportunity for PINES procured across all • PINES uses Extendicare software to assist FYCSM municipalities? added by ML in Active Engineering Field level data collection and processing for Area surveying requirements DMM to Areas Transportation Funding Policy meeting Potential for ALL Facilities Opportunity for service rate tenders for Electricians, Fitters, Plumbers, fire testing, safety testing, fire & elevator etc. depending on interest Potential for ALL Facilities Opportunity for security, fire alarm system monitoring, after-hours service dispatch depending on interest Potential for ALL Facilities Office and storage space needs (i.e. archival space?) depending on interest Potential for ALL Facilities Coorperative tendering for services such as snow clearing and grass cutting depending on interest Shared Service for contracted service providers related to facilities ie: Mechanical, Electrical, Locksmith, Building Facilities added by GV Automation Systems Potential for ALL Finance Opportunity to use Cartegraph as an Asset Management System HV expressed interest depending on interest Areas - DMM (gas and diesel Fleet Fuel Supply Servicing: regular gas, diesel and propane being investigated)

3/10/2017 6 of 7 District Municipality of Muskoka SHARED SERVICES INVENTORY

Possible Municipal Department Service Notes Relationships 4. POSSIBLE FUTURE SHARED SERVICES (all levels) Areas & DMM Human Resources Health & Safety professional and audits HV expressed interest (being investigated) DMM - Areas Human Resources RFP for HR Firms of Record to provide: Recruitment Services, Reference Checks, 360 Evaluations (being investigated) Human Resources The potential for shared procurement opportunities for executive recruiters and complaint investigators. added by GV DMM - BB, GH, ML, PINES (being Human Resources Health & Safety Audits: a shared group to execute investivated) District of Muskoka recruitment committee and District staff would assist with Area staffing matters, as requested HV expressed interest Human Resources Areas - DMM (fee for service) BB expressed interest Potential for ALL Human Resources Timesheets – Potential for all to use timesheets exploring time capture (HV HR could assist) added by HV depending on interest Town and District Salt Management Plan Development (Discussed in Dec 2016 as a potential project, GV has put funds Infrastructure added by GV in INF operating budget) Legal A Shared Services Agreement for Legal Services is under consideration at the staff level. DMM - HV, BB, GB Planning Age Friendly Communities initiatives (not just Muskoka aging) added by HV Recreation/Leisure Single use specific infrastructure (ie. sledge hockey, indoor soccer, other?) – shared use agreements for infrastructure added by HV Services that isn’t a “full time” demand in each municipality but is important to offer/have within the District Sustainability Sustainability support added by HV CAO / Leadership

3/10/2017 7 of 7 District Municipality of Muskoka

70 PINE STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO P1L 1N3 Telephone (705) 645-2231 / Fax (705) 645-5319 / 1-800-461-4210 (705 area code) www.muskoka.on.ca

To: Chair and Members Corporate and Emergency Services Committee

From: Mark Misko Director, Continuous Improvement Unit

Date: March 23, 2017

Subject: Internal Services and Operational Review

Report: CES-2-2017-6 ______

Recommendation

This report is provided for information.

Origin

Since November 2014, responsibility for leading or assisting in the completion or closing of projects related to the 81 recommendations from the Internal Services Review (ISR) and subsequent Operational Review (OR) has been assigned to the Continuous Improvement Unit (CIU).

Staff provided progress updates to Committee through the following months: • February 2015 (CES-4-2015-3); • June 2015 (CES-8-2015-7); • December 2015 (CES-15-2015-9); • January 2016 (CES-1-2016-3); and • June 2016 (CES-6-2016-8).

This report documents progress of project completion since the last report dated June 2016 above.

Analysis

As of June 2016, 64 of the 81 ISR and OR recommended projects (79%) were completed or closed. At that time, five ISR projects and 12 OR projects were identified as “In Progress” or “Pending/Deferred”.

Since the last update report, CIU staff have re-assessed the completion status and anticipated completion timelines for the 17 remaining projects. Seven (7) of these projects (41%) have been completed during the second term of the CIU department. Six of the 7 closed projects are related to the recent completion of the IT Strategic Plan (CES-6-2016-3). Completed/Closed projects are summarized in Appendix I.

Managing Our Legacy Together Page 1

The figure below chronologically outlines the status of the ISR and OR recommendations/projects from February 2015 through to March 2017. Currently, 88% of the recommendations from the ISR and OR can be considered complete. Completion of projects since the last update has resulted in the second largest percent increase (9%) in project closure since the inception of the CIU.

The 10 remaining projects have varying completion dates projected through 2017 and 2018. These projects fall within one of the following categories:

• Waste Diversion Strategy; • Airport Improvement Strategic Plan; • IT Services Security Policy; • Planning Application Commenting Protocol; • Roads Classification Study; or • Lagoon Security and Automation.

Page 2

The table below outlines the anticipated quarterly completion timelines for remaining In Progress projects. The timeline below does not include the remaining three Pending/Deferred projects. Completion timelines for these three projects are contingent upon the completion of the Airport Governance Review. Additional project details are included in Appendix II.

Financial Considerations

Report number CES-1-2016-3 previously outlined a review of the positive (cost reduction) impacts resulting from the ISR and OR. While there are no direct financial impacts with respect to the seven projects referenced in this report, additional cost reduction and avoidance developments will be brought forward for consideration as they become available.

Communications

Consultation with internal departments and key stakeholders related to the recommendations is ongoing. Status update reports for the ISR and OR projects will be provided to Committee as milestones are achieved with respect to project completion.

Strategic Priorities

Click on icons below to view strategies under each priority area:

s 2.3, 2.9

Respectfully submitted,

Original signed by Original signed by

Mark Misko C.E.T. Michael Duben, B.A., LL.B Director, Continuous Improvement Unit Chief Administrative Officer

Page 3

APPENDIX I CES-2-2017-6 CLOSED ISR AND OR RECOMMENDATIONS

Home Status Project Number Recommendation Completion Notes Department (March 2017)

Internal Services Review (1 Project) Seek the approval of the Ministry of Municipal AMCTO Report came out February 2017. The Affairs and Housing (MMAH) to participate in a District was not invited to participate in the pilot. pilot project with the District and Area This initiative can be closed. AMTCO report results CES-8 Municipalities and other Ministries, aimed at are available here: streamlining the various financial, program, and administrative reporting requirements of CES Closed municipalities.

Bearing the Burden - An Overview of Municipal Internal Services Review Reporting to the Province

Operational Review (6 Projects) Undertake a review of the technology data IT4 is covered in the IT Services Strategic Plan, that currently stored in IT data center and to is reported to CES Committee on an annual basis. determine whether it complies with the respective This project can be closed out as it is facilitated via IT4 records retention by-laws and current legislative the Strat Plan and communicated to ITSC semi- requirements. annually and to CES annually. CES-IT Closed

Operational Review

Develop a 5-year IT Strategic Plan and submit it Closed. Adopted in CES-6-2016-3. IT7 to the respective Councils/Library Boards for their consideration and approval.

CES-IT Closed

Operational Review

IT2 Undertake a review of the cost allocation Included in the IT Services Strategic Plan. Reported methodology and investigate alternatives which to CES Committee on an annual basis. Closed as focus on level of service and the capacity used this is now covered under the Strategic Plan. CES-IT Closed by each participant. Operational Review

IT3 Undertake a review of current work order criteria Included in the IT Services Strategic Plan. Reported set out in Memorandum of Understanding and to CES Committee on an annual basis. Closed as develop evaluation criterion for new and CES-IT this is now covered under the Strategic Plan. Closed upgraded installations of IT projects and Operational Review applications.

Develop performance measurements and Included in the IT Services Strategic Plan. Reported benchmarks to measure the efficiency and to CES Committee on an annual basis. Closed as IT9 effectiveness of IT Services. this is now covered under the Strategic Plan.

CES-IT Closed

Operational Review

IT6 Continue to investigate the economic feasibility Included in the IT Services Strategic Plan. Reported for the implementation of a compliant Disaster to CES Committee on an annual basis. Closed as Recovery Plan and annually report on findings. this is now covered under the Strategic Plan. CES-IT Closed

Operational Review

Page 4 APPENDIX II CES-2-2017-6 REMAINING ISR AND OR RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMPLETION TIMELINES

Completion Status Project Number Recommendation Completion Notes Timeline (March 2017) (March 2017)

Internal Services Review (4 Projects) Complete the cost savings calculation resulting The Waste Diversion Strategy is budgeted to be PW-15, CAC-5 from a reduction in the weekly waste collection carried out in 2018. frequency from six months to both two months and/or four months to the EPW Committee. Q4 2018 In Progress

Internal Services Review

Quantify the savings generated by reducing the Committee considered a bag limit reduction in 2016 PW-16 annual bag limit by 52 bags. and rejected the recommendation. The potential savings will be a discussion item upon the award of the curbside collection contract which comes into Q4 2018 In Progress effect in 2018. The development of a waste diversion strategy is budgeted to be carried out in 2018. Internal Services Review

Initiate and complete a review of District Road The District Transportation Study which includes a PW-4 Classifications in 2013. Consult with Area Road Rationalization Study was brought underway in Municipalities. 2016. The EPW Committee has received a presentation on the Evaluation Process in February Q4 2018 In Progress 2017 and will receive the draft report in April 2017.

Internal Services Review

As a first step towards improving security, Following budget approval three (3) major sites will be PW-9, CAC-3 continue with the installation of hauled sewage equipped with card reader flow measurement and lagoon security cameras. screening devices in 2017. These are Stephenson (North Area), Lagoon Lane (Central Area) and 12 Mile Q4 2017 In Progress lagoon (West Area). Sludge haulers will be directed to Internal Services Review these sites as much as possible.

Page 5 APPENDIX II CES-2-2017-6 REMAINING ISR AND OR RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMPLETION TIMELINES

Completion Status Project Number Recommendation Completion Notes Timeline (March 2017) (March 2017)

Operational Review (6 Projects) Develop a development application commenting Planning staff has been actively participating in a MP3 protocol with the Area Municipalities. development review process. The recommendations will likely involve further consultation with Area Municipal Planners to develop a mutually beneficial path forward to implementation and to identify Staged implementation additional efficiencies. Reporting on process changes from Q2 2017 to Q2 In Progress through committees and councils may be required. 2018. Operational Review

Develop an IT security policy for all devices which Included in the IT Services Strategic Plan. Policy was IT5 access the IT data center and network. approved by ITSC at the end of October 2016. Training on policy to commence in Q2.

Q2 2017 In Progress

Operational Review

Continue with current Airport Governance RFP for a Governance Review was completed & now A1 structure, while making incremental improvements awaiting a final recommendation from InterVISTAS. to the management and accountability. Next Step will be to prepare a staff report to work out the finer details of the Consultant recommendation Q3 2017 In Progress and provide PED & District Council with options.

Operational Review

Create a 2-year Performance Improvement Plan The Economic Impact Study on hold pending Timeline is dependent A2 for Airport operations that contains metrics which decisions of PED & Council on Governance and on the productivity of can be used to evaluate (after fiscal year 2015) the perhaps the priorities of the future governance body. the Governance Review Airport's progress in meeting fiscal sustainability process. Pending Completion and economic development objectives. of A1

Operational Review

If the Airport financial situation deteriorates during An Improvement Plan is contingent on an Economic Timeline is dependent A3 the 2-year Performance Improvement Plan period, Impact Study which is currently contingent on the on the productivity of the District should evaluate options respecting governance review. the Governance Review transfer of the operating and management process. Pending Completion responsibility to a third party that would assume of A2 more of the financial risks associated with Operational Review operating the Airport.

Consider a policy restricting the sale of further A review of the Land Sale, Lease and Rental Policy is Timeline is dependent A4 Airport lands. contingent on the governance review and subsequent on the productivity of options to develop a Master Plan and Economic the Governance Review Impact Study. process. Pending Completion of A1

Operational Review

Page 6

70 PINE STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO P1L 1N3 Telephone (705) 645-2231 / Fax (705) 645-5319 / 1-800-461-4210 (705 area code) www.muskoka.on.ca

To: Chair and Members Corporate and Emergency Services Committee

From: Julie Stevens Commissioner of Finance and Corporate Services

Date: March 23, 2017

Subject: Rate Supported Operating Budget Variance Report – December 31, 2016

Report: CES-2-2017-7 ______

Recommendation

THAT the Rate Supported Operating Budget Variance Report as at December 31, 2016 be received.

Origin

Policy AD:52 Operating Budget Administration requires the Commissioner of Finance and Corporate Services to provide Corporate and Emergency Services Committee, the other Standing Committees and Council with a written status report on the yearly budgets on a quarterly basis. This report highlights significant budget variances for the Rate Supported Operating Budget.

Analysis

Attached to this report are schedules that outline the significant budget variances for the period ending December 31, 2016. The schedules provide a summary of the water, wastewater and solid waste management services by major object along with a brief description of the variances.

. The Rate Supported Operating Variance Report by Object shows the year-to-date (YTD) actuals ending December 31, 2015 and the annual budget for 2015, YTD actuals ending December 31, 2016 and the annual budget for 2016. The next two columns compare the YTD actuals to the annual budget in terms of dollars remaining in the budget and the percentage of budget spent. The final two columns indicate projected annual variance and comments.

Managing Our Legacy Together Page 1 Financial Considerations

Water and Wastewater Rate Supported Operating Budgets:

The Water and Wastewater operating budgets are expected to end the year with a favourable variance of $167,194.

Revenues are favourable due to consumption volume being 2.0% higher than budgeted for Water and 1.9% for Wastewater, with combined billings resulting in a favourable variance of $246,747. Connection Fee revenues are $30,440 higher than budgeted as are Local Improvement Charges and Supplementary Taxes of $34,784 and $25,500, respectively. Overall, total revenues have a projected favourable variance of $350,181.

Total expenditures on the other hand are exceeding budget by $182,987.

Personnel contributes $57,948 towards this unfavourable variance and is due to a shift in resources from Hauled Sewage to Wastewater. Under Materials & Supplies, there are favourable variances, particularly for equipment repair parts, operating supplies and chemicals. However, this favourability is almost completely offset by the electricity cost over-run of $326,347 which is 15.9% higher than budgeted. Purchased Services have a projected unfavourable variance of $69,617, with the majority of the variance within Wastewater for biosolids, SCADA and answering/alarm services expenditures. Fleet costs exceed budget by $69,281 based on use of Hauled Sewage fleet for Wastewater Services. Support Services have an $81,487 favourable variance projected, with the bulk of this related to minimal expenditure for design as well as increased revenues from Hauled Sewage for greater volume of supernatant treated, partly offset by higher engineering administration costs.

The overall combined projected variance is favourable at $167,194 for Water & Wastewater. However, there are year-end entries that remain outstanding which may impact the final variance figures. The individual surplus and deficits that result at the end of the year-end process will be transferred into the respective Water and Wastewater capital reserve funds.

Solid Waste Management Rate Supported Operating Budget:

The Solid Waste operating budget is expected to end the year with a favourable variance totalling $789,997.

This variance is a combination of several factors. Personnel costs have a $127,072 projected favourable variance due to turnover and rate gapping. Purchased Services are expected to end the year $313,161 favourable to budget. Some subcontractor work had been delayed in order to offset any possible additional costs related to the new landfill site at Rosewarne and Stisted which had not been budgeted in 2016. In addition, haulage savings resulted with landfilling occurring both at Stisted and Rosewarne sites during 2016, rather than at Beiers, as had been budgeted. There is an unfavourable variance in tax write-offs which is estimated at $31,000 over budget based on preliminary figures from the Area Municipalities.

Revenues have improved over last year mainly due to increased landfill tipping fees. Tip fee revenues are $242,323 higher than budgeted. Recycling sales are higher than budgeted due to higher market rates generating an additional $77,034 in revenues. These are offset in part by scrap metal sales revenues, which are under budget due to lower market rates and to reduced tonnage, resulting in a shortfall of $8,296. There is a combined favourable variance of $313,124 for User Fee revenues. Grants closed the year at $7,883 higher than budgeted, primarily related to increased E-waste activity.

Page 2

The overall projected variance for Solid Waste is favourable at $789,997. However, there are year- end entries that remain outstanding, which may impact the final variance figures. The expected surplus that results at the end of the year-end process will be transferred into the Solid Waste Management capital reserve fund.

Communications

Operating Budget Variance Reports are submitted to the Standing Committees and Council on a quarterly basis for results as at March 31st, June 30th, September 30th and December 31st of each year.

Strategic Priorities

Click on icons below to view strategies under each priority area:

s 2.3

Respectfully submitted,

Original signed by Original signed by

Julie Stevens, CPA, CA Michael Duben, B.A. LL.B. Commissioner of Finance and Chief Administrative Officer Corporate Services

Page 3

Rate Supported Operating Variance Report by Object

Water and Wastewater Levy Run Date: 2/27/17 10:35 AM 2015 2015 2016 2016 Projected December Annual December Annual Budget Percent Annual YTD Actuals Budget YTD Actuals Budget Variance Spent Variance Favourable/ Comments (Unfavourable) Expenditures Operating Costs Personnel 4,873,902 4,803,500 4,834,098 4,804,852 (29,246) 100.6% (57,948) Slightly over budget overall due to a shift in resources from Hauled Sewage to Wastewater. Employee Related Expenses 107,223 119,000 127,031 119,000 (8,031) 106.7% (8,031) Increased expenditure for protective clothing, offset in part by reduced memberships/subscriptions and courses.

Materials & Supplies 3,899,079 4,090,935 4,267,970 4,207,087 (60,883) 101.4% 6,010 Favourable variance mainly due to reduced expenditures for equipment repair parts, operating supplies and chemicals, offset primarily by a $326,347 unfavourable variance for electricity cost.

Purchased Services 1,975,094 1,736,425 2,033,082 1,963,465 (69,617) 103.5% (69,617) Unfavourable variance for biosolids, SCADA, flushing/video and communications, offset in part by favourable variance for external lab tests. Minor Capital Total Operating Costs 10,855,298 10,749,860 11,262,181 11,094,404 (167,777) 101.5% (129,586) Finance Charges/Reserves Finance Charges 8,455,433 8,465,603 6,796,566 6,931,040 134,474 98.1% (87,200) Tax write-offs are estimated to be $87,200 over budget based on preliminary results from the Area Municipalities. Reserves 4,826,305 5,054,000 6,855,533 6,855,533 100.0% On budget. Total Finance Charges/Reserves 13,281,738 13,519,603 13,652,099 13,786,573 134,474 99.0% (87,200) Net Internal Service Charges Fleet 471,840 448,850 518,131 448,850 (69,281) 115.4% (69,281) Unfavourable variance due to shift in Hauled Sewage fleet made available to Water & Wastewater divisions. Insurance 353,700 353,700 373,907 395,500 21,593 94.5% 21,593 Premiums less than budgeted. Support Services 960,008 1,028,510 931,253 1,012,740 81,487 92.0% 81,487 Favourable variance mainly for Design Services along with supernatant treatment recoveries, offset in part by higher Engineering Administration costs. Total Net Internal Service Charges 1,785,548 1,831,060 1,823,291 1,857,090 33,799 98.2% 33,799 Total Expenditures 25,922,584 26,100,523 26,737,571 26,738,067 496 100.0% (182,987) Revenues Page 4 RS Variance by Object (ver mth) Rate Supported Operating Variance Report by Object

Water and Wastewater Levy Run Date: 2/27/17 10:35 AM 2015 2015 2016 2016 Projected December Annual December Annual Budget Percent Annual YTD Actuals Budget YTD Actuals Budget Variance Spent Variance Favourable/ Comments (Unfavourable) Grants (3,611) (9,669) 9,669 9,669 Source Protection Fund grant. User Fees (14,420,701) (14,599,372) (15,398,512) (15,234,011) 164,501 101.1% 246,747 Favourable variance due to increased consumption. Application Fees/Permits (80,844) (55,000) (87,091) (56,650) 30,441 153.7% 30,441 Favourable variance for increased connection fees revenues.

Local Improvement Charges (475,647) (476,590) (336,264) (301,480) 34,784 111.5% 34,784 Favourable variance due to understatement in budget in 2016. Supplementary Taxes (91,600) (119,300) (13,311) (119,300) (105,989) 11.2% 25,500 Supplementary Taxes are estimated to be $25,500 higher than budget. Other (3,040) 3,040 3,040 Proceeds from sale of assets. Total Revenues (15,072,403) (15,250,262) (15,847,887) (15,711,441) 136,446 100.9% 350,181 Total Water and Wastewater Levy 10,850,181 10,850,261 10,889,684 11,026,626 136,942 98.8% 167,194

Page 5 RS Variance by Object (ver mth) Rate Supported Operating Variance Report by Object

Water Levy Run Date: 2/27/17 10:35 AM 2015 2015 2016 2016 Projected December Annual December Annual Budget Percent Annual YTD Actuals Budget YTD Actuals Budget Variance Spent Variance Favourable/ Comments (Unfavourable) Expenditures Operating Costs Personnel 2,493,792 2,593,800 2,476,496 2,615,867 139,371 94.7% 124,778 Favourable variance due to a shift in resources to Wastewater. Employee Related Expenses 61,795 70,250 71,384 70,250 (1,134) 101.6% (1,134) Increased expenditure for protective clothing, offset in part by reduced memberships/subscriptions and courses.

Materials & Supplies 1,788,103 1,833,350 1,977,836 1,901,935 (75,901) 104.0% (31,607) Unfavourable variance mainly due to electricity cost exceeding budget by $134,817, offset in part by lower expenditures for equipment repair parts and operating supplies. Purchased Services 675,640 548,425 663,329 681,315 17,986 97.4% 17,986 Favourable variance for contractor cost, offset in part by increased SCADA, consultant and communication costs.

Minor Capital Total Operating Costs 5,019,330 5,045,825 5,189,045 5,269,367 80,322 98.5% 110,023 Finance Charges/Reserves Finance Charges 2,926,531 2,916,151 2,387,664 2,428,480 40,816 98.3% (29,000) Tax write-offs are estimated to be $29,000 over budget based on preliminary results from the Area Municipalities. Reserves 2,637,685 2,723,000 3,369,436 3,369,436 100.0% On budget. Total Finance Charges/Reserves 5,564,216 5,639,151 5,757,100 5,797,916 40,816 99.3% (29,000) Net Internal Service Charges Fleet 245,464 242,630 274,483 251,590 (22,893) 109.1% (22,893) Unfavourable variance due to shift in Hauled Sewage fleet made available to Water & Wastewater divisions. Insurance 156,500 156,500 161,476 170,800 9,324 94.5% 9,324 Premiums less than budgeted. Support Services 514,931 530,630 515,075 529,610 14,535 97.3% 14,535 Favourable variance in Internal Design Services, offset in part by higher Engineering Administration costs. Total Net Internal Service Charges 916,895 929,760 951,034 952,000 966 99.9% 966 Total Expenditures 11,500,441 11,614,736 11,897,179 12,019,283 122,104 99.0% 81,989 Revenues Grants (3,611) (9,669) 9,669 9,669 Source Protection Fund grant.

Page 6 RS Variance by Object (ver mth) Rate Supported Operating Variance Report by Object

Water Levy Run Date: 2/27/17 10:35 AM 2015 2015 2016 2016 Projected December Annual December Annual Budget Percent Annual YTD Actuals Budget YTD Actuals Budget Variance Spent Variance Favourable/ Comments (Unfavourable) User Fees (7,855,427) (8,000,917) (8,467,175) (8,378,234) 88,941 101.1% 138,558 Favourable variance due to increased consumption. Application Fees/Permits (80,472) (50,000) (86,549) (51,500) 35,049 168.1% 35,049 Favourable variance for increased connection fees revenues.

Local Improvement Charges (87,888) (83,950) (43,410) (24,750) 18,660 175.4% 18,660 Favourable variance due to understatement in budget in 2016. Supplementary Taxes (27,684) (34,600) (5,215) (34,600) (29,385) 15.1% 12,000 Supplementary Taxes are estimated to be $12,000 higher than budget. Total Revenues (8,055,082) (8,169,467) (8,612,018) (8,489,084) 122,934 101.4% 213,936 Total Water Levy 3,445,359 3,445,269 3,285,161 3,530,199 245,038 93.1% 295,925

Page 7 RS Variance by Object (ver mth) Rate Supported Operating Variance Report by Object

Wastewater Levy Run Date: 2/27/17 10:35 AM 2015 2015 2016 2016 Projected December Annual December Annual Budget Percent Annual YTD Actuals Budget YTD Actuals Budget Variance Spent Variance Favourable/ Comments (Unfavourable) Expenditures Operating Costs Personnel 2,380,110 2,209,700 2,357,602 2,188,985 (168,617) 107.7% (182,726) Unfavourable variance due to a shift in resources from Water and Hauled Sewage to Wastewater. Employee Related Expenses 45,428 48,750 55,647 48,750 (6,897) 114.1% (6,897) Increased expenditure for protective clothing, offset in part by favourable variance for courses. Materials & Supplies 2,110,976 2,257,585 2,290,134 2,305,152 15,018 99.3% 37,617 Favourable variance mainly due to lower expenditures for chemicals, operating supplies and equipment repair parts, which are primarily offset by unfavourable variance for electricity cost which exceeds budget by $191,530.

Purchased Services 1,299,454 1,188,000 1,369,753 1,282,150 (87,603) 106.8% (87,603) Unfavourable variance for biosolids, subcontractor, SCADA, flushing/video and communications, offset in part by underspend for external lab tests. Total Operating Costs 5,835,968 5,704,035 6,073,136 5,825,037 (248,099) 104.3% (239,609) Finance Charges/Reserves Finance Charges 5,528,902 5,549,452 4,408,902 4,502,560 93,658 97.9% (58,200) Tax write-offs are estimated to be $58,200 over budget based on preliminary results from the Area Municipalities. Reserves 2,188,620 2,331,000 3,486,097 3,486,097 100.0% On budget. Total Finance Charges/Reserves 7,717,522 7,880,452 7,894,999 7,988,657 93,658 98.8% (58,200) Net Internal Service Charges Fleet 226,376 206,220 243,648 197,260 (46,388) 123.5% (46,388) Unfavourable variance due to shift in Hauled Sewage fleet made available to Water & Wastewater divisions. Insurance 197,200 197,200 212,431 224,700 12,269 94.5% 12,269 Premiums less than budgeted. Support Services 445,077 497,880 416,178 483,130 66,952 86.1% 66,952 Favourable variance in Design Services and supernatant treatment recoveries, offset in part by higher Engineering Administration costs. Total Net Internal Service Charges 868,653 901,300 872,257 905,090 32,833 96.4% 32,833 Total Expenditures 14,422,143 14,485,787 14,840,392 14,718,784 (121,608) 100.8% (264,976) Revenues User Fees (6,565,274) (6,598,455) (6,931,337) (6,855,777) 75,560 101.1% 108,189 Favourable variance due to increased consumption.

Page 8 RS Variance by Object (ver mth) Rate Supported Operating Variance Report by Object

Wastewater Levy Run Date: 2/27/17 10:35 AM 2015 2015 2016 2016 Projected December Annual December Annual Budget Percent Annual YTD Actuals Budget YTD Actuals Budget Variance Spent Variance Favourable/ Comments (Unfavourable) Application Fees/Permits (372) (5,000) (542) (5,150) (4,608) 10.5% (4,608) Unfavourable variance for connection fees, offset by higher revenues under Water connection fees. Local Improvement Charges (387,759) (392,640) (292,854) (276,730) 16,124 105.8% 16,124 Favourable variance due to understatement in budget in 2016. Supplementary Taxes (63,916) (84,700) (8,096) (84,700) (76,604) 9.6% 13,500 Supplementary Taxes are estimated to be $13,500 higher than budget. Other (3,040) 3,040 3,040 Proceeds from sale of assets. Total Revenues (7,017,321) (7,080,795) (7,235,869) (7,222,357) 13,512 100.2% 136,245 Total Wastewater Levy 7,404,822 7,404,992 7,604,523 7,496,427 (108,096) 101.4% (128,731)

Page 9 RS Variance by Object (ver mth) Rate Supported Operating Variance Report by Object

Solid Waste Levy Run Date: 3/3/17 9:01 AM 2015 2015 2016 2016 Projected December Annual December Annual Budget Percent Annual YTD Actuals Budget YTD Actuals Budget Variance Spent Variance Favourable/ Comments (Unfavourable) Expenditures Operating Costs Personnel 1,454,362 1,506,300 1,452,988 1,613,315 160,327 90.1% 127,072 Favourable variance due to turnover and rate gapping. Employee Related Expenses 15,101 19,850 21,790 20,600 (1,190) 105.8% (1,190) Increased expenditure for courses. Materials & Supplies 197,906 226,065 120,831 156,328 35,497 77.3% 35,497 Favourable variance mainly in operating supplies. Purchased Services 8,722,044 8,854,929 8,686,118 8,999,279 313,161 96.5% 313,161 Favourable variance mainly in advertising and contracted services, offset in part by higher hazardous waste costs.

Transfer To Others 1,419,212 1,422,439 85,218 90,139 4,921 94.5% 4,921 Fewer green bin rebates requested from residents resulting in favourable variance. Minor Capital 3,188 5,000 Total Operating Costs 11,811,813 12,034,583 10,366,945 10,879,661 512,716 95.3% 479,461 Finance Charges/Reserves Finance Charges 285,836 243,940 216,579 244,380 27,801 88.6% (34,000) Tax write-offs are estimated to be $31,000 over budget.

Reserves 1,963,660 1,500,000 2,580,100 2,580,100 100.0% On budget. Total Finance Charges/Reserves 2,249,496 1,743,940 2,796,679 2,824,480 27,801 99.0% Net Internal Service Charges Fleet 866,139 868,860 913,000 940,330 27,330 97.1% 27,330 Favourable variance due to reduced fleet usage. Insurance 12,500 12,500 12,856 13,600 744 94.5% 744 Premiums less than budgeted. Support Services 473,311 452,410 500,175 488,600 (11,575) 102.4% (11,575) Variance due to higher engineering administration costs, offset in part by savings for internal design services.

Total Net Internal Service Charges 1,351,950 1,333,770 1,426,031 1,442,530 16,499 98.9% 16,499 Total Expenditures 15,413,259 15,112,293 14,589,655 15,146,671 557,016 96.3% 461,960 Revenues Grants (1,170,868) (1,041,100) (1,093,983) (1,086,100) 7,883 100.7% 7,883 Favourable variance primarily for E-waste funding. User Fees (3,007,248) (2,845,707) (3,187,132) (2,874,008) 313,124 110.9% 313,124 Favourable variance primarily for increased tip fee revenues of $242,323 and higher recycling rebates of $77,034 due to higher market rates, offset in part by $8,296 shortfall in scrap metal sales due to both lower market rates and reduced volume.

Page 10 RS Variance by Object (ver mth) Rate Supported Operating Variance Report by Object

Solid Waste Levy Run Date: 3/3/17 9:01 AM 2015 2015 2016 2016 Projected December Annual December Annual Budget Percent Annual YTD Actuals Budget YTD Actuals Budget Variance Spent Variance Favourable/ Comments (Unfavourable) Supplementary Taxes (108,643) (100,000) (25,830) (100,000) (74,170) 25.8% 7,030 Supplementary taxes are estimated to be $7,000 higher than budget. Other (834) Total Revenues (4,287,593) (3,986,807) (4,306,945) (4,060,108) 246,837 106.1% 328,037 Landfill Future Liability Year-end Adjustments Landfill Future Liability 408,438 Total Year-end Adjustments 408,438 Total Landfill Future Liability 408,438 Total Solid Waste Levy 11,534,104 11,125,486 10,282,710 11,086,563 803,853 92.7% 789,997

Page 11 RS Variance by Object (ver mth)

70 PINE STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO P1L 1N3 Telephone (705) 645-2231 / Fax (705) 645-5319 / 1-800-461-4210 (705 area code) www.muskoka.on.ca

To: Chair and Members Corporate and Emergency Services Committee

From: Julie Stevens Commissioner of Finance and Corporate Services

Date: March 23, 2017

Subject: Corporate and Emergency Services Department Operating Budget Variance Report – December 31, 2016

Report: CES-2-2017-8 ______

Recommendation

THAT the Corporate and Emergency Services Department Operating Budget Variance Report as at December 31, 2016 be received.

Origin

Policy AD:52, Operating Budget Administration requires the Commissioner of Finance and Corporate Services to provide the Corporate and Emergency Services Committee, the other Standing Committees and Council with a written status report on the yearly budgets on a quarterly basis. This report highlights significant budget variances for the Tax Supported Operating Budget.

Analysis

Attached to this report are schedules that outline the significant budget variances for the period ending December 31, 2016. The schedules provide an overall department view as well as a breakdown for the department by major object and by program net levy along with a brief narrative description of the variances.

. The Tax Supported Operating Variance Report by Object shows the year-to-date (YTD) actuals ending December 31, 2015 and the annual budget for 2015, YTD actuals ending December 31, 2016 and the annual budget for 2016. The next two columns compare the YTD actuals to the annual budget in terms of dollars remaining in the budget and the percentage of budget spent. The final two columns indicate projected annual variance and comments.

. The second summary, using the same format as the first summary, shows the bottom line net levy for each program/division within the department.

Managing Our Legacy Together Page 1 Financial Considerations

Corporate and Emergency Services and Non-Program

This section of the report provides information on forecasted variances for the Corporate and Emergency Services and Non-Program departments, which includes Elected Officials, Administration, Finance, Insurance, Fleet Operations, Human Resources, Legal, Information Technology, Ambulance, Emergency Management, Facility Services and Provincial Offences. Costs for Police Services, Property Assessment, the Health Unit and Hospital Financing are also within these departments.

The combined net surplus within Corporate and Emergency Services (CES) and Non-Program departments at year-end as noted on the attached schedules is $583,060.

The majority of CES divisions have favourable variances totalling $780,472 with only a couple of small unfavourable variances to bring the overall result to $768,589 under budget. Paramedic Services is projected to end the year just over $232,000 under budget which is due to both expenditures savings and higher grant revenue.

When looking at the variances by object there is a net favourable variance between Personnel and Purchased Services due to the transfer of Paramedic Services staff to the District in September, 2016, which moved the costs from Purchased Services to Personnel. The net favourable variance is estimated at $351,000 and is mainly for job vacancy and rate gapping due to turnover in a number of departments. These vacancies have also created a favourable variance under Employee Related Expenses of approximately $42,000 for costs related to protective clothing, travel and training. The cost of fuel for fleet vehicles is under budget by $188,300 and has resulted in the Materials & Supplies line being favourable by about $124,100. There are unfavourable variances for Supplies of $37,100 related to the Paramedic Services transition and electricity costs of $27,100 which partially offset the favourable fuel variance. Finally, the cost of IT Supplies is offset by additional revenue from the Area Municipalities of almost $150,000 for the purchase of computers.

The Non-Program department has an unfavourable variance of $185,529, which is mainly comprised of the following:

• As an offset for forecasted gapping throughout the corporation, staff estimated a savings in Personnel of $150,000. These favourable variances have been reported on each department’s Personnel line, which leaves an unfavourable variance in Non-Program Personnel. • The net cost of Tax Write-offs and Supplementary Taxes is projected to be $64,600 unfavourable to budget based on preliminary submissions from the Area Municipalities. • There is a favourable variance for Investment Income of about $52,300 due to higher investment balances.

In summary, the Corporate and Emergency Services and Non-Program departments will end the year in an overall favourable position; however, there are year-end entries that remain outstanding.

Page 2

Corporate Summary

Four operating budget variance reports related to the general tax levy have been prepared. This section serves to summarize the high level variances in those reports and provide the link to the individual Standing Committee reports.

Net Levy Variance Report Favourable/ Department Number (Unfavourable) After Year-end Adjustments Corporate & Emergency Services and Included in this $583,060 Non-Program report Public Works – including Administration, Transportation – Roads, Port Carling PW-3-2017-2 $19,648 Locks and Environment General Community Services CS-3-2017-1 $193,694 Planning & Economic Development PED-3-2017-2 $66,195 TOTAL $862,597

At a high level, the main drivers of unfavourable variances can be summarized as follows:

1. Tax write-offs are projected to be over budget and personnel gapping is unfavourable as actual savings are shown in each division report. – Report CES-2-2017-8 2. Winter Control costs under Transportation are over budget due to weather conditions during 2016 which caused higher than expected salt usage and contracted costs with the Area Municipalities. Public Works Administration is projected to be over budget mainly due to Design Services time spent on corporate projects such as asset management plans instead of capital projects. Lastly, revenues for Port Carling Locks and Hauled Sewage Operations are below budget. – Report PW-3-2017-2 3. Higher than budgeted costs in Community Services are related to unit turnovers and grounds maintenance due to snow removal within District Housing. – Report CS-3-2017-1

4. The Airport is over budget due mainly to consulting costs related to the Airport Runway and Storm System project that were not budgeted and reduced revenues for fuel sales, rent and ramp fees. – Report PED-3-2017-2

These unfavourable variances have been offset by projected favourable variances. The main contributors to the favourable variances are:

1. Paramedic Services is projected to end the year just over $232,000 under budget which is due to both expenditures savings and higher grant revenue. Job vacancies, job rate gapping, lower spending on employee related expenses and consultants have resulted in savings across the other departments within Corporate and Emergency Services. Within Non-Program, investment income is ahead of budget due to higher investment balances and supplementary taxes are also favourable to budget. – Report No. CES-2-2017-8

2. Savings, primarily in the Traffic, Roads – Paved, and Hauled Sewage divisions, have offset the unfavourable variances noted above. Traffic had vacancies that reduced personnel costs. In Roads – Paved, reduced contracted services contributed to the favourable

Page 3

variance. In Hauled Sewage Operations, personnel costs are down due to a general shift of staffing to Wastewater Services. – Report No. PW-6-2015-1 3. A reduced caseload within the Ontario Works division, job vacancies and job rate gapping and reduced fleet utilization compared to the budget has reduced the net levy within Community Services. – Report No. CS-3-2017-1 4. Reduced expenditures for travel, training, supplies and internal loan payments have led to savings in the Planning and Economic Development department. – Report No. PED-3-2017- 2

Given the factors noted above and the variances identified to date within the corporation’s Tax Supported Operating Budget, staff is projecting that the overall operating results will be favourable to the approved 2016 budget by $862,597 or 1.25%. It should be noted that there are a number of year-end entries that are outstanding that may impact the variances reported. Consistent with prior years, the net surplus will be transferred to the Debt Reduction Reserve fund.

Communications

Operating Budget Variance Reports are submitted to the Standing Committees and Council on a quarterly basis for results as at March 31st, June 30th, September 30th and December 31st of each year.

Strategic Priorities

Click on icons below to view strategies under each priority area:

s 2.3

Respectfully submitted,

Original signed by Original signed by

Julie Stevens, CPA, CA Michael Duben, B.A. LL.B. Commissioner of Finance and Chief Administrative Officer Corporate Services

Page 4 Tax Supported Operating Variance Report by Object

Corporate & Emergency Services Run Date: 3/6/17 4:18 PM 2015 2015 2016 2016 Projected December Annual December Annual Budget Percent Annual YTD Actuals Budget YTD Actuals Budget Variance Spent Variance Favourable/ Comments (Unfavourable) Expenditures Operating Costs Personnel 6,739,541 7,083,060 9,312,835 7,106,331 (2,206,504) 131.0% (2,649,145) Unfavourable variance for Paramedic Services, but offset by favourable variance in Purchased Services. There is a favourable variance for Continuous Improvement Unit, Finance and IT personnel gapping, which is partially offset by an unfavourable variance in HR for a Public Works secondment to the Town of Bracebridge. The secondment costs are recovered through User Fee revenue.

Employee Related Expenses 256,410 377,948 330,268 372,246 41,978 88.7% 41,978 Favourable variance for Paramedic Services Protective Clothing and Conferences and Courses for various departments. Materials & Supplies 1,175,967 1,289,797 1,117,951 1,242,058 124,107 90.0% 124,107 Favourable variance mainly for Fuel for Fleet based on reduced fuel prices compared to budget assumptions, offset partially by Supplies costs primarily for Paramedic Services and high Electricity costs. Purchased Services 26,033,003 25,949,028 26,429,315 29,582,527 3,153,212 89.3% 3,000,069 Favourable variance for Paramedic Services due to insourcing in September 2016. This favourable variance is partially offset by higher Personnel costs and additional Support Services costs. Transfer To Others 2,115,350 2,099,900 1,913,128 1,898,040 (15,088) 100.8% (15,088) On budget. Minor Capital 17,461 27,000 18,000 18,000 7,432 Favourable variance for maintenance work at 70 Pine Street that was completed in-house, as opposed to hiring a vendor as was budgeted. Total Operating Costs 36,337,732 36,826,733 39,103,497 40,219,202 1,115,705 97.2% 509,353 Finance Charges/Reserves Finance Charges 90,475 73,550 71,013 73,550 2,537 96.6% 2,537 Favourable variance for POA Collection Costs, offset by higher Bank Fees based on increased volume of tickets for fines revenue. Reserves 1,326,374 1,237,300 543,467 536,380 (7,087) 101.3% (7,087) Unfavourable variance for Legal Services Transfer from Corporate Reserve not required as Software Purchase was paid through IT department. Total Finance Charges/Reserves 1,416,849 1,310,850 614,480 609,930 (4,550) 100.7% (4,550)

Page 5 TS Variance by Object Committee-CES-NP Dec 2016.xlsx Tax Supported Operating Variance Report by Object

Corporate & Emergency Services Run Date: 3/6/17 4:18 PM 2015 2015 2016 2016 Projected December Annual December Annual Budget Percent Annual YTD Actuals Budget YTD Actuals Budget Variance Spent Variance Favourable/ Comments (Unfavourable) Net Internal Service Charges Fleet (2,031,087) (2,064,250) (2,037,073) (2,106,314) (69,241) 96.7% (69,241) Unfavourable variance based on reduced Internal Recoveries to reflect lower budgeted fuel prices. Insurance 159,392 159,392 186,924 180,600 (6,324) 103.5% (6,324) Over budget due to Paramedics Services Errors & Omissions premium paid for the last four months of 2016.

Support Services (3,114,271) (3,115,980) (3,183,357) (3,183,208) 149 100.0% 149 On budget. Total Net Internal Service Charges (4,985,966) (5,020,838) (5,033,506) (5,108,922) (75,416) 98.5% (75,416) Total Expenditures 32,768,615 33,116,745 34,684,471 35,720,210 1,035,739 97.1% 429,387 Revenues Grants (5,458,112) (5,399,350) (5,547,868) (5,486,595) 61,273 101.1% 61,273 Favourable variance as Grant for Paramedic Services was higher than budgeted. User Fees (157,472) (281,357) (223,863) (121,730) 102,133 183.9% 102,133 Additional revenue in Human Resources is offsetting the Town of Bracebridge Public Works secondment costs in Personnel. There is also additional revenue for Police False Alarm Fees. Fines/Penalties (975,654) (1,134,800) (1,153,062) (1,134,800) 18,262 101.6% 18,262 POA Fines revenue is above budget due to increased ticket volumes and the performance of a new collection agency.

Service Charge Municipal (1,267,339) (1,143,641) (1,290,575) (1,141,502) 149,073 113.1% 149,073 Additional Miscellaneous revenue from area municipalities is partially offset with the purchase of Data Processing Supplies under Materials & Supplies. Supplementary Taxes (4,326) (1,413) 1,413 3,600 Supplementary Taxes for Hospital Financing. Other (85,553) (32,500) (37,361) (32,500) 4,861 115.0% 4,861 Favourable variance under Sale of Assets for a Fleet car and an Ambulance, partially offset by Facilities Energy Rebates not meeting budget. Total Revenues (7,948,456) (7,991,648) (8,254,142) (7,917,127) 337,015 104.3% 339,202 Total Net Levy 24,820,159 25,125,097 26,430,329 27,803,083 1,372,754 95.1% 768,589

Page 6 TS Variance by Object Committee-CES-NP Dec 2016.xlsx Tax Supported Operating Variance Report by Object

Non-Program Run Date: 3/6/17 4:18 PM 2015 2015 2016 2016 Projected December Annual December Annual Budget Percent Annual YTD Actuals Budget YTD Actuals Budget Variance Spent Variance Favourable/ Comments (Unfavourable) Expenditures Operating Costs Personnel 212,528 (200,000) 13,949 (150,000) (163,949) (9.3%) (163,949) Job vacancy and rate gapping has been recorded through each operating division. Purchased Services 843,620 809,000 849,462 854,600 5,138 99.4% 5,138 On budget. Transfer To Others 201,160 Total Operating Costs 1,257,308 609,000 863,411 704,600 (158,811) 122.5% (158,811) Finance Charges/Reserves Finance Charges 684,292 359,000 305,463 337,000 31,537 90.6% (212,700) Tax write-offs are projected to be $212.7k over budget based on preliminary submissions from the Area Municipalities.

Reserves 4,982,676 4,304,728 4,304,728 4,304,728 100.0% 0 On budget. Total Finance Charges/Reserves 5,666,968 4,663,728 4,610,191 4,641,728 31,537 99.3% (212,700) Net Internal Service Charges Insurance (823,592) (823,100) (903,487) (919,500) (16,013) 98.3% (16,013) Unfavourable variance as recovery charged to the Rate Supported budget was reduced to reflect lower premiums, offset partially by Paramedics Errors & Omissions premium.

Support Services 39,305 39,350 40,100 40,100 100.0% 0 On budget. Total Net Internal Service Charges (784,287) (783,750) (863,387) (879,400) (16,013) 98.2% (16,013) Total Expenditures 6,139,989 4,488,978 4,610,215 4,466,928 (143,287) 103.2% (387,524) Revenues Grants (742,600) (742,600) (631,300) (631,300) 100.0% 0 On budget. User Fees (13,680) (1,606) 1,606 1,606 Favourable variance is for revenue from the FIT-5 solar program application fees. Supplementary Taxes (766,337) (543,400) (283,652) (543,400) (259,748) 52.2% 148,100 Supplementary taxes are estimated to be $148.1k over budget based on preliminary submissions from the Area Municipalities. Investment Income (476,338) (360,000) (412,289) (360,000) 52,289 114.5% 52,289 Favourable variance due to higher investment balances.

Total Revenues (1,998,955) (1,646,000) (1,328,847) (1,534,700) (205,853) 86.6% 201,995 Total Net Levy 4,141,034 2,842,978 3,281,368 2,932,228 (349,140) 111.9% (185,529)

Page 7 TS Variance by Object Committee-CES-NP Dec 2016.xlsx Tax Supported Operating Variance Net Levy Summary

Corporate & Emergency Services Run Date: 3/6/17 3:49 PM 2015 2015 2016 2016 Projected December Annual December Annual Budget Percent Annual YTD Actuals Budget YTD Actuals Budget Variance Spent Variance Favourable/ Comments (Unfavourable) Corporate & Emergency Services Elected Officials 500,013 521,886 487,459 509,576 22,117 95.7% 22,117 Favourable variance for Council Mileage and Conferences, as well as for Fees received from Area Municipalities for mid- term training sessions. Administration/CAO 409,298 430,561 452,560 488,966 36,406 92.6% 15,170 Favourable variance due to Communications Officer partially charged to Health Link program - net result will be on budget overall between CES and CS. Continuous Improvement Unit 294,780 320,710 293,156 326,593 33,437 89.8% 31,481 Favourable variance due to Personnel gapping with unit turnover. Corporate Administration 510,989 535,350 530,311 552,855 22,544 95.9% 13,033 Favourable variance for Personnel rate gapping and Consultant costs. Human Resources 489,516 549,760 463,610 547,555 83,945 84.7% 72,350 Favourable variance for Consultant, Office Supplies and one- time budget for ergonomic needs. Finance Services 146,042 232,779 195,120 284,900 89,780 68.5% 51,955 Favourable variance for Personnel due to turnover, Employee Related Expenses, Consultant and additional revenue for Internal Finance Services charged to Paramedics and Health Link. Facility Services 485,334 484,714 455,947 476,491 20,544 95.7% (3,358) Unfavourable variance for Utility costs, partially offset by a favourable variance in Subcontractor costs. Information Technology Services (172,097) 9,496 (38,055) 0 38,055 124,491 Favourable variance mainly for Personnel due to vacancies, as well as related Travel and Training costs, offset partly by higher than budgeted cost of Supplies.

Office Services (2,602) (7,790) (9,800) (4,458) 5,342 219.8% 2,944 Favourable variance mainly for increased Photocopying Recoveries. Fleet Operations (1) (48,738) (379,056) (247,000) 132,056 153.5% 131,755 Favourable variance primarily due to Fuel cost savings, partly offset by higher Repair and Maintenance expenditures and reduced Internal Recoveries.

Property Assessment Services 2,393,710 2,393,800 2,373,111 2,373,200 89 100.0% 89 On budget. Legal Services 566,937 578,550 572,067 575,975 3,908 99.3% (8,525) Unfavourable variance due to revenue from Miscellaneous Legal Fees being lower than budget. Provincial Offences (219,721) (386,500) (400,392) (356,086) 44,306 112.4% 41,188 Fines revenues ended the year above budget due to increased ticket volumes and increased successful collection efforts.

Page 8 TS Variance Net Levy Summary-CES-NP-Dec 2016.xlsx Tax Supported Operating Variance Net Levy Summary

Corporate & Emergency Services Run Date: 3/6/17 3:49 PM 2015 2015 2016 2016 Projected December Annual December Annual Budget Percent Annual YTD Actuals Budget YTD Actuals Budget Variance Spent Variance Favourable/ Comments (Unfavourable) Clerk/FOI 218,091 217,730 221,707 228,749 7,042 96.9% 2,676 Favourable variance for Supplies and Consultant costs.

Veterinarian Assistance 2,900 2,900 2,900 2,900 0 100.0% 0 On budget. Fire 717 800 787 800 13 98.4% 13 On budget. Police Services 11,953,573 12,027,019 14,156,996 14,176,826 19,830 99.9% 19,830 On budget. Community Emergency Plan 108,615 115,300 98,011 105,292 7,281 93.1% 6,666 Favourable variance for Travel, Courses, Supplies and Advertising costs. Health Unit 1,406,820 1,407,000 1,424,388 1,435,140 10,752 99.3% 10,752 On budget. Paramedic Services 5,328,471 5,339,770 5,129,163 5,924,809 795,646 86.6% 232,114 Favourable variance compared to budget as Paramedic operations were insourced in September 2016 which resulted net savings on expenditures of approximately $167k and grant revenue was higher than budgeted by $61k.

Hospital Financing 398,774 400,000 400,339 400,000 (339) 100.1% 1,848 On budget.

Total Corporate & Emergency Services 24,820,159 25,125,097 26,430,329 27,803,083 1,372,754 95.1% 768,589

Page 9 TS Variance Net Levy Summary-CES-NP-Dec 2016.xlsx Tax Supported Operating Variance Net Levy Summary

Non-Program Run Date: 3/6/17 3:49 PM 2015 2015 2016 2016 Projected December Annual December Annual Budget Percent Annual YTD Actuals Budget YTD Actuals Budget Variance Spent Variance Favourable/ Comments (Unfavourable) Non-Program Financial Services 5,649,971 4,128,978 4,196,320 4,106,928 (89,392) 102.2% (333,629) Tax Write-offs are projected to be over budget by $212.7k and personnel gapping of $150k is recorded in individual division results so there is an unfavourable variance in Non- Program. These variances are partially offset by increased investment income of just under $52,300 due to higher balances. Unconditional Grants (742,600) (742,600) (631,300) (631,300) 0 100.0% 0 On budget. Supplementary Taxes (766,337) (543,400) (283,652) (543,400) (259,748) 52.2% 148,100 Supplementary taxes are estimated to be $148.1k over budget based on preliminary submissions from the Area Municipalities. 0 Total Non-Program 4,141,034 2,842,978 3,281,368 2,932,228 (349,140) 111.9% (185,529)

Page 10 TS Variance Net Levy Summary-CES-NP-Dec 2016.xlsx 70 PINE STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO P1L 1N3 Telephone (705) 645-2231 / Fax (705) 645-5319 / 1-800-461-4210 (705 area code) www.muskoka.on.ca

To: Chair and Members Corporate and Emergency Services Committee

From: Sharon Donald Director of Budgets and Financial Planning

Date: March 23, 2017

Subject: Capital Project Quarterly Variance Report – December 31, 2016

Report: CES-2-2017-9 ______

Recommendation THAT the recommendations related to the individual Tax Supported Capital Budget projects, as summarized in Schedule “A” to Report CES-2-2017-9, be received.

Origin In 2005, Council adopted Policy AD:51 Capital Budget Preparation, Monitoring and Reporting. The revised policy requires staff to submit formal reports to the Standing Committees and Council on the status of the District of Muskoka’s capital program as at March 31st, June 30th, September 30th and December 31st. This report deals with the Corporate and Emergency Services’ portion of the Tax Supported Capital Budget.

The purpose of this report is to provide the various Standing Committees with the opportunity to review the status of individual projects, highlight material variances, identify projects for closure and to amend the budget where appropriate.

Analysis Attached is a schedule of capital expenditures incurred to December 31, 2016 (Schedule “A”), as reported on March 9, 2017. It is important to note that once a project is closed, it will no longer appear on Schedule “A”.

Schedule “A” provides the current status of each open project. Within the schedule, the PY (Prior Year) Budget Open Projects column includes prior year budgets carried forward. The 2016 Annual Budget is the current year Capital Budget and Forecast approved on February 16, 2016. The Approved Amendments column contains all amendments approved since the commencement of the project. The Total Amended Budget column is the sum of PY Budget Open Projects, 2016 Annual Budget and Approved Amendments columns. The LTD Actuals 2016 column contains charges incurred from the start of the project to December 31, 2016. The Budget Remaining 2016 column is the difference between the Total Amended Budget and the

Page 1 LTD Actuals 2016 columns. The Forecast to Complete column includes the remaining balance on contracts awarded and purchase orders outstanding as well as all other total forecasted expenditures required to complete the project. The Favourable/(Unfavourable) Proj. Variance column is the difference between the Budget Remaining 2016 and the Forecast to Complete columns.

Tenders awarded to date along with comments indicating estimated costs and/or future tender dates are noted to give Council an idea of timing for budgeted projects.

Financial Considerations Within the Corporate and Emergency Services capital budget, $6,935,123 remains to be spent as of December 31, 2016. The projected forecast to complete all 15 projects is $6,873,107, leaving a projected favourable variance of $62,016 as shown in Schedule “A” attached.

Three projects are being closed with a net savings of $62,016.

Project 110055 (Development Charges Low Growth Model) will be the subject of a report to be brought forward in 2017.

The remaining 11 projects are ongoing and are expected to be completed on budget.

Impact on Financing

The total decrease in financing requirements from reserve funds is $20,692. The total impact on reserve funds is summarized in the following table:

Corporate & Emergency Services Capital Project Quarterly Financing Variance Report - December 2016

Corporate Computer Energy Area Use of Reserve Funds (Increase) / Decrease Capital Equipment Rebates Municipality Total Corporate & Emergency Services 130301 Accounting System (84) 37,000 36,916 130331 Computer Equip Life Cycle Replacement 2015 10,554 10,554 130119 Admin Building Lighting Retrofit 10,222 4,324 14,546 Corporate & Emergency Services - (Increase) / Decrease 10,138 10,554 4,324 37,000 62,016 Reserve Fund Impact - (Increase) / Decrease 20,692 External Funding - (Increase) / Decrease 41,324

Communications Capital Project Quarterly Variance Reports are submitted to the Standing Committees and Council on the status of the District’s capital program as at March 31st, June 30th, September 30th and December 31st.

Page 2 Strategic Priorities

Click on icons below to view strategies under each priority area:

s 2.3

Respectfully submitted,

Original signed by Original signed by

Sharon Donald, CPA, CMA Julie Stevens, CPA, CA Director of Budgets and Commissioner of Finance and Financial Planning Corporate Services

Page 3

Corporate & Emergency Services Capital Project Quarterly Variance Report - Detail Run Date: 3/13/17 9:29 AM For period ending December 31, 2016 Schedule A

PY Budget 2016 Approved Total LTD Budget Forecast Favourable/ Status Recommendation Open Annual Amend- Amended Actuals Remaining to Complete (Unfavourable) Projects * Budget * ments * Budget * 2016 2016 Proj. Variance Corporate & Emergency Services Corporate & Emergency Services General Administration 130113 Asset Management System Expenditures 165,000 165,000 34,054 130,946 130,946 Asset Management Plan review and update in 2017 with system implementation to follow. Total budget allocation $165,000.

Total General Administration 165,000 165,000 34,054 130,946 130,946 General Administration Non-Tangible Capital 110055 Development Charges Low Growth Model Expenditures 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 Staff to prepare report on project in 2017. Total proposed draft budget allocation $15,000.

Total General Administration Non-Tangible Capital 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 Computer Services 130301 Accounting System Expenditures 1,200,000 250,000 1,450,000 1,413,083 36,917 36,917 Complete under budget as work order system projects are being Close Project implemented by Area Municipalities separately. Total budget allocation $1,450,000.

130317 Electronic Document Management Solution Expenditures 460,000 (30,000) 430,000 221,683 208,317 208,317 Project manager selection process completed as reported in Council report 3(2017)-5. Business plan expected Fall 2017. Total budget allocation $430,000.

130322 Website Redesign Expenditures 353,000 (253,000) 100,000 80,794 19,206 19,206 Expect completion Spring 2017. Total budget allocation $100,000. 130330 Phone System Expenditures 20,000 230,000 250,000 11,244 238,756 238,756 Currently underw ay w ith expected completion in 2017. Total budget allocation $250,000.

130331 Computer Equip Life Cycle Replacement 2015 Expenditures 107,400 107,400 96,846 10,554 10,554 2015 requirements complete. Total budget allocation $107,400. Close Project 130335 Computer Life Cycle Replacement 2016 Expenditures 136,000 136,000 32,807 103,193 103,193 Annual replacement program with expected completion in 2017. Total budget allocation $136,000.

130337 Network & Server 2016 Expenditures 86,000 86,000 20,532 65,468 65,468 In progress with upgrades to network and unified threat management expected Summer 2017. Total budget allocation $86,000.

Total Computer Services 2,140,400 452,000 (33,000) 2,559,400 1,876,989 682,411 634,940 47,471 Facility Services 130117 CES Accommodations Renovations Expenditures 67,000 67,000 67,000 67,000 Scheduled for completion Fall 2017. Total budget allocation $67,000. 130118 POA Basement Development

Capital Forecast December * This column does not tie to budget reports as numbers only reflect active projects. Closed projects have been removed from the report. Page 4 Corporate & Emergency Services Capital Project Quarterly Variance Report - Detail Run Date: 3/13/17 9:29 AM For period ending December 31, 2016 Schedule A

PY Budget 2016 Approved Total LTD Budget Forecast Favourable/ Status Recommendation Open Annual Amend- Amended Actuals Remaining to Complete (Unfavourable) Projects * Budget * ments * Budget * 2016 2016 Proj. Variance Expenditures 339,000 339,000 5,173 333,827 333,827 CES-2-2017-1 aw ards contract w ith expected completion Summer 2017. Total budget allocation $430,000.

130119 Admin Building Lighting Retrofit Expenditures 93,000 93,000 78,455 14,545 14,545 Complete under budget due to staff resources being utilized instead Close Project of contractors for a portion of the work as well as better than estimated pricing on materials. Total budget allocation $93,000. Total Facility Services 406,000 93,000 499,000 83,628 415,372 400,827 14,545 Paramedic Services 530001 Ambulance Station Bracebridge 530.537 Expenditures 2,000,000 2,100,000 3,435,074 7,535,074 2,056,262 5,478,812 5,478,812 In progress w ith expected completion Fall 2017. Total budget allocation $7,535,074.

530020 Vehicles 2016 Expenditures 375,700 375,700 244,618 131,082 131,082 Ambulance vehicle acquisitions complete and refurb currently underway. First Response vehicle to follow with expected completion late Spring 2017. Total budget allocation $375,700.

530021 Tablets for Ambulance Vehicles 2016 Expenditures 81,500 81,500 81,500 81,500 Trial to begin shortly with expected completion in 2017. Total budget allocation $81,500.

Total Paramedic Services 2,000,000 2,557,200 3,435,074 7,992,274 2,300,880 5,691,394 5,691,394 Total Corporate & Emergency Services 4,320,400 3,415,200 3,495,074 11,230,674 4,295,551 6,935,123 6,873,107 62,016 Total Corporate & Emergency Services 4,320,400 3,415,200 3,495,074 11,230,674 4,295,551 6,935,123 6,873,107 62,016 Total Corporate & Emergency Services 4,320,400 3,415,200 3,495,074 11,230,674 4,295,551 6,935,123 6,873,107 62,016

Capital Forecast December * This column does not tie to budget reports as numbers only reflect active projects. Closed projects have been removed from the report. Page 5 70 PINE STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO P1L 1N3 Telephone (705) 645-2231 / Fax (705) 645-5319 / 1-800-461-4210 (705 area code) www.muskoka.on.ca

To: Chair and Members Corporate and Emergency Services Committee

From: Sharon Donald Director of Budgets and Financial Planning

Date: March 23, 2017

Subject: Capital Project Quarterly Variance Report – Corporate Summary - December 31, 2016

Report: CES-2-2017-10 ______

Recommendation

THAT the Capital Project Quarterly Variance Report – Corporate Summary – December 31, 2016, as summarized in Schedule “A” to Report CES-2-2017-10, be received.

Origin

In 2005, Council adopted Policy AD:51 Capital Budget Preparation, Monitoring and Reporting. The revised policy requires staff to submit formal reports to the Standing Committees and Council on the status of the District of Muskoka’s capital program as at March 31st, June 30th, September 30th and December 31st. The purpose of this report is to highlight material variances from an overall corporate perspective.

Analysis Corporate Summary (Schedule “A”): Within the Tax Supported Capital Budget, $13,633,522 remains to be spent as at December 31, 2016. The projected forecast to complete all projects is $13,118,831, leaving a projected favourable variance of $514,691, as shown in Schedule “A” (pages 3-5) attached and summarized in the following table:

Page 1

Favourable/ Amended LTD Budget Forecast to (Unfavourable) Tax Supported Budget 2016 Remaining 2016 Complete Variance Corporate & Emergency Services $11,230,674 $6,935,123 $6,873,107 $62,016 Hauled Sewage $1,570,432 $1,044,026 $1,044,026 $0 Roads $17,403,162 $4,241,568 $3,788,893 $452,675 Port Carling Locks $765,000 $509,305 $509,305 $0 Community Services $674,600 $660,875 $660,875 $0 Planning $250,000 $132,668 $132,668 $0 Airport $110,000 $109,957 $109,957 $0 $32,003,868 $13,633,522 $13,118,831 $514,691

Within the Rate Supported Capital Budget, $20,324,710 remains to be spent as at December 31, 2016. The projected forecast to complete all projects is $19,776,902, leaving a projected favourable variance of $547,808, as shown in Schedule “A” (pages 6-7) attached and summarized in the following table:

Favourable/ Amended LTD Budget Forecast to (Unfavourable) Rate Supported Budget 2016 Remaining 2016 Complete Variance Water $5,748,279 $2,703,656 $2,675,913 $27,743 Wastewater $35,270,950 $15,671,616 $15,151,551 $520,065 Solid Waste $9,744,698 $1,949,438 $1,949,438 $0 $50,763,927 $20,324,710 $19,776,902 $547,808

The project specific amounts to each reserve fund for the Tax and Rate Supported capital projects were reflected in the Capital Project Quarterly Variance Report – December 2016 included on the Standing Committee agendas the week of March 20, 2017.

Financial Considerations

A summary of the impact that these amendments have on reserves will be included in the Status of Reserves and Reserve Funds – December 31, 2016 report CES-2-2017-11.

Strategic Priorities

Click on icons below to view strategies under each priority area:

s 2.3

Respectfully submitted,

Original signed by Original signed by

Sharon Donald, CPA, CMA Julie Stevens, CPA, CA Director of Budgets and Commissioner of Finance and Financial Planning Corporate Services

Page 2

Tax Supported by Division Capital Project Quarterly Variance Report - Corporate Summary Run Date: 3/9/17 4:42 PM For period ending December 31, 2016 Schedule A

PY Budget 2016 Approved Total LTD LTD Budget Forecast Favourable/ Open Annual Amend- Amended Actuals Remaining to Complete (Unfavourable) Projects * Budget * ments * Budget * 2016 2016 Proj. Variance Corporate & Emergency Services Corporate & Emergency Services General Administration 165,000 165,000 34,054 130,946 130,946 General Administration Non-Tangible Capital 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 Computer Services 2,140,400 452,000 (33,000) 2,559,400 1,876,989 682,411 634,940 47,471 Facility Services 406,000 93,000 499,000 83,628 415,372 400,827 14,545 Paramedic Services 2,000,000 2,557,200 3,435,074 7,992,274 2,300,880 5,691,394 5,691,394 Total Corporate & Emergency Services 4,320,400 3,415,200 3,495,074 11,230,674 4,295,551 6,935,123 6,873,107 62,016 Total Corporate & Emergency Services 4,320,400 3,415,200 3,495,074 11,230,674 4,295,551 6,935,123 6,873,107 62,016 Public Works - Hauled Sewage Hauled Sewage Hauled Sewage 865,000 575,000 50,000 1,490,000 495,974 994,026 994,026 Non-Tangible Capital 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 Deferred Projects - Hauled Sewage 490,000 (459,568) 30,432 30,432 Total Hauled Sewage 1,355,000 625,000 (409,568) 1,570,432 526,406 1,044,026 1,044,026 Total Public Works - Hauled Sewage 1,355,000 625,000 (409,568) 1,570,432 526,406 1,044,026 1,044,026 Public Works - Roads Roads Roads Construction 805,000 6,465,000 (773,000) 6,497,000 3,233,084 3,263,916 3,352,025 (88,109) Non-Tangible Capital 100,000 100,000 30,115 69,885 69,885 Close Once Final Transactions Posted 4,750,000 4,090,000 1,634,400 10,474,400 9,566,634 907,766 366,982 540,784 Deferred Projects - Roads 325,000 130,000 (123,238) 331,762 331,761 1 1 Total Roads 5,880,000 10,785,000 738,162 17,403,162 13,161,594 4,241,568 3,788,893 452,675 Total Public Works - Roads 5,880,000 10,785,000 738,162 17,403,162 13,161,594 4,241,568 3,788,893 452,675 Public Works - Port Carling Locks

Capital Forecast December * This column does not tie to budget reports as numbers only reflect active projects. Closed projects have been removed from the report. Page 3

Tax Supported by Division Capital Project Quarterly Variance Report - Corporate Summary Run Date: 3/9/17 4:42 PM For period ending December 31, 2016 Schedule A

PY Budget 2016 Approved Total LTD LTD Budget Forecast Favourable/ Open Annual Amend- Amended Actuals Remaining to Complete (Unfavourable) Projects * Budget * ments * Budget * 2016 2016 Proj. Variance Port Carling Locks Small Locks 75,000 300,000 375,000 138,355 236,645 236,645 Large Locks 230,000 230,000 51,303 178,697 178,697 Docks 160,000 160,000 66,037 93,963 93,963 Total Port Carling Locks 235,000 530,000 765,000 255,695 509,305 509,305 Total Public Works - Port Carling Locks 235,000 530,000 765,000 255,695 509,305 509,305 Community Services Community Services Pines 92,600 98,000 190,600 3,297 187,303 187,303 Community Services 100,000 100,000 5,042 94,958 94,958 Total Community Services 100,000 92,600 98,000 290,600 8,339 282,261 282,261 Social Housing Meadow Park Dr 174,000 257,000 (114,000) 317,000 2,367 314,633 314,633 Wellington Ct 67,000 67,000 3,019 63,981 63,981 Total Social Housing 174,000 324,000 (114,000) 384,000 5,386 378,614 378,614 Total Community Services 274,000 416,600 (16,000) 674,600 13,725 660,875 660,875 Planning Planning Official Plan Non-Tangible Capital 200,000 25,000 25,000 250,000 117,332 132,668 132,668 Total Planning 200,000 25,000 25,000 250,000 117,332 132,668 132,668 Total Planning 200,000 25,000 25,000 250,000 117,332 132,668 132,668 Airport Airport Airport Studies 110,000 110,000 43 109,957 109,957 Total Airport 110,000 110,000 43 109,957 109,957

Capital Forecast December * This column does not tie to budget reports as numbers only reflect active projects. Closed projects have been removed from the report. Page 4

Tax Supported by Division Capital Project Quarterly Variance Report - Corporate Summary Run Date: 3/9/17 4:42 PM For period ending December 31, 2016 Schedule A

PY Budget 2016 Approved Total LTD LTD Budget Forecast Favourable/ Open Annual Amend- Amended Actuals Remaining to Complete (Unfavourable) Projects * Budget * ments * Budget * 2016 2016 Proj. Variance Total Airport 110,000 110,000 43 109,957 109,957 Total Tax Supported by Division 12,264,400 15,906,800 3,832,668 32,003,868 18,370,346 13,633,522 13,118,831 514,691

Capital Forecast December * This column does not tie to budget reports as numbers only reflect active projects. Closed projects have been removed from the report. Page 5

Rate Supported by Division Capital Project Quarterly Variance Report - Corporate Summary Run Date: 3/9/17 4:42 PM For period ending December 31, 2016 Schedule A

PY Budget 2016 Approved Total LTD LTD Budget Forecast Favourable/ Open Annual Amend- Amended Actuals Remaining to Complete (Unfavourable) Projects * Budget * ments * Budget * 2016 2016 Proj. Variance Public Works - Water Distribution Water Replacement/Upgrade Water 790,000 1,185,000 (70,000) 1,905,000 451,451 1,453,549 1,518,549 (65,000) Rehabilitation Water 200,000 200,000 43,711 156,289 156,289 Total Distribution Water 790,000 1,385,000 (70,000) 2,105,000 495,162 1,609,838 1,674,838 (65,000) Treatment Water Plant Water 460,000 150,000 610,000 126,453 483,547 482,667 880 Reservoir Water 35,000 35,000 34,830 170 170 Total Treatment Water 495,000 150,000 645,000 161,283 483,717 482,837 880 Non-Tangible Capital Water Inspections 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 Studies Water 50,000 100,000 150,000 46,754 103,246 103,246 Repairs and Maintenance 190,000 125,000 (70,000) 245,000 79,327 165,673 121,087 44,586 Total Non-Tangible Capital Water 240,000 275,000 (70,000) 445,000 126,081 318,919 274,333 44,586 Close Once Final Transactions Posted Water Close Once Final Transactions Posted Water 2,250,000 90,000 213,279 2,553,279 2,262,097 291,182 243,905 47,277 Total Close Once Final Transactions Posted Water 2,250,000 90,000 213,279 2,553,279 2,262,097 291,182 243,905 47,277 Total Public Works - Water 3,280,000 2,245,000 223,279 5,748,279 3,044,623 2,703,656 2,675,913 27,743 Public Works - Wastewater Collection Wastewater Local Improvement Wastewater 65,000 110,000 175,000 5,156 169,844 169,844 Pumping Station Large 3,200,000 1,150,000 (360,000) 3,990,000 1,377,655 2,612,345 2,612,345 Pumping Station Small 35,000 245,000 35,000 315,000 139,410 175,590 177,260 (1,670) Replacements/Upgrade Wastewater 530,000 430,000 75,000 1,035,000 778,989 256,011 266,275 (10,264) Rehabilitation Wastewater 45,000 250,000 295,000 255,024 39,976 37,739 2,237

Capital Forecast December * This column does not tie to budget reports as numbers only reflect active projects. Closed projects have been removed from the report. Page 6 Rate Supported by Division Capital Project Quarterly Variance Report - Corporate Summary Run Date: 3/9/17 4:42 PM For period ending December 31, 2016 Schedule A

PY Budget 2016 Approved Total LTD LTD Budget Forecast Favourable/ Open Annual Amend- Amended Actuals Remaining to Complete (Unfavourable) Projects * Budget * ments * Budget * 2016 2016 Proj. Variance Total Collection Wastewater 3,830,000 1,980,000 5,810,000 2,556,234 3,253,766 3,263,463 (9,697) Treatment Wastewater Plant Wastewater 3,615,000 8,010,000 (890,600) 10,734,400 794,462 9,939,938 9,939,938 Mountview/Golden Pheasant 300,000 1,000,000 (250,000) 1,050,000 48,298 1,001,702 1,001,702 Total Treatment Wastewater 3,915,000 9,010,000 (1,140,600) 11,784,400 842,760 10,941,640 10,941,640 Non-Tangible Capital Wastewater Studies Wastewater 70,000 150,000 220,000 61,673 158,327 158,327 Repairs and Maintenance 150,000 705,000 855,000 60,207 794,793 794,793 Total Non-Tangible Capital Wastewater 220,000 855,000 1,075,000 121,880 953,120 953,120 Close Once Final Transactions Posted Wastewater Close Once Final Transactions Posted Wastewater 13,510,000 795,000 2,296,550 16,601,550 16,078,460 523,090 (6,672) 529,762 Total Close Once Final Transactions Posted Wastewater 13,510,000 795,000 2,296,550 16,601,550 16,078,460 523,090 (6,672) 529,762 Total Public Works - Wastewater 21,475,000 12,640,000 1,155,950 35,270,950 19,599,334 15,671,616 15,151,551 520,065 Public Works - Solid Waste Management Solid Waste Management Solid Waste Management Capital 5,550,000 1,850,000 1,000,000 8,400,000 7,343,721 1,056,279 1,056,279 Non-Tangible Capital Solid Waste 1,400,000 400,000 (500,000) 1,300,000 406,841 893,159 893,159 Deferred Projects - Solid Waste 300,000 (255,302) 44,698 44,698 Total Solid Waste Management 7,250,000 2,250,000 244,698 9,744,698 7,795,260 1,949,438 1,949,438 Total Public Works - Solid Waste Management 7,250,000 2,250,000 244,698 9,744,698 7,795,260 1,949,438 1,949,438 Total Rate Supported by Division 32,005,000 17,135,000 1,623,927 50,763,927 30,439,217 20,324,710 19,776,902 547,808

Capital Forecast December * This column does not tie to budget reports as numbers only reflect active projects. Closed projects have been removed from the report. Page 7 70 PINE STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO P1L 1N3 Telephone (705) 645-2231 / Fax (705) 645-5319 / 1-800-461-4210 (705 area code) www.muskoka.on.ca

To: Chair and Members Corporate and Emergency Services Committee

From: Sharon Donald Director of Budgets and Financial Planning

Date: March 23, 2017

Subject: Status of Reserves and Reserve Funds – December 2016

Report: CES-2-2017-11 ______

Recommendation

THAT Report CES-2-2017-11, Status of Reserves and Reserve Funds – December 2016, be received.

Origin

In 2005, Council adopted Policy AD:51 Capital Budget Preparation, Monitoring and Reporting. The revised policy requires staff to submit formal reports to the Standing Committees and Council on the status of the District’s capital program as at March 31st, June 30th, September 30th and December 31st. The purpose of this report is to highlight material variances within the reserves and reserve funds.

Analysis

The Capital Project Quarterly Variance Report – December 2016 is included on the Standing Committee agendas for the week of March 20, 2017. The Tax Supported favourable variance of $514,691 and the Rate Supported favourable variance of $547,808 were included in Report CES-2-2017-10. These impacts are reflected against the respective reserve funds. The project specific impacts were reflected in the Standing Committee reports.

Schedule A

This schedule summarizes the $101,666,956 cash balance of the District’s Reserves and Reserve Funds as at December 31, 2016, including transfers from the operating budget, receipts from development fees, grants, capital projects financed and transfers to the operating budget recorded to December 31, 2016.

Page 1

Schedule B

Schedule B summarizes the projected balances of $72,579,564 in the District’s Reserves and Reserve Funds as at December 31, 2016. Starting with the cash balance as at December 31, 2016, commitments on open projects are deducted and the balance of the year’s transfers are added.

The Reserve Fund projected balance is favourable to the 2016 Revised Budget by approximately $3.79 million. The following table summarizes the variances by source:

(Increase) / Decrease Use of Source of Variance Reserve Description 2015 Reserve Variances Total Amendments in September 2015 ($627,412) and December Financing Amendments $1,284,644 2015 ($657,232) quarterly capital variance reports.

2015 DC Revenue Variance ($1,631,311) Shortfalls in actual DC revenue received in 2015 versus Budget. Mainly due to timing of Policing Credit applied in 2014 but 2015 Reserve Variances ($470,102) budgeted in 2015 (-$539K), Donations received ($45K). Year-end transfers related to 2015 Operating surplus/shortfall $943,494 Due to the 2015 operating net surplus.

December 2015 Interest Variance ($84,833) Variance due to year-end fund balances. Subtotal of 2015 Reserve Variances $41,891 2016 Reserve Variances Temporary variance as there is a construction budget allocation Current Year Variance ($98,373) in 2017 with expected completion on budget overall. Total Amendments in March 2016 ($110,084), June 2016 ($136,996), September 2016 ($943,254) and December 2016 Financing Amendments $2,287,625 ($1,097,291) quarterly capital variance reports. Major amendments include cancellation of Project 411153 Westvale/McCrank LI, OCIF funding on Projects 413101 Dill St SPS Upgrades and 413018 Beaumont Dr, increase to Project 530001 Ambulance Station as well as several amendment Committee Amendments between variance reports $609,540 requests as indicated in PW-7-2016 and PW-8-2016. Mainly due to donation ($450K) and transfer from Operations ($100K) to Gateway Reserve, WSIB projected variance due to direct delivery of Paramedic Services by the District ($112K) and a projected variance resulting from lower capital incentives being provided than budgeted under the Affordable Housing Initiatives ($460K). These are offset by a shortfall in actual DC revenue 2016 Reserve Variances $468,899 collected in 2016 versus budget (-$690K). Mainly due to closure of projects below budget ($319K) and Minor Variances $484,271 investment income earned in excess of budget ($85K). Subtotal of 2016 Reserve Variances $3,751,961 Total Variance to Revised 2016 Budget $3,793,853

Schedule C

Schedule C reflects the impact on planned funding sources (both own source funding and external funding) due to results reported in the Tax Supported Capital Project Quarterly Variance Reports. There was an overall net favourable variance or decreased use of funding totalling $602,800 which is made up of the following:

• $551,476 net decrease in the use of reserves mainly from projects that are being closed under budget; and

Page 2 • $47,000 net decrease in external funding based on actual contributions expected from Area Municipal contributions for their portion of work completed in conjunction with the District; and • $4,324 net decrease in Energy Rebates due to the project being completed under budget.

Schedule D

Schedule D reflects the impact on planned funding sources (both own source funding and external funding) due to results reported in the Rate Supported Capital Project Quarterly Variance Reports. There was an overall net favourable variance or decreased use of funding totalling $558,072 which is made up of the following:

• $545,815 net decrease in the use of reserves mainly from projects that are being closed under budget; and • $12,257 decrease in the use of external funding based on actual contributions expected from Area Municipal contributions for their portion of work completed in conjunction with the District.

Strategic Priorities

Click on icons below to view strategies under each priority area:

s 2.3

Respectfully submitted,

Original signed by Original signed by

Sharon Donald, CPA, CMA Julie Stevens, CPA, CA Director of Budgets and Commissioner of Finance and Financial Planning Corporate Services

Page 3 Reserves and Reserve Fund Cash Balances - December 2016 Schedule A

Development Closing Cash Opening Cash Fees / Grants / Capital Balance Balance Transfer from Donations / Interest Projects Transfer to December January 2016 Operating Sale of Assets Earned Total Inflows Financed Operating DC Deficit Total Outflows 2016 Capital Funds Corporate Capital 7,334,980 981,551 114,986 1,096,537 (307,943) (43,500) (351,443) 8,080,074 Computer Equipment 195,482 120,000 120,000 (104,414) (104,414) 211,068 Fleet Capital 2,013,466 578,750 578,750 (74,605) (74,605) 2,517,611 Ambulance Capital 1,680,038 550,000 28,385 578,385 (222,042) (222,042) 2,036,381 Hospital Financing 3,980 400,000 139 400,139 (400,000) (400,000) 4,119 Roads Capital 12,896,850 15,400,000 254,764 15,654,764 (14,757,301) (14,757,301) 13,794,313 Active Transportation 727,137 10,938 10,938 0 738,075 Port Carling Locks 727,000 250,000 11,321 261,321 (222,116) (222,116) 766,206 Environment General 6,613,934 2,500,000 115,784 2,615,784 (195,630) (195,630) 9,034,089 Pines Capital 2,247,524 500,000 37,258 537,258 (1,387) (1,387) 2,783,394 Pines Community Support Fund 238,794 39,425 3,625 43,050 (3,903) (3,903) 277,941 Community Housing Capital 3,272,979 200,000 50,094 250,094 (50,846) (50,846) 3,472,227 Planning Capital 867,272 100,000 13,566 113,566 (51,881) (51,881) 928,957 Airport Capital 146,935 500,000 5,588 505,588 (43) (20,000) (20,043) 632,480 Debt Reduction 13,091,852 4,895,467 227,804 5,123,271 0 18,215,123 Wastewater Capital 6,456,862 3,486,097 113,480 3,599,577 (2,702,424) (2,702,424) 7,354,015 Water Capital 7,443,034 3,369,436 129,359 3,498,795 (1,889,358) (1,889,358) 9,052,471 Solid Waste Capital 4,325,315 2,580,100 61,457 2,641,557 (5,240,285) (5,240,285) 1,726,587 Sustainable Infrastructure 2,441,292 1,800,477 44,094 1,844,571 (190,377) (190,377) 4,095,486 Subtotal Capital Funds 72,724,726 36,411,401 1,839,901 1,222,642 39,473,945 (26,010,652) (467,403) 0 (26,478,055) 85,720,617

Development Charge Funds Roads 270,650 1,154,228 7,148 1,161,376 (451,774) (451,774) 980,252 Hauled Sewage 156,301 151,039 2,976 154,015 (4,277) (4,277) 306,039 Water 469,304 562,730 7,997 570,727 (199,376) (199,376) 840,654 Wastewater 23,188 835,419 3,028 838,447 (98,632) (98,632) 763,002 Subtotal Development Charge Funds 919,442 0 2,703,417 21,149 2,724,565 (754,060) 0 0 (754,060) 2,889,947

Operating Funds General TS Stabilization 3,450,272 0 (712,471) (712,471) 2,737,801 WSIB 2,967,676 559,609 46,351 605,960 (174,724) (174,724) 3,398,911 Self-Insured Employee Benefit 1,784,879 0 0 1,784,879 Corporate Working Funds 2,508,813 0 0 2,508,813 Affordable Housing Initiatives 945,459 14,222 14,222 0 959,681 Muskoka Services Investment 367,264 5,525 5,525 0 372,788 Gateway Homes Muskoka 0 450,000 2,826 452,826 452,826 Solid Waste Operating 828,235 12,459 12,459 0 840,694 Subtotal Operating Funds 12,852,597 559,609 450,000 81,382 1,090,991 0 (887,195) 0 (887,195) 13,056,392

Total $86,496,766 $36,971,010 $4,993,318 $1,325,173 $43,289,501 ($26,764,712) ($1,354,598) $0 ($28,119,310) $101,666,956

Page 4 Reserves and Reserve Fund Projected Balances - December 2016 Schedule B

Balance of Year Impact of TS Impact of RS Variance Transfers Net Capital Project Capital Project Favourable / Closing Cash Commitments of Surplus / Quarterly Quarterly Projected December 2016 (Unfavourable) Balance on Open (Deficit) Variance - Variance - December 2016 (Budget to 2016 Budget December 2016 Projects Projection December 2016 December 2016 Balance Document) Revised Capital Funds Corporate Capital 8,080,074 (2,782,319) (300,000) 10,138 5,007,893 3,963,557 1,044,336 Computer Equipment 211,068 (113,747) 10,554 107,875 97,321 10,554 Fleet Capital 2,517,611 0 0 2,517,611 2,435,480 82,131 Ambulance Capital 2,036,381 (212,582) 0 1,823,799 1,824,213 (414) Hospital Financing 4,119 0 4,119 5,776 (1,657) Roads Capital 13,794,313 (4,224,303) 489,962 10,059,972 9,814,048 245,924 Active Transportation 738,075 0 738,075 751,559 (13,484) Port Carling Locks 766,206 (509,305) 0 256,901 266,361 (9,460) Environment General 9,034,089 (5,499,152) 0 44,772 3,579,709 3,435,958 143,751 Pines Capital 2,783,394 (91,212) 2,692,182 2,718,984 (26,802) Pines Community Support Fund 277,941 0 (21,049) 256,892 180,542 76,350 Community Housing Capital 3,472,227 (380,845) 0 3,091,382 2,980,036 111,346 Planning Capital 928,957 (132,668) 0 796,289 728,676 67,613 Airport Capital 632,480 (109,957) 0 522,523 522,892 (369) Debt Reduction 18,215,123 (250,000) (3,579,587) 0 0 14,385,536 16,835,532 (2,449,996) Wastewater Capital 7,354,015 (3,998,305) 473,300 3,829,010 1,741,925 2,087,085 Water Capital 9,052,471 (2,611,704) 27,743 6,468,510 6,211,167 257,343 Solid Waste Capital 1,726,587 (1,949,438) 300,000 0 77,149 499,774 (422,625) Sustainable Infrastructure 4,095,486 (2,309,579) 0 1,785,907 1,454,683 331,224 Subtotal Capital Funds 85,720,617 (25,175,116) (3,600,636) 510,654 545,815 58,001,334 56,468,484 1,532,850

Development Charge Funds Roads 980,252 (94,233) 40,822 926,841 1,502,690 (575,849) Hauled Sewage 306,039 (171,223) 0 134,816 298,568 (163,752) Water 840,654 (85,330) 0 755,324 1,196,327 (441,003) Wastewater 763,002 (807,919) (140,226) 0 (185,143) (3,131,486) 2,946,343 Post Period Benefits - Wastewater 0 (3,719,813) 3,719,813 0 0 0 Subtotal Development Charge Funds 2,889,947 (4,878,518) 3,579,587 40,822 0 1,631,838 (133,901) 1,765,739

Operating Funds General TS Stabilization 2,737,801 2,737,801 3,276,983 (539,182) WSIB 3,398,911 3,398,911 3,305,712 93,199 Self-Insured Employee Benefit 1,784,879 1,784,879 1,866,000 (81,121) Corporate Working Funds 2,508,813 2,508,813 2,508,813 (0) Affordable Housing Initiatives 959,681 (100,000) 859,681 408,585 451,096 Muskoka Services Investment 372,788 (60,000) (50,000) 262,788 266,053 (3,265) Gateway Homes Muskoka 452,826 100,000 552,826 0 552,826 Solid Waste Operating 840,694 840,694 818,982 21,712 Subtotal Operating Funds 13,056,392 (60,000) (50,000) 0 0 12,946,392 12,451,128 495,264

Total $101,666,956 ($30,113,634) ($71,049) $551,476 $545,815 $72,579,564 $68,785,711 $3,793,853 Page 5 Schedule C Tax Supported Capital Project Quarterly Variance Report - December 2016 Use of Reserve Funds (Increase) / Decrease

Corporate Computer Energy Area Project Number Capital Equipment Roads Capital DC Roads Rebates Municipality Total Roads 300084 Miscellaneous Land 2016 68,633 17,158 85,791 311191 MR 3 from HV/ML Boundary Easterly 3.6 km 54,112 2,847 56,959 313018 MR 13 Replace Jevins Creek Bridge #013099 (37,000) (37,000) 313025 MR 10 Rehab Port Sydney Bridge #010041 80,000 10,000 90,000 313030 MR 45 Rehab Hoodstown Bridge #045115 69,680 17,420 87,100 313046 MR 13 Culvert #013189 at 8.6m N of MR 19 64,537 3,397 67,934 313055 Pine Creek Bridge Replacement #169084 150,000 150,000 313059 MR 10 Lynx Creek Culvert Replacement 40,000 40,000 Roads Subtotal - (Increase) / Decrease 0 0 489,962 40,822 0 10,000 540,784

Corporate & Emergency Services 130301 Accounting System (84) 37,000 36,916 130331 Computer Equip Life Cycle Replacement 2015 10,554 10,554 130119 Admin Building Lighting Retrofit 10,222 4,324 14,546 Corporate & Emergency Services Subtotal - (Increase) / Decrease 10,138 10,554 0 0 4,324 37,000 62,016

Tax Supported Grand Total Impact on Financing 10,138 10,554 489,962 40,822 4,324 47,000 602,800 Reserve Fund Impact - (Increase) / Decrease 551,476 External Funding - (Increase) / Decrease 51,324

Page 6 Schedule D Rate Supported Capital Project Quarterly Variance Report - December 2016 Use of Reserve Funds (Increase) / Decrease

Wastewater Environment Investment Municipal Project Number Water Capital Capital General Income Grants Contribution Total Water 431084 HV George St from Henry to End (168m) (65,000) (65,000) 432046 HV WTP/Dufferin Pump Rehab 880 880 432065 DMM - Variable Drives 2016 44,586 44,586 432027 PS WTP Rehabilitation 30,000 30,000 432043 DMM Repl Program Logic Controllers 2015 17,277 17,277 Water Subtotal - (Increase) / Decrease 27,743 0 0 0 0 0 27,743

Wastewater 413018 BB Beaumont Dr SPS 7,728 (1,176) (6,552) 0 413101 BB Dill St SPS Upgrades (4,882) (1,670) 6,552 0 413013 BB Robert Dollar SPS #3 410.309 267 267 413110 HV SPS #4 Fairyview Upgrades (1,937) (1,937) 411158 HV Emergency Forcemain & Filter Repair 2,237 2,237 411043 GH Crescent Dr from Kingswood to Fairview 174,500 174,500 411046 GH Crescent Dr Reline 15 lat tees/svcs 411.342 99,800 99,800 411053 GH Pinedale from Pinegrove to Third St 167,500 167,500 411095 BB Dill St from Church to Victoria St (19,181) 15,103 (4,078) 411138 HV Various Sewer Rehabilitation 2015 26,996 26,996 411150 HV Sewer Lateral Repairs (92 KW, 90 Main, Hibberd Ln) 19,342 19,342 412010 PC STP Expansion 416.719 44,772 44,772 412097 PC Replace AST Blower 930 930 0 0 Wastewater Subtotal - (Increase) / Decrease 0 473,300 44,772 (2,846) 0 15,103 530,329

Public Works - Rate Supported - (Increase) / Decrease 27,743 473,300 44,772 (2,846) 0 15,103 558,072 Reserve Fund Impact - (Increase) / Decrease 545,815 External Funding - (Increase) - Decrease 12,257

Page 7

70 PINE STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO P1L 1N3 Telephone (705) 645-2231 / Fax (705) 645-5319 / 1-800-461-4210 (705 area code) www.muskoka.on.ca

To: Chair and Members Corporate and Emergency Services Committee

From: Laurie Bissonette Director of Finance

Date: March 23, 2017

Subject: Financing Leases 2016 Annual Report

Report: CES-2-2017-12 ______

Recommendation

THAT the report on the status of the 2016 Financing Leases be received.

Origin

Pursuant to section 11(1) and (2) of Ontario Regulation (O. Reg.) 653/05 made under the Municipal Act, 2001.

Analysis

The District Municipality of Muskoka will have, at all times, one or more financing leases outstanding in a fiscal year. The Municipal Act, 2001, in accordance with section 11(1) of O. Reg. 653/05 requires the Treasurer to report annually, detailed information on all financing leases to which the District of Muskoka is a party, excluding those listed in section 1.2(c) of the District’s Financial Leasing Policy AD:45.

Under section 11(2) of O. Reg. 653/05, the detailed report must contain a description of the estimated proportion of the total financing arrangements of the municipality that is undertaken through financing leases compared to the total long-term debt of the municipality and a description of the change, if any, in that estimated proportion since the previous year’s report.

Attached as Schedule “A” are the financial leasing costs for the year ended December 31, 2016, with comparative figures for 2015. These costs represent approximately 0.27% of the total long- term debt for 2016 for the District of Muskoka and, as such, do not cause a change in the District of Muskoka’s overall debt capacity.

All financing leases were made in accordance with the District of Muskoka’s Financial Leasing Policy AD:45.

Managing Our Legacy Together Page 1 Financial Considerations

Financial leasing costs for 2016 totalled $301,536.25 compared to 2015 at $322,776.30, as shown in Schedule “A” attached. The decrease in costs is attributable to the return of the ambulance rental trailer in Huntsville and the buy-out of the HP Network server lease. In addition, leases on replacement printers have been negotiated at a lower cost than the expired contracts.

Communications

As per Policy AD:45 Financial Leasing, an annual report is submitted for consideration to the Corporate and Emergency Services Committee.

Strategic Priorities

Click on icons below to view strategies under each priority area:

s 2.3

Respectfully submitted,

Original signed by Original signed by

Laurie Bissonette, CPA, CGA Julie Stevens, CPA, CA Director of Finance Commissioner of Finance and Corporate Services

Page 2

Schedule "A" DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA FINANCING LEASES 2016

Annual Rent Annual Rent (net of HST) (net of HST) % Change Contract End Date 2016 2015 SUMMARY OF LEASED PREMISES (Including Buildings) Ambulance Bracebridge Ambulance Station 41,880.00 41,880.00 month to month Huntsville Ambulance Station - Rental of 10x31 Site Trailer 3,010.00 3,840.00 1 -21.61% month to month Port Carling Ambulance Station 28,800.00 28,800.00 2019 73,690.00 74,520.00 Community Services Huntsville Community Services Office 57,600.00 57,600.00 2020 Bracebridge Community Services Office 59,148.98 59,125.00 2 0.04% 2017 Gravenhurst Community Services Office 51,000.00 51,000.00 2018 167,748.98 167,725.00 SUMMARY OF LEASED EQUIPMENT IT Equipment Pitney Bowes Postage Meter 504.00 504.00 2017 Printer - POA 1,498.44 1,498.44 2017 30 KVA UPS System 13,156.32 13,156.32 2018 HP Network Server & Equipment Rack 14,258.21 14,893.56 3 -4.27% 2016 Xerox Printer - WC7665P for Printshop 1,755.82 7,023.28 4 2016 Workcentre 4250X MAC605371 - Community Services - 1,116.46 4 2016 Workcentre 7545 XKP536491 - Gravenhurst Community Services - 2,995.16 4 2016 Workcentre 7545 XKP538087 - Huntsville Community Services - 3,028.96 4 2016 Workcentre 7545 XKP538093 - Community Services - 2,995.16 4 2016 Workcentre 7545 XKP539542 - Bracebridge Community Services - 4,611.48 4 2016 Workcentre 7545 XKP540110 - Community Services - 2,995.16 4 2016 Workcentre 7545 XKP540242 - Community Services - 3,635.08 4 2016 Workcentre 3655L C7X253784 Facilities 229.32 - 4 2021 Workcentre 7855i/2888869 MCS2 Vault 685.72 - 4 2021 Workcentre 7855i/288883 HV OW Back of Office 685.72 - 4 2021 Workcentre 7855i/288877 MCS3 685.72 - 4 2021 Workcentre 3655i/288874 CS Recept/Client 299.66 - 4 2021 Workcentre 7855i/288880 CS Manitoba 685.72 - 4 2021 Workcentre 7855i/288882 HV OW Recept 685.72 - 4 2021 Workcentre 7855i/288881 CS GH 685.72 - 4 2021 Workcentre 7970i/288869 Print Shop 2,202.94 - 4 2021 Workcentre 7125 XDC395264 - HV Water/WW Plant 1,827.88 1,827.88 2017 Workcentre 7830 MX0136943 - GH Water Plant 2,204.00 2,204.00 2019 Workcentre 7830 MX0137067 - POA 76 Pine 1,975.46 1,975.46 2019 Workcentre 7830 MX0137068 - IT Dept 1,719.50 1,719.50 2019 Workcentre 7855 MX4331363 - Eng Public Works 2,699.40 2,699.40 2019 Workcentre 7855 MX4331367 - Finance 2 2,699.40 2,699.40 2019 Workcentre 7855 MX4331370 - Finance 1 2,699.40 2,699.40 2019 Workcentre 7855 MX4331402 - Planning 3,126.72 3,126.72 2019 Workcentre 7855 MX4732883 - Clerks 3,126.48 3,126.48 2020 60,097.27 80,531.30

TOTAL 301,536.25 322,776.30 -6.58%

TOTAL LONG TERM DEBT 109,844,476 116,660,305

Estimated proportion of total financing arrangements to total long- term debt 0.27% 0.28%

1 Site trailer returned - final payment September 2016. 2 Includes property taxes based on sq ft of leased space. Current lease ending June 30, 2017 3 Buy-out of HP Lease

Page 3

70 PINE STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO P1L 1N3 Telephone (705) 645-2231 / Fax (705) 645-5319 / 1-800-461-4210 (705 area code) www.muskoka.on.ca

To: Chair and Members Corporate and Emergency Services Committee

From: Julie Stevens Commissioner of Finance and Corporate Services

Date: March 23, 2017

Subject: Policing Cost Comparisons

Report: CES-2-2017-13 ______

Recommendation

This report is provided for information.

Origin

The OPP released a comparison of costs for municipalities that are policed by the OPP. Staff is providing this information and comparing these figures to the cost for independent municipal police forces.

Analysis

The OPP released a comparison of costs for municipalities that are policed by the OPP which is attached as Appendix A. According to this listing, there are 289 municipalities policed by the OPP in 2017. This information is sorted by the 2017 Estimated Cost per Property column. The estimated cost per property ranges from $209 to $785. The District has a 2017 estimated cost per property of $311. There are 148 municipalities with a per-property cost of policing higher than the District and 140 municipalities with a per-property cost of policing which is equal to or lower than the District.

In addition to this information, staff compared the cost of policing for 51 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 2015. The data for 2016 is not yet available from the website that is used for these comparisons. The average cost of policing for all of these forces is approximately $810 per household for both years. There were six municipalities that had between 40,000 and 55,500 households. These six municipalities had municipal policing costs that ranged from $663 to $970 per household with an average of $798 for 2015. It should be noted that the OPP’s calculation is based on number of properties which includes households and commercial and industrial properties. The data for the independent police forces includes households only as the number of commercial and industrial properties is not tracked in the financial information return. The comparison remains relevant as the number of households across the province far outweighs the number of commercial and industrial properties. Managing Our Legacy Together Page 1

Financial Considerations

The financial considerations have been included in the Analysis section of the report.

Communications

This report is submitted to the Corporate and Emergency Services Committee and Council to provide information on policing costs compared to other Ontario Municipalities.

Strategic Priorities

Click on icons below to view strategies under each priority area:

s 2.3

Respectfully submitted,

Original signed by Original signed by

Julie Stevens, CPA, CA Michael Duben, B.A. LL.B. Commissioner of Finance and Chief Administrative Officer Corporate Services

Page 2

2015 - 2017 ESTIMATED OPP MUNICIPAL POLICING COSTS

2016 Total Property Count - 1,128,014 2015 Total Property Count - 1,102,842 2017 Total Property Count - 1,134,106 2016 Estimated Total Municipal Recoveries - 2015 Estimated Total Municipal Recoveries - $394,169,154 2016 Estimated Total Municipal Recoveries - $402,101,563 $397,167,445 2015 Estimated Average per Property Cost - $357 2016 Estimated Average per Property Cost - $355 2016 Estimated Average per Property Cost - $352

2015 2016 2017

Estimated Per Estimated Per Estimated Per Property Estimated Total Cost² Property Cost Estimated Total Cost² Property Cost Estimated Total Cost² Cost

Capped Capped Capped Per Per Per Property Per Property Per Property Per Municipality Detachment Total Cost Capped Cost³ Property Total Cost Capped Cost³ Property Total Cost Capped Cost³ Property Count¹ Property Count¹ Property Count¹ Property Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost

Cavan Monaghan Tp (Note 4) Peterborough 3494 $ 1,137,754 $ 1,363,780 $ 326 $ 390 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Sioux Lookout M Sioux Lookout 2639 $ 2,029,797 $ 2,029,797 $ 769 $ 769 2665 $ 1,995,154 $ 1,995,154 $ 749 $ 749 2686 $ 2,109,123 $ 2,109,123 $ 785 $ 785 Kenora C Kenora 7884 $ 5,515,439 $ 6,502,470 $ 700 $ 825 7995 $ 5,611,226 $ 6,063,248 $ 702 $ 758 7975 $ 5,684,673 $ 5,684,673 $ 713 $ 713 Pembroke C Upper Ottawa Valley 6874 $ 4,224,754 $ 4,578,164 $ 615 $ 666 6954 $ 4,181,312 $ 4,181,312 $ 601 $ 601 6957 $ 4,148,504 $ 4,148,504 $ 596 $ 596 Parry Sound T West Parry Sound 3297 $ 1,860,971 $ 2,048,498 $ 564 $ 621 3422 $ 1,883,658 $ 1,898,970 $ 550 $ 555 3408 $ 1,942,682 $ 1,942,682 $ 570 $ 570 Orillia C Orillia 14410 $ 7,775,304 $ 8,332,931 $ 540 $ 578 14716 $ 7,912,595 $ 7,912,595 $ 538 $ 538 14776 $ 8,084,278 $ 8,084,278 $ 547 $ 547 Hawkesbury T Hawkesbury 5544 $ 2,986,043 $ 3,819,672 $ 539 $ 689 5611 $ 3,026,330 $ 3,493,296 $ 539 $ 623 5614 $ 3,069,611 $ 3,069,611 $ 547 $ 547 Ignace Tp Dryden 858 $ 443,805 $ 506,357 $ 517 $ 590 862 $ 444,417 $ 451,490 $ 516 $ 524 858 $ 459,549 $ 459,549 $ 536 $ 536 Penetanguishene T Southern Georgian Bay 4121 $ 2,212,386 $ 2,419,934 $ 537 $ 587 4183 $ 2,217,364 $ 2,217,364 $ 530 $ 530 4185 $ 2,238,537 $ 2,238,537 $ 535 $ 535 Cobalt T Temiskaming 653 $ 312,910 $ 335,835 $ 479 $ 514 677 $ 335,634 $ 335,634 $ 496 $ 496 676 $ 355,619 $ 355,619 $ 526 $ 526 Caledon T Caledon 21606 $ 11,598,000 $ 11,598,000 $ 537 $ 537 22711 $ 11,928,741 $ 11,928,741 $ 525 $ 525 23049 $ 12,077,328 $ 12,077,328 $ 524 $ 524 Fort Frances T Rainy River District 4070 $ 2,028,792 $ 2,653,691 $ 498 $ 652 4084 $ 2,057,686 $ 2,391,672 $ 504 $ 586 4084 $ 2,130,798 $ 2,130,798 $ 522 $ 522 Red Lake M Red Lake 2361 $ 1,252,949 $ 1,913,539 $ 531 $ 810 2407 $ 1,254,302 $ 1,791,025 $ 521 $ 744 2414 $ 1,253,240 $ 1,579,287 $ 519 $ 654 Goderich T Huron 3851 $ 1,813,813 $ 1,813,813 $ 471 $ 471 3875 $ 1,876,763 $ 1,876,763 $ 484 $ 484 3894 $ 2,019,073 $ 2,019,073 $ 519 $ 519 Perth T Lanark County 3387 $ 1,815,132 $ 2,196,168 $ 536 $ 648 3407 $ 1,787,818 $ 1,982,942 $ 525 $ 582 3420 $ 1,751,636 $ 1,751,636 $ 512 $ 512 Prescott ST Grenville County 2310 $ 1,259,275 $ 1,752,083 $ 545 $ 758 2347 $ 1,204,142 $ 1,624,335 $ 513 $ 692 2352 $ 1,196,298 $ 1,416,421 $ 509 $ 602 Point Edward V Lambton 1084 $ 501,727 $ 707,023 $ 463 $ 652 1086 $ 510,130 $ 636,233 $ 470 $ 586 1083 $ 539,247 $ 539,247 $ 498 $ 498 Carleton Place T Lanark County 4478 $ 2,302,417 $ 2,431,284 $ 514 $ 543 4608 $ 2,281,477 $ 2,281,477 $ 495 $ 495 4671 $ 2,267,455 $ 2,267,455 $ 485 $ 485 Bancroft T Bancroft 2204 $ 1,007,931 $ 1,407,723 $ 457 $ 639 2264 $ 1,055,682 $ 1,295,732 $ 466 $ 572 2273 $ 1,073,999 $ 1,096,609 $ 473 $ 482 Ingersoll T Oxford 5310 $ 2,519,813 $ 2,823,254 $ 475 $ 532 5418 $ 2,548,027 $ 2,548,027 $ 470 $ 470 5455 $ 2,574,067 $ 2,574,067 $ 472 $ 472 Cochrane T James Bay 2764 $ 1,335,028 $ 1,806,665 $ 483 $ 654 2865 $ 1,361,577 $ 1,682,471 $ 475 $ 587 2872 $ 1,351,554 $ 1,428,475 $ 471 $ 497 Kirkland Lake T Kirkland Lake 4985 $ 2,390,020 $ 2,872,757 $ 479 $ 576 5018 $ 2,393,511 $ 2,558,628 $ 477 $ 510 5013 $ 2,352,441 $ 2,352,441 $ 469 $ 469 Brockton M South Bruce 4575 $ 2,059,793 $ 2,186,106 $ 450 $ 478 4669 $ 2,135,547 $ 2,135,547 $ 457 $ 457 4686 $ 2,190,323 $ 2,190,323 $ 467 $ 467 Deseronto T Napanee 844 $ 381,362 $ 427,440 $ 452 $ 506 864 $ 383,853 $ 383,853 $ 444 $ 444 863 $ 396,482 $ 396,482 $ 459 $ 459 Greenstone M Greenstone 3265 $ 1,459,155 $ 1,839,108 $ 447 $ 563 3315 $ 1,521,789 $ 1,647,190 $ 459 $ 497 3305 $ 1,505,656 $ 1,505,656 $ 456 $ 456 Temiskaming Shores C Temiskaming 5259 $ 2,383,497 $ 2,383,497 $ 453 $ 453 5312 $ 2,360,920 $ 2,360,920 $ 444 $ 444 5294 $ 2,390,704 $ 2,390,704 $ 452 $ 452 Renfrew T Renfrew 4123 $ 1,884,348 $ 1,991,820 $ 457 $ 483 4175 $ 1,905,221 $ 1,905,221 $ 456 $ 456 4210 $ 1,894,742 $ 1,894,742 $ 450 $ 450 Kapuskasing T James Bay 4351 $ 1,844,836 $ 2,209,309 $ 424 $ 508 4379 $ 1,883,453 $ 1,932,803 $ 430 $ 441 4370 $ 1,965,732 $ 1,965,732 $ 450 $ 450

Page 3 2015 - 2017 ESTIMATED OPP MUNICIPAL POLICING COSTS

2015 2016 2017

Estimated Per Estimated Per Estimated Per Property Estimated Total Cost² Property Cost Estimated Total Cost² Property Cost Estimated Total Cost² Cost

Burk's Falls V Almaguin Highlands 577 $ 250,923 $ 278,502 $ 435 $ 483 575 $ 252,759 $ 252,759 $ 440 $ 440 576 $ 257,227 $ 257,227 $ 447 $ 447 Greater Napanee T Napanee 7363 $ 3,309,604 $ 3,826,840 $ 449 $ 520 7566 $ 3,292,815 $ 3,430,046 $ 435 $ 453 7609 $ 3,377,380 $ 3,377,380 $ 444 $ 444 West Perth M Perth County 3800 $ 1,663,805 $ 1,665,440 $ 438 $ 438 3841 $ 1,695,447 $ 1,695,447 $ 441 $ 441 3852 $ 1,684,056 $ 1,684,056 $ 437 $ 437 North Perth M Perth County 5559 $ 2,427,294 $ 2,615,967 $ 437 $ 471 5674 $ 2,452,206 $ 2,452,206 $ 432 $ 432 5727 $ 2,471,133 $ 2,471,133 $ 431 $ 431 Quinte West C Quinte West 18363 $ 7,987,798 $ 8,944,011 $ 435 $ 487 18674 $ 8,041,568 $ 8,041,568 $ 431 $ 431 18768 $ 8,072,717 $ 8,072,717 $ 430 $ 430 Casselman V Russell County 1636 $ 701,204 $ 860,127 $ 429 $ 526 1649 $ 703,462 $ 757,485 $ 427 $ 459 1643 $ 698,782 $ 698,782 $ 425 $ 425 Elliot Lake C East Algoma 6565 $ 2,822,313 $ 2,985,871 $ 430 $ 455 6619 $ 2,779,653 $ 2,779,653 $ 420 $ 420 6633 $ 2,820,259 $ 2,820,259 $ 425 $ 425 Iroquois Falls T South Porcupine 2483 $ 1,035,089 $ 1,541,481 $ 417 $ 621 2533 $ 1,061,189 $ 1,404,346 $ 419 $ 554 2526 $ 1,071,698 $ 1,173,453 $ 424 $ 465 Chapleau Tp Superior East 1264 $ 524,009 $ 688,079 $ 415 $ 544 1269 $ 531,290 $ 606,557 $ 419 $ 478 1263 $ 534,876 $ 534,876 $ 423 $ 423 Wellington Co Wellington 37621 $ 15,475,915 $ 16,286,470 $ 411 $ 433 38293 $ 15,704,008 $ 15,704,008 $ 410 $ 410 38381 $ 16,007,504 $ 16,007,504 $ 417 $ 417 Leamington M Essex County 11430 $ 4,599,335 $ 5,827,205 $ 402 $ 510 11475 $ 4,659,066 $ 5,088,359 $ 406 $ 443 11481 $ 4,788,283 $ 4,788,283 $ 417 $ 417 Wawa M Superior East 1827 $ 768,515 $ 1,322,794 $ 421 $ 724 1817 $ 752,221 $ 1,194,914 $ 414 $ 658 1812 $ 754,272 $ 1,028,781 $ 416 $ 568 Collingwood T Collingwood 11331 $ 4,794,080 $ 5,038,090 $ 423 $ 445 11927 $ 4,915,334 $ 4,915,334 $ 412 $ 412 12063 $ 5,008,286 $ 5,008,286 $ 415 $ 415 Gore Bay T Manitoulin 501 $ 183,754 $ 253,107 $ 367 $ 505 507 $ 179,132 $ 222,477 $ 353 $ 439 507 $ 210,067 $ 210,067 $ 414 $ 414 Ear Falls Tp Red Lake 632 $ 215,872 $ 215,872 $ 342 $ 342 643 $ 243,161 $ 243,161 $ 378 $ 378 641 $ 262,480 $ 262,480 $ 409 $ 409 Spanish T East Algoma 465 $ 174,550 $ 173,992 $ 375 $ 374 479 $ 185,352 $ 185,352 $ 387 $ 387 477 $ 192,307 $ 192,307 $ 403 $ 403 Marathon T Marathon 1849 $ 794,334 $ 1,363,727 $ 430 $ 738 1847 $ 753,138 $ 1,239,633 $ 408 $ 671 1844 $ 742,457 $ 1,071,899 $ 403 $ 581 Nipigon Tp Nipigon 945 $ 382,100 $ 605,017 $ 404 $ 640 936 $ 370,386 $ 537,114 $ 396 $ 574 934 $ 376,006 $ 452,028 $ 403 $ 484 Adjala-Tosorontio/Essa/New Tecumseth Tp Nottawasaga 22923 $ 9,279,124 $ 10,381,049 $ 405 $ 453 24025 $ 9,582,112 $ 9,590,574 $ 399 $ 399 24527 $ 9,826,158 $ 9,826,158 $ 401 $ 401 Mattawa Group of Four North Bay 2118 $ 885,844 $ 866,495 $ 418 $ 409 2157 $ 874,760 $ 874,760 $ 406 $ 406 2158 $ 864,516 $ 864,516 $ 401 $ 401 Arnprior T Renfrew 3932 $ 1,615,812 $ 1,615,812 $ 411 $ 411 4161 $ 1,649,294 $ 1,649,294 $ 396 $ 396 4252 $ 1,695,901 $ 1,695,901 $ 399 $ 399 Tillsonburg T Oxford 7412 $ 2,945,141 $ 3,125,596 $ 397 $ 422 7548 $ 2,971,683 $ 2,971,683 $ 394 $ 394 7607 $ 3,028,183 $ 3,028,183 $ 398 $ 398 Atikokan T Rainy River District 1714 $ 685,400 $ 911,526 $ 400 $ 532 1712 $ 693,320 $ 796,799 $ 405 $ 465 1710 $ 680,193 $ 680,193 $ 398 $ 398 Blind River T East Algoma 2552 $ 973,779 $ 846,566 $ 382 $ 332 2566 $ 984,719 $ 975,670 $ 384 $ 380 2571 $ 1,012,940 $ 1,012,940 $ 394 $ 394 Norfolk Co Norfolk 30204 $ 11,362,836 $ 12,548,057 $ 376 $ 415 30989 $ 11,950,790 $ 11,950,790 $ 386 $ 386 31215 $ 12,238,600 $ 12,238,600 $ 392 $ 392 White River Tp Superior East 524 $ 194,907 $ 194,907 $ 372 $ 372 525 $ 192,987 $ 192,987 $ 368 $ 368 524 $ 203,619 $ 203,619 $ 389 $ 389 South River V Almaguin Highlands 576 $ 217,295 $ 240,718 $ 377 $ 418 580 $ 218,036 $ 218,036 $ 376 $ 376 579 $ 220,628 $ 220,628 $ 381 $ 381 Champlain Tp Hawkesbury 4228 $ 1,564,681 $ 1,387,765 $ 370 $ 328 4284 $ 1,584,534 $ 1,584,534 $ 370 $ 370 4303 $ 1,633,649 $ 1,633,649 $ 380 $ 380

Page 4 2015 - 2017 ESTIMATED OPP MUNICIPAL POLICING COSTS

2015 2016 2017

Estimated Per Estimated Per Estimated Per Property Estimated Total Cost² Property Cost Estimated Total Cost² Property Cost Estimated Total Cost² Cost

Baldwin Tp Sudbury 376 $ 141,569 $ 206,038 $ 377 $ 548 385 $ 141,458 $ 185,408 $ 367 $ 482 385 $ 145,771 $ 150,808 $ 379 $ 392 Thessalon T East Algoma 705 $ 275,568 $ 275,568 $ 391 $ 391 703 $ 274,482 $ 274,482 $ 390 $ 390 707 $ 266,236 $ 266,236 $ 377 $ 377 Hearst T James Bay 2775 $ 1,024,046 $ 1,300,782 $ 369 $ 469 2770 $ 1,007,012 $ 1,114,537 $ 364 $ 402 2770 $ 1,040,517 $ 1,040,517 $ 376 $ 376 Rainy River T Rainy River District 511 $ 188,580 $ 164,339 $ 369 $ 322 514 $ 185,800 $ 185,800 $ 361 $ 361 511 $ 190,413 $ 190,413 $ 373 $ 373 Wasaga Beach T Huronia West 12388 $ 4,495,647 $ 4,219,782 $ 363 $ 341 12765 $ 4,569,424 $ 4,569,424 $ 358 $ 358 12860 $ 4,709,477 $ 4,709,477 $ 366 $ 366 Nairn and Hyman Tp Sudbury 323 $ 120,185 $ 180,108 $ 372 $ 558 325 $ 117,276 $ 159,647 $ 361 $ 491 326 $ 117,914 $ 130,840 $ 362 $ 401 South Huron M Huron 5060 $ 1,799,453 $ 1,799,453 $ 356 $ 356 5117 $ 1,818,958 $ 1,818,958 $ 355 $ 355 5170 $ 1,867,920 $ 1,867,920 $ 361 $ 361 Sundridge V Almaguin Highlands 574 $ 222,431 $ 222,431 $ 388 $ 388 583 $ 221,252 $ 221,252 $ 380 $ 380 586 $ 211,641 $ 211,641 $ 361 $ 361 Kincardine M South Bruce 6314 $ 2,311,770 $ 2,311,770 $ 366 $ 366 6424 $ 2,301,073 $ 2,301,073 $ 358 $ 358 6471 $ 2,331,863 $ 2,331,863 $ 360 $ 360 Haldimand Co Haldimand 20650 $ 7,572,523 $ 7,845,685 $ 367 $ 380 21078 $ 7,567,058 $ 7,567,058 $ 359 $ 359 21190 $ 7,605,335 $ 7,605,335 $ 359 $ 359 Sioux Narrows-Nestor Falls Tp Kenora 1388 $ 341,254 $ 302,382 $ 246 $ 218 1420 $ 505,016 $ 378,217 $ 356 $ 266 1419 $ 509,172 $ 444,615 $ 359 $ 313 Edwardsburgh/Cardinal Tp Grenville County 3195 $ 1,157,496 $ 1,157,496 $ 362 $ 362 3271 $ 1,151,515 $ 1,151,515 $ 352 $ 352 3284 $ 1,176,921 $ 1,176,921 $ 358 $ 358 North Middlesex M Middlesex 2787 $ 941,048 $ 941,048 $ 338 $ 338 2798 $ 957,655 $ 957,655 $ 342 $ 342 2844 $ 1,016,937 $ 1,016,937 $ 358 $ 358 Essex T Essex County 9216 $ 3,149,117 $ 3,819,996 $ 342 $ 415 9277 $ 3,313,619 $ 3,406,085 $ 357 $ 367 9324 $ 3,323,099 $ 3,323,099 $ 356 $ 356 Central Huron M Huron 4440 $ 1,620,617 $ 1,482,499 $ 365 $ 334 4524 $ 1,612,021 $ 1,612,021 $ 356 $ 356 4530 $ 1,611,416 $ 1,611,416 $ 356 $ 356 Huron East M Huron 4233 $ 1,487,606 $ 1,313,773 $ 351 $ 310 4274 $ 1,505,862 $ 1,505,862 $ 352 $ 352 4278 $ 1,513,843 $ 1,513,843 $ 354 $ 354 Manitouwadge Tp Marathon 1307 $ 490,349 $ 682,191 $ 375 $ 522 1300 $ 466,688 $ 592,228 $ 359 $ 456 1297 $ 457,493 $ 474,300 $ 353 $ 366 Brant Co Brant County 14638 $ 5,186,144 $ 7,209,874 $ 354 $ 493 14957 $ 5,214,191 $ 6,374,075 $ 349 $ 426 15089 $ 5,308,840 $ 5,308,840 $ 352 $ 352 Latchford T Temiskaming 251 $ 89,467 $ 82,529 $ 356 $ 329 260 $ 91,836 $ 91,836 $ 353 $ 353 259 $ 90,797 $ 90,797 $ 351 $ 351 The Blue Mountains T Collingwood 7468 $ 2,703,344 $ 2,703,344 $ 362 $ 362 7747 $ 2,712,395 $ 2,712,395 $ 350 $ 350 7808 $ 2,730,462 $ 2,730,462 $ 350 $ 350 Mono T Dufferin 3023 $ 1,080,936 $ 1,124,416 $ 358 $ 372 3127 $ 1,089,351 $ 1,089,351 $ 348 $ 348 3232 $ 1,127,718 $ 1,127,718 $ 349 $ 349 Smooth Rock Falls T James Bay 808 $ 268,778 $ 256,605 $ 333 $ 318 809 $ 265,274 $ 265,274 $ 328 $ 328 807 $ 280,453 $ 280,453 $ 348 $ 348 Englehart T Temiskaming 800 $ 285,572 $ 285,572 $ 357 $ 357 808 $ 286,480 $ 286,480 $ 355 $ 355 812 $ 281,063 $ 281,063 $ 346 $ 346 Arran-Elderslie M South Bruce 3265 $ 1,115,490 $ 1,115,490 $ 342 $ 342 3284 $ 1,114,758 $ 1,114,758 $ 339 $ 339 3305 $ 1,143,693 $ 1,143,693 $ 346 $ 346 North Grenville M Grenville County 6539 $ 2,326,795 $ 2,660,279 $ 356 $ 407 6929 $ 2,376,886 $ 2,376,886 $ 343 $ 343 7017 $ 2,421,414 $ 2,421,414 $ 345 $ 345 Terrace Bay Tp Nipigon 947 $ 330,892 $ 349,118 $ 349 $ 369 954 $ 327,396 $ 327,396 $ 343 $ 343 950 $ 327,714 $ 327,714 $ 345 $ 345 Norwich Tp Oxford 4143 $ 1,379,639 $ 1,379,639 $ 333 $ 333 4190 $ 1,430,027 $ 1,430,027 $ 341 $ 341 4213 $ 1,452,728 $ 1,452,728 $ 345 $ 345 Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry UCo SD&G 29758 $ 10,440,877 $ 11,433,727 $ 351 $ 384 30485 $ 10,384,221 $ 10,384,221 $ 341 $ 341 30641 $ 10,541,104 $ 10,541,104 $ 344 $ 344

Page 5 2015 - 2017 ESTIMATED OPP MUNICIPAL POLICING COSTS

2015 2016 2017

Estimated Per Estimated Per Estimated Per Property Estimated Total Cost² Property Cost Estimated Total Cost² Property Cost Estimated Total Cost² Cost

Sables-Spanish Rivers Tp Sudbury 1935 $ 663,683 $ 785,684 $ 343 $ 406 1982 $ 680,146 $ 680,146 $ 343 $ 343 1982 $ 681,787 $ 681,787 $ 344 $ 344 Elizabethtown-Kitley Tp Leeds County 4249 $ 1,498,417 $ 1,498,417 $ 353 $ 353 4312 $ 1,495,511 $ 1,495,511 $ 347 $ 347 4314 $ 1,481,298 $ 1,481,298 $ 343 $ 343 North Huron Tp Huron 944 $ 306,111 $ 241,060 $ 324 $ 255 948 $ 309,945 $ 288,059 $ 327 $ 304 944 $ 324,116 $ 324,116 $ 343 $ 343 Clearview Tp Huronia West 6435 $ 2,225,668 $ 2,225,668 $ 346 $ 346 6526 $ 2,212,994 $ 2,212,994 $ 339 $ 339 6560 $ 2,249,567 $ 2,249,567 $ 343 $ 343 St. Marys ST Perth County 3259 $ 1,173,755 $ 1,173,755 $ 360 $ 360 3338 $ 1,167,211 $ 1,167,211 $ 350 $ 350 3372 $ 1,155,089 $ 1,155,089 $ 343 $ 343 Adelaide Metcalfe Tp Middlesex 1124 $ 377,838 $ 361,283 $ 336 $ 321 1147 $ 386,512 $ 386,512 $ 337 $ 337 1202 $ 410,054 $ 410,054 $ 341 $ 341 Markstay-Warren M Noelville 1378 $ 483,904 $ 483,904 $ 351 $ 351 1410 $ 484,743 $ 484,743 $ 344 $ 344 1414 $ 481,635 $ 481,635 $ 341 $ 341 Clarence-Rockland C Russell County 9500 $ 3,272,301 $ 3,272,301 $ 344 $ 344 9793 $ 3,322,268 $ 3,322,268 $ 339 $ 339 9906 $ 3,370,682 $ 3,370,682 $ 340 $ 340 Montague Tp Lanark County 1516 $ 536,533 $ 511,516 $ 354 $ 337 1577 $ 535,550 $ 535,550 $ 340 $ 340 1590 $ 540,943 $ 540,943 $ 340 $ 340 Alfred and Plantagenet Tp Hawkesbury 4317 $ 1,472,999 $ 1,472,999 $ 341 $ 341 4473 $ 1,501,419 $ 1,501,419 $ 336 $ 336 4511 $ 1,534,601 $ 1,534,601 $ 340 $ 340 Kingsville T Essex County 8836 $ 2,989,523 $ 3,518,289 $ 338 $ 398 8997 $ 3,021,618 $ 3,021,618 $ 336 $ 336 9033 $ 3,072,109 $ 3,072,109 $ 340 $ 340 Loyalist Tp Napanee 6567 $ 2,249,746 $ 2,546,062 $ 343 $ 388 6798 $ 2,292,648 $ 2,292,648 $ 337 $ 337 6887 $ 2,341,811 $ 2,341,811 $ 340 $ 340 Prince Edward Co Prince Edward 13509 $ 4,649,741 $ 4,689,522 $ 344 $ 347 14002 $ 4,704,387 $ 4,704,387 $ 336 $ 336 14088 $ 4,781,031 $ 4,781,031 $ 339 $ 339 Brighton M Northumberland 5115 $ 1,791,448 $ 1,791,448 $ 350 $ 350 5300 $ 1,815,941 $ 1,815,941 $ 343 $ 343 5346 $ 1,808,471 $ 1,808,471 $ 338 $ 338 Gauthier Tp Kirkland Lake 75 $ 25,769 $ 14,361 $ 344 $ 191 77 $ 25,479 $ 18,478 $ 331 $ 240 79 $ 26,647 $ 22,670 $ 337 $ 287 Newbury V Middlesex 226 $ 76,345 $ 59,573 $ 338 $ 264 228 $ 76,176 $ 71,159 $ 334 $ 312 227 $ 76,353 $ 76,353 $ 336 $ 336 Tecumseh T Essex County 9536 $ 3,203,971 $ 4,263,198 $ 336 $ 447 9594 $ 3,178,568 $ 3,652,148 $ 331 $ 381 9609 $ 3,231,623 $ 3,231,623 $ 336 $ 336 Red Rock Tp Nipigon 495 $ 179,893 $ 207,840 $ 363 $ 420 497 $ 169,710 $ 175,685 $ 341 $ 353 496 $ 166,431 $ 166,431 $ 336 $ 336 Shuniah M Thunder Bay 2181 $ 753,190 $ 604,380 $ 345 $ 277 2252 $ 761,591 $ 733,274 $ 338 $ 326 2262 $ 758,761 $ 758,761 $ 335 $ 335 Russell Tp Russell County 5925 $ 2,051,034 $ 2,051,034 $ 346 $ 346 6189 $ 2,082,790 $ 2,082,790 $ 337 $ 337 6299 $ 2,109,470 $ 2,109,470 $ 335 $ 335 Southgate Tp Grey County 3162 $ 1,056,814 $ 984,010 $ 334 $ 311 3214 $ 1,059,190 $ 1,059,190 $ 330 $ 330 3252 $ 1,086,705 $ 1,086,705 $ 334 $ 334 Northeastern Manitoulin and The Islands T Manitoulin 2312 $ 798,844 $ 894,087 $ 346 $ 387 2382 $ 802,998 $ 802,998 $ 337 $ 337 2382 $ 795,740 $ 795,740 $ 334 $ 334 Asphodel-Norwood Tp Peterborough 1878 $ 639,479 $ 639,479 $ 341 $ 341 1911 $ 635,696 $ 635,696 $ 333 $ 333 1910 $ 637,539 $ 637,539 $ 334 $ 334 Thornloe V Temiskaming 50 $ 19,320 $ 18,024 $ 386 $ 360 52 $ 17,605 $ 17,605 $ 339 $ 339 52 $ 17,303 $ 17,303 $ 333 $ 333 Madoc Tp Central Hastings 970 $ 312,224 $ 254,160 $ 322 $ 262 999 $ 323,548 $ 310,209 $ 324 $ 311 1005 $ 334,361 $ 334,361 $ 333 $ 333 McGarry Tp Kirkland Lake 463 $ 138,188 $ 101,291 $ 298 $ 219 459 $ 149,856 $ 122,677 $ 326 $ 267 459 $ 152,616 $ 144,241 $ 332 $ 314 Petawawa T Upper Ottawa Valley 5098 $ 1,742,994 $ 1,742,994 $ 342 $ 342 5303 $ 1,758,031 $ 1,758,031 $ 332 $ 332 5355 $ 1,779,083 $ 1,779,083 $ 332 $ 332 Elgin Group Elgin 18269 $ 6,121,614 $ 6,110,621 $ 335 $ 334 18514 $ 6,097,365 $ 6,097,365 $ 329 $ 329 18579 $ 6,163,036 $ 6,163,036 $ 332 $ 332

Page 6 2015 - 2017 ESTIMATED OPP MUNICIPAL POLICING COSTS

2015 2016 2017

Estimated Per Estimated Per Estimated Per Property Estimated Total Cost² Property Cost Estimated Total Cost² Property Cost Estimated Total Cost² Cost

Hornepayne Tp Superior East 598 $ 206,108 $ 206,108 $ 345 $ 345 610 $ 200,380 $ 200,380 $ 328 $ 328 605 $ 200,332 $ 200,332 $ 331 $ 331 The Nation M Russell County/ Hawkesbury 4928 $ 1,647,621 $ 1,547,197 $ 334 $ 314 5166 $ 1,682,790 $ 1,682,790 $ 326 $ 326 5187 $ 1,716,772 $ 1,716,772 $ 331 $ 331 Port Hope M Northumberland 1693 $ 562,208 $ 724,194 $ 332 $ 428 1731 $ 566,084 $ 625,531 $ 327 $ 361 1728 $ 571,546 $ 571,546 $ 331 $ 331 Southwest Middlesex M Middlesex 2693 $ 880,735 $ 880,735 $ 327 $ 327 2728 $ 872,991 $ 872,991 $ 320 $ 320 2735 $ 900,867 $ 900,867 $ 329 $ 329 Trent Hills M Northumberland 7166 $ 2,482,411 $ 2,650,224 $ 346 $ 370 7385 $ 2,453,855 $ 2,453,855 $ 332 $ 332 7444 $ 2,447,967 $ 2,447,967 $ 329 $ 329 Lambton Group Lambton 25503 $ 8,501,581 $ 9,958,901 $ 333 $ 391 26011 $ 8,506,210 $ 8,904,351 $ 327 $ 342 26190 $ 8,602,348 $ 8,602,746 $ 328 $ 328 Morris-Turnberry M Huron 1400 $ 441,769 $ 321,144 $ 316 $ 229 1413 $ 457,376 $ 392,659 $ 324 $ 278 1416 $ 464,259 $ 460,016 $ 328 $ 325 Front of Yonge Tp Leeds County 1266 $ 419,120 $ 333,164 $ 331 $ 263 1296 $ 415,805 $ 403,911 $ 321 $ 312 1297 $ 424,956 $ 424,956 $ 328 $ 328 Bruce Mines T East Algoma 346 $ 116,072 $ 149,635 $ 335 $ 432 352 $ 119,278 $ 128,860 $ 339 $ 366 352 $ 115,165 $ 115,165 $ 327 $ 327 Cramahe Tp Northumberland 2851 $ 938,682 $ 1,018,266 $ 329 $ 357 2929 $ 944,007 $ 944,007 $ 322 $ 322 2955 $ 963,448 $ 963,448 $ 326 $ 326 Westport V Leeds County 449 $ 145,939 $ 126,891 $ 325 $ 283 455 $ 144,629 $ 144,629 $ 318 $ 318 459 $ 149,009 $ 149,009 $ 325 $ 325 Amaranth Tp Dufferin 1451 $ 474,177 $ 474,177 $ 327 $ 327 1491 $ 482,998 $ 482,998 $ 324 $ 324 1509 $ 489,220 $ 489,220 $ 324 $ 324 Tweed M Central Hastings 3276 $ 1,078,508 $ 967,490 $ 329 $ 295 3351 $ 1,084,878 $ 1,084,878 $ 324 $ 324 3355 $ 1,085,170 $ 1,085,170 $ 323 $ 323 Springwater Tp Huronia West 7481 $ 2,409,473 $ 2,143,796 $ 322 $ 287 7655 $ 2,448,195 $ 2,448,195 $ 320 $ 320 7724 $ 2,496,684 $ 2,496,684 $ 323 $ 323 Melancthon Tp Dufferin 1275 $ 422,024 $ 422,024 $ 331 $ 331 1304 $ 431,728 $ 431,728 $ 331 $ 331 1335 $ 431,120 $ 431,120 $ 323 $ 323 East Zorra-Tavistock Tp Oxford 2824 $ 905,657 $ 1,137,810 $ 321 $ 403 2893 $ 924,131 $ 973,552 $ 319 $ 337 2922 $ 943,601 $ 943,601 $ 323 $ 323 Centre Hastings M Central Hastings 2566 $ 833,870 $ 615,142 $ 325 $ 240 2638 $ 838,402 $ 760,351 $ 318 $ 288 2650 $ 855,694 $ 855,694 $ 323 $ 323 South-West Oxford Tp Oxford 3289 $ 1,050,197 $ 952,589 $ 319 $ 290 3302 $ 1,067,478 $ 1,067,478 $ 323 $ 323 3324 $ 1,073,153 $ 1,073,153 $ 323 $ 323 Laurentian Valley Tp Upper Ottawa Valley 4126 $ 1,344,966 $ 1,344,966 $ 326 $ 326 4187 $ 1,340,638 $ 1,340,638 $ 320 $ 320 4209 $ 1,354,493 $ 1,354,493 $ 322 $ 322 Zorra Tp Oxford 3550 $ 1,143,888 $ 1,143,888 $ 322 $ 322 3575 $ 1,145,801 $ 1,145,801 $ 321 $ 321 3581 $ 1,150,026 $ 1,150,026 $ 321 $ 321 Evanturel Tp Temiskaming 231 $ 75,991 $ 50,826 $ 329 $ 220 239 $ 76,053 $ 64,179 $ 318 $ 269 239 $ 76,595 $ 75,407 $ 320 $ 316 Perth South Tp Perth County 1709 $ 553,748 $ 553,748 $ 324 $ 324 1721 $ 552,644 $ 552,644 $ 321 $ 321 1717 $ 549,890 $ 549,890 $ 320 $ 320 Schreiber Tp Nipigon 743 $ 229,870 $ 229,870 $ 309 $ 309 723 $ 222,917 $ 222,917 $ 308 $ 308 723 $ 230,170 $ 230,170 $ 318 $ 318 Marmora and Lake M Central Hastings 2676 $ 884,309 $ 730,175 $ 330 $ 273 2794 $ 882,556 $ 882,556 $ 316 $ 316 2800 $ 890,735 $ 890,735 $ 318 $ 318 Lakeshore T Essex County 13916 $ 4,509,668 $ 4,754,617 $ 324 $ 342 14404 $ 4,554,399 $ 4,554,399 $ 316 $ 316 14512 $ 4,605,746 $ 4,605,746 $ 317 $ 317 Thames Centre M Middlesex 5213 $ 1,681,395 $ 1,681,395 $ 323 $ 323 5333 $ 1,689,397 $ 1,689,397 $ 317 $ 317 5352 $ 1,696,106 $ 1,696,106 $ 317 $ 317 South Bruce Peninsula T Bruce Peninsula 7484 $ 2,426,139 $ 2,277,931 $ 324 $ 304 7624 $ 2,413,948 $ 2,413,948 $ 317 $ 317 7634 $ 2,416,158 $ 2,416,158 $ 316 $ 316 Middlesex Centre M Middlesex 6301 $ 1,988,983 $ 1,988,983 $ 316 $ 316 6441 $ 2,014,947 $ 2,014,947 $ 313 $ 313 6500 $ 2,052,601 $ 2,052,601 $ 316 $ 316

Page 7 2015 - 2017 ESTIMATED OPP MUNICIPAL POLICING COSTS

2015 2016 2017

Estimated Per Estimated Per Estimated Per Property Estimated Total Cost² Property Cost Estimated Total Cost² Property Cost Estimated Total Cost² Cost

Powassan M North Bay 1521 $ 480,366 $ 480,366 $ 316 $ 316 1586 $ 490,552 $ 490,552 $ 309 $ 309 1587 $ 500,794 $ 500,794 $ 316 $ 316 Otonabee-South Monaghan Tp Peterborough 3203 $ 1,015,263 $ 1,015,263 $ 317 $ 317 3262 $ 1,031,219 $ 1,031,219 $ 316 $ 316 3276 $ 1,033,532 $ 1,033,532 $ 315 $ 315 Chatsworth Tp Grey County 3171 $ 990,552 $ 862,738 $ 312 $ 272 3235 $ 993,227 $ 993,227 $ 307 $ 307 3239 $ 1,018,823 $ 1,018,823 $ 315 $ 315 Augusta Tp Grenville County 3167 $ 999,557 $ 966,284 $ 316 $ 305 3215 $ 998,991 $ 998,991 $ 311 $ 311 3215 $ 1,009,720 $ 1,009,720 $ 314 $ 314 Severn Tp Orillia 7130 $ 2,276,659 $ 1,765,621 $ 319 $ 248 7433 $ 2,323,677 $ 2,201,134 $ 313 $ 296 7496 $ 2,350,196 $ 2,350,196 $ 314 $ 314 Mississippi Mills T Lanark County 5490 $ 1,771,322 $ 1,565,328 $ 323 $ 285 5739 $ 1,788,079 $ 1,788,079 $ 312 $ 312 5811 $ 1,820,732 $ 1,820,732 $ 313 $ 313 Tyendinaga Tp Napanee 1597 $ 492,233 $ 367,489 $ 308 $ 230 1634 $ 501,383 $ 455,249 $ 307 $ 279 1655 $ 517,258 $ 517,258 $ 313 $ 313 Howick Tp Huron 1577 $ 489,001 $ 387,934 $ 310 $ 246 1586 $ 495,559 $ 467,077 $ 312 $ 295 1595 $ 497,688 $ 497,688 $ 312 $ 312 Tay Tp Southern Georgian Bay 5372 $ 1,748,468 $ 1,606,715 $ 325 $ 299 5493 $ 1,738,795 $ 1,738,795 $ 317 $ 317 5519 $ 1,719,452 $ 1,719,452 $ 312 $ 312 Muskoka D Bracebridge/Huntsville/Southern49350 Georgian Bay $ 15,803,187 $ 12,077,519 $ 320 $ 245 51205 $ 15,960,003 $ 15,014,842 $ 312 $ 293 51239 $ 15,955,352 $ 15,955,352 $ 311 $ 311 Perth East Tp Perth County 4463 $ 1,367,089 $ 1,367,089 $ 306 $ 306 4492 $ 1,386,060 $ 1,386,060 $ 309 $ 309 4505 $ 1,402,179 $ 1,402,179 $ 311 $ 311 Armour Tp Almaguin Highlands 1236 $ 373,125 $ 237,912 $ 302 $ 192 1339 $ 400,908 $ 322,686 $ 299 $ 241 1344 $ 417,137 $ 387,032 $ 310 $ 288 South Bruce M South Bruce 2655 $ 803,825 $ 803,825 $ 303 $ 303 2668 $ 810,042 $ 810,042 $ 304 $ 304 2676 $ 829,951 $ 829,951 $ 310 $ 310 East Hawkesbury Tp Hawkesbury 1543 $ 487,188 $ 470,482 $ 316 $ 305 1563 $ 485,944 $ 485,944 $ 311 $ 311 1573 $ 487,581 $ 487,581 $ 310 $ 310 Blandford-Blenheim Tp Oxford 2952 $ 899,176 $ 956,246 $ 305 $ 324 3019 $ 924,390 $ 924,390 $ 306 $ 306 3039 $ 940,701 $ 940,701 $ 310 $ 310 Machin M Dryden 732 $ 236,480 $ 213,406 $ 323 $ 292 749 $ 230,098 $ 230,098 $ 307 $ 307 749 $ 230,945 $ 230,945 $ 308 $ 308 Grey Highlands M Grey County 5683 $ 1,763,073 $ 1,763,073 $ 310 $ 310 5798 $ 1,777,100 $ 1,777,100 $ 307 $ 307 5825 $ 1,792,368 $ 1,792,368 $ 308 $ 308 Val Rita-Harty Tp James Bay 426 $ 125,558 $ 74,503 $ 295 $ 175 423 $ 123,544 $ 94,494 $ 292 $ 223 423 $ 130,022 $ 114,367 $ 307 $ 270 Meaford M Grey County 5817 $ 1,787,913 $ 1,787,913 $ 307 $ 307 5902 $ 1,787,559 $ 1,787,559 $ 303 $ 303 5901 $ 1,812,061 $ 1,812,061 $ 307 $ 307 Coleman Tp Temiskaming 401 $ 117,240 $ 73,650 $ 292 $ 184 424 $ 125,335 $ 98,440 $ 296 $ 232 426 $ 130,744 $ 118,918 $ 307 $ 279 Merrickville-Wolford V Grenville County 1407 $ 458,956 $ 458,956 $ 326 $ 326 1447 $ 451,894 $ 451,894 $ 312 $ 312 1452 $ 445,379 $ 445,379 $ 307 $ 307 Athens Tp Leeds County 1492 $ 455,813 $ 353,147 $ 306 $ 237 1506 $ 457,053 $ 429,496 $ 303 $ 285 1506 $ 461,599 $ 461,599 $ 307 $ 307 Black River-Matheson Tp South Porcupine 1559 $ 498,753 $ 521,623 $ 320 $ 335 1592 $ 484,795 $ 484,795 $ 305 $ 305 1584 $ 484,499 $ 484,499 $ 306 $ 306 East Garafraxa Tp Dufferin 954 $ 288,185 $ 288,185 $ 302 $ 302 963 $ 290,225 $ 290,225 $ 301 $ 301 972 $ 297,248 $ 297,248 $ 306 $ 306 Horton Tp Renfrew 1409 $ 436,768 $ 328,209 $ 310 $ 233 1502 $ 452,763 $ 422,723 $ 301 $ 281 1512 $ 462,135 $ 462,135 $ 306 $ 306 Armstrong Tp Temiskaming 590 $ 187,816 $ 183,076 $ 318 $ 310 605 $ 185,751 $ 185,751 $ 307 $ 307 605 $ 184,029 $ 184,029 $ 304 $ 304 Harley Tp Temiskaming 236 $ 72,930 $ 61,709 $ 309 $ 261 251 $ 75,707 $ 75,707 $ 302 $ 302 251 $ 76,020 $ 76,020 $ 303 $ 303 Strong Tp Almaguin Highlands 958 $ 319,252 $ 220,959 $ 333 $ 231 1014 $ 309,366 $ 283,058 $ 305 $ 279 1023 $ 309,791 $ 309,791 $ 303 $ 303

Page 8 2015 - 2017 ESTIMATED OPP MUNICIPAL POLICING COSTS

2015 2016 2017

Estimated Per Estimated Per Estimated Per Property Estimated Total Cost² Property Cost Estimated Total Cost² Property Cost Estimated Total Cost² Cost

Bonnechere Valley Tp Killaloe 2525 $ 788,864 $ 788,864 $ 312 $ 312 2589 $ 790,083 $ 790,083 $ 305 $ 305 2599 $ 786,312 $ 786,312 $ 303 $ 303 Central Frontenac Tp Lanark County 4008 $ 1,271,902 $ 938,572 $ 317 $ 234 4202 $ 1,282,406 $ 1,187,779 $ 305 $ 283 4222 $ 1,270,772 $ 1,270,772 $ 301 $ 301 Assiginack Tp Manitoulin 896 $ 271,215 $ 266,951 $ 303 $ 298 925 $ 272,235 $ 272,235 $ 294 $ 294 929 $ 279,527 $ 279,527 $ 301 $ 301 Johnson Tp East Algoma 535 $ 169,142 $ 125,372 $ 316 $ 234 547 $ 166,080 $ 154,713 $ 304 $ 283 547 $ 164,575 $ 164,575 $ 301 $ 301 Mulmur Tp Dufferin 1708 $ 530,243 $ 530,243 $ 310 $ 310 1745 $ 527,644 $ 527,644 $ 302 $ 302 1754 $ 526,887 $ 526,887 $ 300 $ 300 Hilliard Tp Temiskaming 94 $ 28,036 $ 19,021 $ 298 $ 202 98 $ 28,356 $ 24,583 $ 289 $ 251 98 $ 29,369 $ 29,187 $ 300 $ 298 Stone Mills Tp Napanee 3583 $ 1,086,668 $ 991,424 $ 303 $ 277 3700 $ 1,105,776 $ 1,105,776 $ 299 $ 299 3735 $ 1,118,395 $ 1,118,395 $ 299 $ 299 Chapple Tp Rainy River District 428 $ 131,323 $ 88,032 $ 307 $ 206 431 $ 128,688 $ 109,552 $ 299 $ 254 427 $ 127,839 $ 127,839 $ 299 $ 299 Chamberlain Tp Temiskaming 167 $ 49,855 $ 27,799 $ 299 $ 166 172 $ 52,044 $ 36,973 $ 303 $ 215 172 $ 51,358 $ 45,054 $ 299 $ 262 Leeds and the Thousand Islands Tp Leeds County 6056 $ 1,803,574 $ 1,470,820 $ 298 $ 243 6187 $ 1,804,586 $ 1,802,706 $ 292 $ 291 6210 $ 1,853,300 $ 1,853,300 $ 298 $ 298 Oro-Medonte Tp Barrie 9080 $ 2,766,996 $ 2,635,877 $ 305 $ 290 9307 $ 2,756,874 $ 2,756,874 $ 296 $ 296 9388 $ 2,797,728 $ 2,797,728 $ 298 $ 298 Alnwick/Haldimand Tp Northumberland 3303 $ 1,012,894 $ 1,012,894 $ 307 $ 307 3381 $ 1,011,352 $ 1,011,352 $ 299 $ 299 3415 $ 1,015,134 $ 1,015,134 $ 297 $ 297 Drummond-North Elmsley Tp Lanark County 3663 $ 1,112,545 $ 897,750 $ 304 $ 245 3767 $ 1,108,471 $ 1,105,954 $ 294 $ 294 3810 $ 1,130,984 $ 1,130,984 $ 297 $ 297 Bonfield Tp North Bay 1091 $ 333,917 $ 298,917 $ 306 $ 274 1136 $ 333,319 $ 333,319 $ 293 $ 293 1137 $ 336,427 $ 336,427 $ 296 $ 296 Opasatika Tp James Bay 157 $ 46,617 $ 29,788 $ 297 $ 190 154 $ 46,389 $ 36,687 $ 301 $ 238 155 $ 45,848 $ 44,208 $ 296 $ 285 Kawartha Lakes C City of Kawartha Lakes 28471 $ 8,480,282 $ 6,949,371 $ 298 $ 244 28746 $ 8,464,997 $ 8,410,792 $ 294 $ 293 28812 $ 8,507,637 $ 8,507,637 $ 295 $ 295 Selwyn Tp Peterborough 6718 $ 2,093,787 $ 2,093,787 $ 312 $ 312 7470 $ 2,225,330 $ 2,225,330 $ 298 $ 298 7479 $ 2,205,473 $ 2,205,473 $ 295 $ 295 James Tp Temiskaming 282 $ 82,563 $ 64,693 $ 293 $ 229 291 $ 81,139 $ 80,872 $ 279 $ 278 293 $ 86,394 $ 86,394 $ 295 $ 295 Lucan Biddulph Tp Middlesex 1855 $ 571,983 $ 558,528 $ 308 $ 301 1925 $ 575,303 $ 575,303 $ 299 $ 299 1966 $ 579,687 $ 579,687 $ 295 $ 295 St. Charles M Noelville 984 $ 293,710 $ 293,710 $ 298 $ 298 1010 $ 298,738 $ 298,738 $ 296 $ 296 1020 $ 300,723 $ 300,723 $ 295 $ 295 Huron-Kinloss Tp South Bruce 4282 $ 1,221,933 $ 971,305 $ 285 $ 227 4368 $ 1,250,576 $ 1,202,641 $ 286 $ 275 4384 $ 1,284,838 $ 1,284,838 $ 293 $ 293 Emo Tp Rainy River District 626 $ 186,617 $ 142,304 $ 298 $ 227 637 $ 187,338 $ 175,697 $ 294 $ 276 642 $ 187,695 $ 187,695 $ 292 $ 292 Hamilton Tp Northumberland 4968 $ 1,486,082 $ 1,486,082 $ 299 $ 299 5048 $ 1,490,924 $ 1,490,924 $ 295 $ 295 5051 $ 1,476,229 $ 1,476,229 $ 292 $ 292 Killaloe, Hagarty and Richards Tp Killaloe 1717 $ 527,557 $ 518,408 $ 307 $ 302 1754 $ 513,257 $ 513,257 $ 293 $ 293 1764 $ 513,656 $ 513,656 $ 291 $ 291 Perry Tp Almaguin Highlands 1636 $ 492,197 $ 347,042 $ 301 $ 212 1743 $ 504,190 $ 454,278 $ 289 $ 261 1756 $ 510,794 $ 510,794 $ 291 $ 291 Grand Valley T Dufferin 1449 $ 437,225 $ 369,166 $ 302 $ 255 1525 $ 448,050 $ 448,050 $ 294 $ 294 1567 $ 454,722 $ 454,722 $ 290 $ 290 Charlton and Dack M Temiskaming 298 $ 84,573 $ 65,715 $ 284 $ 221 308 $ 88,372 $ 82,858 $ 287 $ 269 307 $ 89,045 $ 89,045 $ 290 $ 290 Conmee Tp Thunder Bay 309 $ 91,924 $ 57,151 $ 297 $ 185 319 $ 92,249 $ 74,471 $ 289 $ 233 324 $ 93,380 $ 90,859 $ 288 $ 280

Page 9 2015 - 2017 ESTIMATED OPP MUNICIPAL POLICING COSTS

2015 2016 2017

Estimated Per Estimated Per Estimated Per Property Estimated Total Cost² Property Cost Estimated Total Cost² Property Cost Estimated Total Cost² Cost

Georgian Bluffs Tp Grey County 5283 $ 1,519,803 $ 1,310,381 $ 288 $ 248 5385 $ 1,537,086 $ 1,537,086 $ 285 $ 285 5407 $ 1,557,241 $ 1,557,241 $ 288 $ 288 Minden Hills Tp Haliburton Highlands 6492 $ 1,898,235 $ 1,465,675 $ 292 $ 226 6779 $ 1,923,710 $ 1,859,276 $ 284 $ 274 6796 $ 1,956,984 $ 1,956,984 $ 288 $ 288 Huron Shores M East Algoma 1416 $ 405,472 $ 284,909 $ 286 $ 201 1458 $ 412,100 $ 364,077 $ 283 $ 250 1459 $ 419,853 $ 419,853 $ 288 $ 288 Ramara Tp Orillia 6308 $ 1,809,092 $ 1,096,308 $ 287 $ 174 6410 $ 1,819,511 $ 1,424,943 $ 284 $ 222 6369 $ 1,831,470 $ 1,715,044 $ 288 $ 269 Whitewater Region Tp Renfrew/Upper Ottawa Valley 3609 $ 1,049,162 $ 755,423 $ 291 $ 209 3707 $ 1,071,080 $ 955,739 $ 289 $ 258 3729 $ 1,070,952 $ 1,070,952 $ 287 $ 287 Beckwith Tp Lanark County 3032 $ 927,777 $ 654,279 $ 306 $ 216 3196 $ 936,725 $ 844,671 $ 293 $ 264 3257 $ 935,327 $ 935,327 $ 287 $ 287 Laird Tp Sault Ste. Marie 568 $ 171,354 $ 150,804 $ 302 $ 266 591 $ 171,059 $ 171,059 $ 289 $ 289 591 $ 169,277 $ 169,277 $ 286 $ 286 Lanark Highlands Tp Lanark County 3711 $ 1,069,796 $ 713,692 $ 288 $ 192 3856 $ 1,096,338 $ 928,602 $ 284 $ 241 3884 $ 1,110,029 $ 1,110,029 $ 286 $ 286 North Algona Wilberforce Tp Killaloe/Upper Ottawa Valley 1847 $ 541,491 $ 414,524 $ 293 $ 224 1896 $ 540,158 $ 517,475 $ 285 $ 273 1901 $ 541,854 $ 541,854 $ 285 $ 285 South Frontenac Tp Frontenac 10073 $ 2,902,091 $ 2,902,091 $ 288 $ 288 10457 $ 2,949,318 $ 2,949,318 $ 282 $ 282 10534 $ 3,001,804 $ 3,001,804 $ 285 $ 285 Laurentian Hills T Upper Ottawa Valley 1561 $ 450,561 $ 415,303 $ 289 $ 266 1589 $ 455,182 $ 455,182 $ 286 $ 286 1591 $ 452,708 $ 452,708 $ 285 $ 285 Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh Tp Huron 3239 $ 905,197 $ 585,209 $ 279 $ 181 3271 $ 913,726 $ 749,648 $ 279 $ 229 3358 $ 955,249 $ 927,345 $ 284 $ 276 The North Shore Tp East Algoma 416 $ 120,869 $ 81,875 $ 291 $ 197 440 $ 125,128 $ 107,941 $ 284 $ 245 441 $ 125,265 $ 125,265 $ 284 $ 284 Faraday M Bancroft 1374 $ 387,462 $ 292,539 $ 282 $ 213 1455 $ 406,830 $ 380,352 $ 280 $ 261 1451 $ 412,128 $ 412,128 $ 284 $ 284 Billings Tp Manitoulin 733 $ 205,865 $ 176,253 $ 281 $ 240 761 $ 210,980 $ 210,980 $ 277 $ 277 763 $ 215,930 $ 215,930 $ 283 $ 283 Dorion Tp Nipigon 206 $ 57,871 $ 75,001 $ 281 $ 364 222 $ 60,372 $ 66,087 $ 272 $ 298 222 $ 62,705 $ 62,705 $ 282 $ 282 McNab/Braeside Tp Renfrew 3204 $ 913,911 $ 541,190 $ 285 $ 169 3258 $ 920,198 $ 708,322 $ 282 $ 217 3276 $ 924,967 $ 866,142 $ 282 $ 264 Pickle Lake Tp Pickle Lake 332 $ 91,485 $ 91,485 $ 276 $ 276 339 $ 88,708 $ 88,708 $ 262 $ 262 337 $ 95,148 $ 95,148 $ 282 $ 282 Macdonald, Meredith & Aberdeen Add'l Tp Sault Ste. Marie 834 $ 246,013 $ 213,982 $ 295 $ 257 857 $ 240,211 $ 240,211 $ 280 $ 280 860 $ 242,067 $ 242,067 $ 281 $ 281 Madawaska Valley Tp Killaloe 3265 $ 937,396 $ 807,222 $ 287 $ 247 3351 $ 932,089 $ 932,089 $ 278 $ 278 3365 $ 945,542 $ 945,542 $ 281 $ 281 Admaston/Bromley Tp Renfrew/Upper Ottawa Valley 1418 $ 418,414 $ 312,143 $ 295 $ 220 1444 $ 410,158 $ 387,902 $ 284 $ 269 1446 $ 405,308 $ 405,308 $ 280 $ 280 Casey Tp Temiskaming 159 $ 45,708 $ 31,159 $ 287 $ 196 168 $ 46,257 $ 41,071 $ 275 $ 244 170 $ 47,644 $ 47,644 $ 280 $ 280 Larder Lake Tp Kirkland Lake 534 $ 152,573 $ 112,246 $ 286 $ 210 550 $ 150,998 $ 142,285 $ 275 $ 259 545 $ 152,295 $ 152,295 $ 279 $ 279 Fauquier-Strickland Tp James Bay 437 $ 117,618 $ 50,391 $ 269 $ 115 438 $ 119,100 $ 71,749 $ 272 $ 164 439 $ 121,862 $ 92,537 $ 278 $ 211 Douro-Dummer Tp Peterborough 3615 $ 1,023,205 $ 849,624 $ 283 $ 235 3701 $ 1,025,789 $ 1,025,789 $ 277 $ 277 3711 $ 1,029,720 $ 1,029,720 $ 277 $ 277 Temagami M Temiskaming 1498 $ 408,276 $ 408,276 $ 273 $ 273 1545 $ 424,086 $ 424,086 $ 274 $ 274 1541 $ 427,345 $ 427,345 $ 277 $ 277 Central Manitoulin M Manitoulin 1796 $ 506,065 $ 435,169 $ 282 $ 242 1866 $ 516,729 $ 516,729 $ 277 $ 277 1883 $ 521,931 $ 521,931 $ 277 $ 277 Havelock-Belmont-Methuen Tp Peterborough 4366 $ 1,242,333 $ 1,041,445 $ 285 $ 239 4467 $ 1,240,985 $ 1,240,985 $ 278 $ 278 4473 $ 1,238,480 $ 1,238,480 $ 277 $ 277

Page 10 2015 - 2017 ESTIMATED OPP MUNICIPAL POLICING COSTS

2015 2016 2017

Estimated Per Estimated Per Estimated Per Property Estimated Total Cost² Property Cost Estimated Total Cost² Property Cost Estimated Total Cost² Cost

French River M Noelville 2640 $ 734,484 $ 609,581 $ 278 $ 231 2681 $ 743,200 $ 743,200 $ 277 $ 277 2687 $ 741,980 $ 741,980 $ 276 $ 276 La Vallee Tp Rainy River District 414 $ 117,970 $ 76,057 $ 285 $ 184 420 $ 115,210 $ 97,528 $ 274 $ 232 418 $ 115,381 $ 115,381 $ 276 $ 276 Tay Valley Tp Lanark County 3882 $ 1,095,621 $ 664,374 $ 282 $ 171 4000 $ 1,107,940 $ 878,560 $ 277 $ 220 4016 $ 1,102,390 $ 1,070,746 $ 274 $ 267 Rideau Lakes Tp Leeds County 7679 $ 2,142,910 $ 1,767,896 $ 279 $ 230 7915 $ 2,166,443 $ 2,166,443 $ 274 $ 274 7946 $ 2,180,847 $ 2,180,847 $ 274 $ 274 McDougall M West Parry Sound 1836 $ 523,458 $ 330,710 $ 285 $ 180 1928 $ 528,669 $ 440,799 $ 274 $ 229 1940 $ 531,764 $ 531,764 $ 274 $ 274 Dysart et al M Haliburton Highlands 7572 $ 2,101,353 $ 1,433,948 $ 278 $ 189 7942 $ 2,157,653 $ 1,889,243 $ 272 $ 238 7982 $ 2,184,838 $ 2,184,838 $ 274 $ 274 Addington Highlands Tp Napanee 2763 $ 766,317 $ 580,447 $ 277 $ 210 2843 $ 768,032 $ 735,143 $ 270 $ 259 2857 $ 779,337 $ 779,337 $ 273 $ 273 Alberton Tp Rainy River District 398 $ 115,346 $ 68,844 $ 290 $ 173 399 $ 111,414 $ 88,371 $ 279 $ 221 405 $ 110,437 $ 108,726 $ 273 $ 268 Hastings Highlands M Bancroft 3767 $ 1,030,208 $ 803,943 $ 273 $ 213 3989 $ 1,070,156 $ 1,044,799 $ 268 $ 262 3990 $ 1,086,471 $ 1,086,471 $ 272 $ 272 Brudenell, Lyndoch and Raglan Tp Killaloe 1163 $ 327,420 $ 246,187 $ 282 $ 212 1203 $ 325,845 $ 312,997 $ 271 $ 260 1207 $ 328,563 $ 328,563 $ 272 $ 272 Tudor and Cashel Tp Bancroft/Central Hastings 792 $ 216,317 $ 152,512 $ 273 $ 193 837 $ 223,910 $ 201,776 $ 268 $ 241 843 $ 229,077 $ 229,077 $ 272 $ 272 Wollaston Tp Bancroft 921 $ 254,438 $ 205,654 $ 276 $ 223 978 $ 261,086 $ 261,086 $ 267 $ 267 977 $ 264,250 $ 264,250 $ 270 $ 270 Plummer Additional Tp East Algoma 529 $ 144,147 $ 88,795 $ 272 $ 168 550 $ 146,542 $ 118,998 $ 266 $ 216 551 $ 148,565 $ 145,100 $ 270 $ 263 Ryerson Tp Almaguin Highlands 611 $ 161,953 $ 80,760 $ 265 $ 132 631 $ 164,991 $ 114,009 $ 261 $ 181 640 $ 171,976 $ 145,702 $ 269 $ 228 Chisholm Tp North Bay 642 $ 177,671 $ 98,907 $ 277 $ 154 666 $ 180,504 $ 134,905 $ 271 $ 203 677 $ 181,684 $ 168,939 $ 268 $ 250 Brethour Tp Temiskaming 60 $ 15,739 $ 8,719 $ 262 $ 145 60 $ 15,467 $ 11,629 $ 258 $ 194 60 $ 16,037 $ 14,448 $ 267 $ 241 McMurrich/Monteith Tp Almaguin Highlands 804 $ 225,914 $ 153,048 $ 281 $ 190 852 $ 229,982 $ 203,509 $ 270 $ 239 854 $ 227,865 $ 227,865 $ 267 $ 267 O'Connor Tp Thunder Bay 293 $ 79,438 $ 43,509 $ 271 $ 148 297 $ 78,701 $ 58,506 $ 265 $ 197 294 $ 78,417 $ 71,727 $ 267 $ 244 East Ferris M North Bay 2076 $ 565,611 $ 376,172 $ 272 $ 181 2165 $ 573,511 $ 497,301 $ 265 $ 230 2188 $ 582,925 $ 582,925 $ 266 $ 266 South Algonquin Tp Killaloe 1257 $ 347,171 $ 265,710 $ 276 $ 211 1284 $ 343,285 $ 333,686 $ 267 $ 260 1290 $ 342,081 $ 342,081 $ 265 $ 265 Hilton Beach V East Algoma 154 $ 43,176 $ 29,037 $ 280 $ 189 163 $ 44,879 $ 38,639 $ 275 $ 237 164 $ 43,427 $ 43,427 $ 265 $ 265 Dubreuilville Tp Superior East 399 $ 112,283 $ 97,882 $ 281 $ 245 399 $ 108,660 $ 108,660 $ 272 $ 272 372 $ 98,371 $ 98,371 $ 264 $ 264 Bluewater M Huron 5564 $ 1,491,240 $ 894,304 $ 268 $ 161 5703 $ 1,503,064 $ 1,193,239 $ 264 $ 209 5752 $ 1,518,189 $ 1,473,720 $ 264 $ 256 Matachewan Tp Kirkland Lake 288 $ 81,914 $ 63,455 $ 284 $ 220 291 $ 79,993 $ 78,230 $ 275 $ 269 291 $ 76,673 $ 76,673 $ 263 $ 263 Highlands East M Haliburton Highlands/Bancroft 4587 $ 1,211,354 $ 840,371 $ 264 $ 183 4707 $ 1,216,301 $ 1,090,659 $ 258 $ 232 4725 $ 1,241,897 $ 1,241,897 $ 263 $ 263 Seguin Tp West Parry Sound 4955 $ 1,353,011 $ 878,384 $ 273 $ 177 5140 $ 1,364,038 $ 1,160,458 $ 265 $ 226 5156 $ 1,351,850 $ 1,351,850 $ 262 $ 262 Gillies Tp Thunder Bay 220 $ 60,070 $ 40,106 $ 273 $ 182 225 $ 60,260 $ 51,930 $ 268 $ 231 225 $ 58,946 $ 58,946 $ 262 $ 262 Mattice-Val Cote Tp James Bay 406 $ 103,468 $ 49,151 $ 255 $ 121 406 $ 101,012 $ 68,841 $ 249 $ 170 406 $ 106,079 $ 87,915 $ 261 $ 217

Page 11 2015 - 2017 ESTIMATED OPP MUNICIPAL POLICING COSTS

2015 2016 2017

Estimated Per Estimated Per Estimated Per Property Estimated Total Cost² Property Cost Estimated Total Cost² Property Cost Estimated Total Cost² Cost

Tiny Tp Southern Georgian Bay 9930 $ 2,676,864 $ 1,943,684 $ 270 $ 196 10184 $ 2,662,573 $ 2,487,340 $ 261 $ 244 10208 $ 2,651,354 $ 2,651,354 $ 260 $ 260 Tehkummah Tp Manitoulin 427 $ 113,457 $ 91,520 $ 266 $ 214 423 $ 109,870 $ 109,870 $ 260 $ 260 421 $ 109,292 $ 109,292 $ 260 $ 260 Carlow/Mayo Tp Bancroft 683 $ 176,098 $ 123,962 $ 258 $ 182 718 $ 184,731 $ 165,140 $ 257 $ 230 723 $ 187,091 $ 187,091 $ 259 $ 259 Kerns Tp Temiskaming 137 $ 39,520 $ 20,359 $ 288 $ 149 140 $ 37,402 $ 27,595 $ 267 $ 197 140 $ 36,221 $ 34,173 $ 259 $ 244 Harris Tp Temiskaming 249 $ 67,222 $ 38,193 $ 270 $ 153 256 $ 66,537 $ 51,681 $ 260 $ 202 254 $ 65,611 $ 63,210 $ 258 $ 249 Joly Tp Almaguin Highlands 261 $ 68,769 $ 37,645 $ 263 $ 144 277 $ 68,760 $ 53,386 $ 248 $ 193 285 $ 73,124 $ 68,317 $ 257 $ 240 Limerick Tp Bancroft 580 $ 154,309 $ 118,603 $ 266 $ 204 607 $ 156,625 $ 153,565 $ 258 $ 253 610 $ 156,325 $ 156,325 $ 256 $ 256 Gordon/Barrie Island M Manitoulin 685 $ 183,749 $ 100,542 $ 268 $ 147 724 $ 187,352 $ 141,383 $ 259 $ 195 734 $ 188,060 $ 177,819 $ 256 $ 242 Nipissing Tp North Bay 1281 $ 333,314 $ 161,585 $ 260 $ 126 1329 $ 335,692 $ 232,097 $ 253 $ 175 1334 $ 341,187 $ 295,641 $ 256 $ 222 Greater Madawaska Tp Renfrew 2695 $ 717,375 $ 402,178 $ 266 $ 149 2785 $ 707,141 $ 550,678 $ 254 $ 198 2782 $ 706,707 $ 680,783 $ 254 $ 245 Frontenac Islands Tp Leeds County 1388 $ 357,967 $ 156,492 $ 258 $ 113 1453 $ 375,264 $ 234,296 $ 258 $ 161 1455 $ 368,150 $ 302,975 $ 253 $ 208 Head, Clara and Maria Tp Upper Ottawa Valley 358 $ 94,514 $ 56,034 $ 264 $ 157 366 $ 93,100 $ 75,037 $ 254 $ 205 366 $ 92,141 $ 92,141 $ 252 $ 252 St. Joseph Tp East Algoma 964 $ 244,149 $ 145,981 $ 253 $ 151 999 $ 246,519 $ 199,730 $ 247 $ 200 997 $ 250,184 $ 246,169 $ 251 $ 247 Pelee Tp Essex County 456 $ 118,393 $ 52,782 $ 260 $ 116 462 $ 114,623 $ 75,884 $ 248 $ 164 463 $ 116,115 $ 97,799 $ 251 $ 211 Machar Tp Almaguin Highlands 884 $ 227,961 $ 121,642 $ 258 $ 138 918 $ 233,628 $ 170,840 $ 254 $ 186 923 $ 231,299 $ 215,133 $ 251 $ 233 North Kawartha Tp Peterborough 3912 $ 1,003,200 $ 781,007 $ 256 $ 200 4030 $ 1,006,002 $ 1,000,004 $ 250 $ 248 4045 $ 1,012,103 $ 1,012,103 $ 250 $ 250 Kearney T Almaguin Highlands 1221 $ 311,412 $ 170,733 $ 255 $ 140 1314 $ 329,261 $ 247,466 $ 251 $ 188 1321 $ 329,938 $ 310,845 $ 250 $ 235 Trent Lakes M Peterborough 6650 $ 1,714,969 $ 1,193,877 $ 258 $ 180 6956 $ 1,746,268 $ 1,586,177 $ 251 $ 228 6987 $ 1,733,709 $ 1,733,709 $ 248 $ 248 Morley Tp Rainy River District 268 $ 72,167 $ 50,154 $ 269 $ 187 276 $ 70,951 $ 65,037 $ 257 $ 236 279 $ 69,164 $ 69,164 $ 248 $ 248 Tarbutt & Tarbutt Additional Tp East Algoma 400 $ 100,329 $ 46,834 $ 251 $ 117 419 $ 103,295 $ 69,378 $ 247 $ 166 418 $ 103,291 $ 88,850 $ 247 $ 213 Neebing M Thunder Bay 1192 $ 304,000 $ 165,350 $ 255 $ 139 1235 $ 307,240 $ 231,217 $ 249 $ 187 1251 $ 307,729 $ 292,984 $ 246 $ 234 Northern Bruce Peninsula M Bruce Peninsula 5161 $ 1,305,194 $ 885,350 $ 253 $ 172 5372 $ 1,318,104 $ 1,182,109 $ 245 $ 220 5406 $ 1,325,520 $ 1,325,520 $ 245 $ 245 Dawson Tp Rainy River District 342 $ 85,676 $ 44,812 $ 251 $ 131 342 $ 83,404 $ 61,399 $ 244 $ 180 340 $ 82,983 $ 77,013 $ 244 $ 227 McKellar Tp West Parry Sound 1520 $ 388,834 $ 182,967 $ 256 $ 120 1615 $ 395,430 $ 272,725 $ 245 $ 169 1623 $ 395,839 $ 350,325 $ 244 $ 216 Burpee and Mills Tp Manitoulin 370 $ 89,953 $ 55,699 $ 243 $ 151 354 $ 87,259 $ 70,460 $ 246 $ 199 358 $ 87,305 $ 87,305 $ 244 $ 244 Carling Tp West Parry Sound 1755 $ 445,120 $ 238,360 $ 254 $ 136 1836 $ 450,084 $ 338,412 $ 245 $ 184 1843 $ 448,527 $ 426,286 $ 243 $ 231 Hudson Tp Temiskaming 321 $ 79,943 $ 36,494 $ 249 $ 114 330 $ 79,097 $ 53,523 $ 240 $ 162 333 $ 80,022 $ 69,654 $ 240 $ 209 Magnetawan M Almaguin Highlands 2011 $ 508,376 $ 245,177 $ 253 $ 122 2091 $ 509,455 $ 356,348 $ 244 $ 170 2106 $ 506,011 $ 457,844 $ 240 $ 217

Page 12 2015 - 2017 ESTIMATED OPP MUNICIPAL POLICING COSTS

2015 2016 2017

Estimated Per Estimated Per Estimated Per Property Estimated Total Cost² Property Cost Estimated Total Cost² Property Cost Estimated Total Cost² Cost

Lake of The Woods Tp Rainy River District 690 $ 166,470 $ 75,408 $ 241 $ 109 705 $ 167,893 $ 111,242 $ 238 $ 158 701 $ 167,169 $ 143,544 $ 238 $ 205 North Frontenac Tp Lanark County/Napanee 3464 $ 845,817 $ 359,136 $ 244 $ 104 3592 $ 854,157 $ 546,631 $ 238 $ 152 3616 $ 850,610 $ 720,163 $ 235 $ 199 Whitestone M West Parry Sound 1777 $ 434,188 $ 173,126 $ 244 $ 97 1881 $ 439,442 $ 274,494 $ 234 $ 146 1896 $ 444,931 $ 365,757 $ 235 $ 193 Algonquin Highlands Tp Haliburton Highlands 4444 $ 1,075,071 $ 502,543 $ 242 $ 113 4611 $ 1,080,039 $ 745,045 $ 234 $ 162 4621 $ 1,078,448 $ 963,756 $ 233 $ 209 Jocelyn Tp East Algoma 378 $ 92,074 $ 45,387 $ 244 $ 120 390 $ 90,768 $ 65,742 $ 233 $ 169 393 $ 91,553 $ 84,711 $ 233 $ 216 Moonbeam Tp James Bay 1026 $ 255,522 $ 128,279 $ 249 $ 125 1035 $ 237,743 $ 179,604 $ 230 $ 174 1031 $ 233,972 $ 227,346 $ 227 $ 221 Hilton Tp East Algoma 354 $ 83,802 $ 45,988 $ 237 $ 130 376 $ 84,967 $ 67,082 $ 226 $ 178 379 $ 85,957 $ 85,423 $ 227 $ 225 Killarney M Noelville 1000 $ 235,771 $ 115,006 $ 236 $ 115 1003 $ 229,252 $ 164,001 $ 229 $ 164 1006 $ 225,583 $ 211,753 $ 224 $ 210 The Archipelago Tp West Parry Sound 3334 $ 769,395 $ 246,185 $ 231 $ 74 3391 $ 752,710 $ 414,855 $ 222 $ 122 3410 $ 752,150 $ 577,381 $ 221 $ 169 Cockburn Island Tp Manitoulin 91 $ 19,436 $ 3,640 $ 214 $ 40 95 $ 19,901 $ 8,408 $ 209 $ 89 95 $ 19,886 $ 12,871 $ 209 $ 135

NOTES: 1 - The property counts included in the OPP municipal bills are comprised of households and select commercial and industrial properties in accordance with Police Services Act, Ontario Regulation 267/14. Property counts included in the 2015 OPP municipal policing bills were based on 2012 property counts for the 2013 municipal taxation year. Property counts included in the 2016 OPP municipal policing bills were based on 2014 property counts for the 2015 municipal taxation year. Property counts included in the 2017 OPP municipal policing bills were based on 2015 property counts for the 2016 municipal taxation year, and will continue to be updated annually using Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) data. 2 - Revenue collected at detachments on behalf of municipalities and grants are not included in the costs. 3 - The government implemented a revenue neutral five-year (2015-2019) phase-in strategy for the current billing model resulting in capped year-to-year municipal cost increases and decreases in accordance with Police Services Act, Ontario Regulation 267/14. The strategy caps per property increases at $40 per property plus a cost growth amount to account for differences in salary and benefits rates, support costs and other direct operating expenses. The 2015 phase-in adjustment is based on the comparison of the 2015 calculated cost per property to the 2014 Actual cost per property. The phase-in increase cap for 2015 is $40 per property and the estimated phase-in decrease cap is $30.82 per property. The 2016 phase-in adjustment is based on the comparison of the 2016 calculated cost per property to the 2015 phased-in cost per property. The phase-in increase cap for 2016 is $40 plus the estimated cost growth amount of $8.50 per property and the estimated phase-in decrease cap is $66.39 per property. The 2017 phase-in adjustment is based on the comparison of the 2017 calculated cost per property to the 2016 phased-in cost per property. The phase-in increase cap for 2017 is $40 plus the estimated cost growth amount of $6.98 per property and the estimated phase-in decrease cap is $89.87 per property. 4 - Township of Cavan Monaghan was policed by OPP until September 30, 2015. The estimated cost in the table is for the entire 2015 year. 5 - Total estimated costs reflect the most current billing estimates issued to the municipalities as of January 6, 2017.

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT OPP, MUNICIPAL POLICING BUREAU AT (705)329-6200 OR EMAIL [email protected] FOLLOW US ON TWITTER @OPP_MUN_POL OR CHECK OUR WEBSITE AT WWW.OPP.CA/WHO WE ARE/MUNICIPAL POLICING BUREAU

Page 13