Municipality of Brighton 35 Alice Street Committee of the Whole Meeting

MUNICIPALITY OF BRIGHTON 35 ALICE STREET COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING

MEETING DATE: June 9 2008 TIME: 6:30 P.M.

- AGENDA -

1. CALL TO ORDER — Chairperson — Mike Vandertoorn

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA -

3. DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTERESTS & GENERAL NATURE THEREOF

4. DELEGATIONS

1. Bill Pyatt , CAO Northumberland County — Policing Study The Police Service board members will be in attendance at the invitation of Council to participate in this portion of the agenda

2. Peter Cony — PSB Chair

5. DEPARTMENT REPORTS -

1. Parks & Recreation - Jim Millar a) OW Grand Opening of Refurbished Ball Diamonds June it @ loam

2. Public Safety — Fire Chief Harry Tackaberry

a) Incident Type Report — 2008 & 2007

b) Officers Meeting — June 3/08 c) Thank You Letter to Heart & Stroke Foundation re: 3 Defibrillators

3. Planning & Development Services — Ken Hurford a) Building Permit Record May/08 b) By-law Enforcement Record May/08

4. Public Works & Environmental Services — Jim Phillips a) 401 Signage Illumination b) Municipal Service Club Signs c) Herrington Pit Agreement

5. CAO/Clerk — Gayle Frost a) Waterfront Master Plan Request to CFDC to reallocate monies approved for the Youth Intern Program

6. CORRESPONDENCE - None

7. MEMBER REPORTS

8. QUESTION PERIOD

9. ADJOURNMENT

Agenda

1. Brief Review of the Study Process and Findings to November2007 2. Results of Supplementary Investigations Dec. 2007 to April 2008 3. First and Five Year Costs 4 Decision Making Process

—--- -a — —- Study Objectives ODtiOns Considered

Carry out accurate cost comparisons: 1. OPP

The existing policing arrangements 2. Cobourg expands force and polices entire County Versus 3. Port Hope expands force and polices entire County A single County-wide policing model

Study Management Study Process

• Steering Committee comprised of • 5 Phases

- 7 Mayors (County Council) • Preparatory work —2005

- 7 Local chief Administrative Officers • Consultant selection — December 2005

- 1 County of Northumberland G.A.O. • Project start — January 2006

• Assisted by consultant — Jack Watkins • Projected completion — July 2008

1 Basis for Cost Comparisons Request for Proposals (RFP)

• Steering Committee wanted cost • Ask Port Hope, Cobourg and OPP if they compete for County-wide comparisons to be comprehensive and wish to service firm • Develop detailed RFP for County-wide contract • Spell out service level expectations • Decision to have costs based upon • Call, receive and evaluate proposals signed binding contracts • Compare to existing costs

REP Process Results Study Eindinqs

quotations the consultant • Only OPP interested in competing • Using REP produced detailed cost comparisons • Six month process to prepare the contracts and for the OPP to respond • Presented in October and November, 2007 • Five year contract with binding prices, service levels, etc. • Seven Public Meetings across County

‘0

2006 Policing Costs-Per Population Study Hiqhlights G,s Ca Pq4ab Spor Person • Documented existing Costs n*M.aid $814,154 6435 $126.52 10,253 $113.81 • Provincial grants Beighial $1,161,923 Towtd CoW 14.923274 18,210 $270.63 • Costs of County-wide Police Service Q’1t*T*p. $712,211 5950 $11970 • One-time Costs Difficult to be Precise HaTdli1Wp. $3.l2a 10.912 139.60 • Cost apportionment PlFare4’a’dI fllSl,ola IZZO $256.10 PtFke4Ywd2 $S34.727 ahm $143.16 • Staff Impacts TrflFt tfltO4O 12,247 $151.36 • Decision Making Process TU7ALP,gCa 114411,565 0.ll $181.16

‘3

2 Police Services Grant Changes Summary Cost Comparison • Rural communities receive grants

Join’ - — - 5b112 Quo • With county-wide policing all costs are eligible counly-wide

for funding I Pd’cingcoals -. Sl4633,621 SI5.860,589 • Eligible costs go from $6 million to $13 million 2. - Less Civilian Enhry ‘$245,072 - NM ?r $173047 • Rural factors decrease because of addition of 4. LessOTaIAcIu -$345,528 WA Port Hope and Cobourg urban areas s. ad P5U Resale t,k$t3l7,025 • BUT overall grant increases from $1.7 million 6- OMPF Gras,’ -$2,601,226 -$1,707,207 to 52.8 million TOTAL $9944770 513,641195 TorAL COST SAViNGS - 53596425

- - -

Cost Apportionment Fee for Service with Rural Adjustment • steering Committee wanted to have an • If County-wide service: option based upon nrincioles: • Costs are removed from local tax bill AND • Pay for extra service • Consider rural affordability • Costs are added to County tax levy • Equitable sharing ol the increased • More than one method of allocating costs to each municipality Provincial grants

‘S 16

Cost Apportionment — Option #2 Fee for Service with Rural Adjustment Fee For Service With Rural Adjustment

Existingcosts NewCounly Ojiference • Three Steps: I W[deservte Mnv&k’Ha!d.najid $629,962 $513851 ‘SI 6,381 i Allocate Policing Costs Based upon ft Bdlluo , 19Th.G€5 — 5751.574 -

of Officers per municipality Toanvol Ccbo.,ag 5514Cm 53207 727 . $1,938,045

- 2 Subtract EXISTING Police service [naheT - $638 469 $410401 Grants HwTflonTwp. 5896,228 Sfl7,496 ‘5158,638

‘ FiHope —- 53742,040 $2,677,971 4864,069; i Subtract pro-rated share of additional * eo:sii - si:a;io’ $1.1 million Police services grant th.94&seo

3 Impacts — Uniformed Officers Impacts — Civilian Employees

• Guaranteed positions with OPP with no • 26 part-time and full-time employees loss of seniority, benefits affected • Pensions can be transferred • Officers stay in Port Hope and Cobourg (or • There will be severance obligations For a minimum of 3 years Cobourg and Port Hope • No severance implications • Senior officers similar provisions with one • cost calculalions can only be done by exception the municipalities

‘9

BuildinQs Police Service Board • One five-person Board allowed • Cobourg and Port Hope should retain • consultant has studied “Best Practices” in Downtown detachment buildings Ontario and made recommendations • Need to consult with Cobourg & Port Hope • Recommend competency-based selection • Rental or purchase or other? • Has worked very well in other areas

• Existing service levels to be maintained — • Community Policing Advisory Committees 2417 play a key role also

Comparators’ Experiences The Triple Maioritv • 3 similar OPP municipalities in size, For policing to go from a lower tier geography and demographics responsibility up to the county, ALL THREE of the following tests must be passed: - Wellington County 1. A majority in favour at county Council United Counties of Stormont Dundas AND and Glengany 2. A majority of the seven lower-lie, councils City of Quinte West AND • Consultant interviewed community leaders 3. The total number of electors in the lower tier municipalilies that have passed resolutions • Very positive feedback on OPP service and under #2 above form a majorily of all the single Police Service Board eteclors in the county.

4 Supplementary Investigations in 2008 Data Entry

• More details on one-time costs Consullant strongly recommended an • Cobourg and Port Hope Building Rentals enhanced civilian entry model • Legal opinion on cost apportionment • Better utilization of officers • Criminal reference chocks • Reduce civilian layoffs • Impacts on fire dispatch • Deters the need for additional officers • Simplify the complex information • RFP specified provisional pricing Enhanced civilian data entry versus status quo • $245,000 per year extra cost

Enhanced Civilian Data Entry Steering Committee Decision

• Relieves uniformed officers of some clerical • Only carry enhanced civilian data entry work components costs • Completed by clerical staff • Simplifies cost comparisons • Frees up officers 20-25% • BUT • Puts officers in on street or cars • Understates cost savings • Will greatly defer need for additional officers ‘Not “apples-to-apples” costs in future • Will lead to cost deferrals in future years

One-time Costs Building Renovations

• Building Renovations • Existing Port Hope and Cobourg buildings a Equipment to be used a Severances • Existing Cobourg cells to be used • Reinforce who pays for what • $176000 in total costs to upgrade both costs buildings • Propose these costs to be shared by all seven municipalities

a a

5 Equipment Equipment • app review of Port Hope identitied a • Change over to OPP will mean certain minimum of $32000 in transterrable equipment changes for CPS and PHPS equipment Vehicles, guns, uniforms, etc. • Similar revenues assumed for Cobourg • app estimate is $609,000 worst case • Actual costs will vary because of one-year by some for closer tally • Desire transition time-frame OPP to carry • Steering Committee asked • update assumptions $64,000, likely low out detailed review • Net costs to be shared by all seven municipalities

Severance Costs Civilian Severance Costs

• No costs for uniformed officers • Final costs will vary depending upon settlement • Pod Hope estimates $10,000 potential for basis. II of weeks per years of service senior officers • Pod Hope estimate $125,500 to $512,000 • Same assumed for Cobourg • Cobourg estimate is $200,000 to 5900,000** • Significant costs for redundant civilians • Cobourg estimates do not include savings • Enhanced civilian data entry requires 5 full- realized thru layoff reductions tied to enhanced time civilians civilian data entry • steering Committee recommends each municipality is responsible for their own costs

= Accommodation Costs Port Hooe and Coboura Buildinas • OPP contracts include std. accommodation cost • Port Hope building is 5,900 sq. ft. per officer of 5921 per year including cells • It is acknowledged that it does not cover costs • cobourg building occupies 17.000 sq. • OPP will utilize their 3 detachments in Cobourg, ft. plus 2,600 sq. ft. for new cell block Brighton and Campbellford • Existing costs to operate: PLUS • Port Hope $57,000 Porl Hope Building (minus cells) • Cobourg $167,00D PLUS Cobourg Building Including Cells • Need to determine PH and cob building charges

6 Building Proposals Fire Dispatch • A new detachment —2,000 to 3,000 sq.ft. • Presently Cobourg and Port Hope Police • Establish a detachment rental charge of Services do Fire Dispatch for own Fire 5,900 sq. it. © $10.00 = $59,000 Services and other municipalities • Supplementary charge tor Cobourg cells of 2,600 sq. ft. @ $15. $39,000 • What happens under OPP? • Total Rentals: • Who will provide the service? Port Hope $59,000 • What will the costs be? Cobourg $98,000 • To be shared by all seven municipalities

Fire Mutual Aid Feasibility Study

• Each Fire Dept. relies on its neighbours • Fire chiefs are recommending a study of for emergency mutual aid County Fire Dispatch • County Fire Coordinator is Chief Al • Chief Mann is visiting each Municipal Mann of Cobourg Fire Department Council to seek support a The area Fire Chiefs have serious • Preliminary costs of system are concerns with existing mutual aid comparable to existing communications system • Dispatchers could be drawn Irom redundant Cobourg and Port Hope civilians

Criminal Reference Checks Criminal Reference Checks

• Cobourg and Port Hope operate bulk “for profit” • Final report assumed no revenues

screening programs — Cobourg gross revenue in 2007 was $500,000, Port Hope Si M • Two reasons • QPP do local reference checks within their • indications from Province that in detachments future they may disallow “bulk • $25.00 for bus:ness screening • Free br velunteeragencies • Liabilities involved with program • OPP HO in Oñllia signs MOU’s wth clients that have • OPP would continue local screening a legislative requirement in Ont. for reference checks — banks, school boards, etc. program and return the revenues.

7 ______

- Criminal Reference Checks Addendum Conclusions

• Questions from cobourg and Port Hope — • OPP provided answer that they will their “Will OPP operate a program similar to not do bulk third party screens programs and generate similar revenues?” • OPP indicated an audit needed to answer • Na revenues assumed in cost • 3 months of negotiation with Part Hope comparisons • Site visit April 2, 2008 • OPP denied access to actual contracts

Supplementary Cost Investigations Annual Cost Savings

• Still not possible to be definitive on some - opp contract Savings rdth Enhanced Civilian $3543165 Per Year of the one-time costs Data Entry wNus Acco.m,,odaiion costs for Cobourg & $157,000 Per Year • Where not conclusive tried to take “worst Port Hope case” TOTAL Annual cost savings $3,386j65 Per • Potentially understates actual savings. One-lime costs will reduce the savings realized in Year One ol 5 Year Contract

4”

Year One Costs Brighton Year One Costs I OPP Savings with enhanced $3,543,165 Per Year

civilian data entry

jfficobourg & Port Hope - $157,000 Per Year detacbnent rentals I5hh1t5a95 S203,989

atltst.are of Accommodation - Equlpn2nt Replacement - $577,306 One lime Con

!!!jliiBulldln Renovations - $176,000 One Time afflILsJlare of Equipment & - S57,887 enildinga Renovation

MiNiaseverancet - - $325,500 to $1,412,000 TOTAL SAVW4GS - $134,037 TOTALSAVINGS $1,064,165 to $2,150,655

““This amount does not include the Cobourg severance reductions due to enhanced civilian data entry model 4,

8 Brighton Years 2 to 5 Brighton Five Year Savings

One $134,037 SMra ci Annual Savings S203,989 Years2to5 $767,696 MINUSShareot Accommodation -$12,065 TOTAL SAVINGS $9o1,733j TOTALSAVINGS $191,924 TOTALX4 $767,696

Triple Majority Cost Apportionment Next Steps

• Can the proposed cost apportionment be • Each Municipal Council (7) considering changed? their decision • Staff interpretation questioned. • Do they support OR not support • Independent legal opinion obtained • Responses to Council by early July • Ucost apportionment • County Council decision July 16’ (ii methodology is in the transfer by necessary) law then it can only be changed • Implementation is one year after by a Triple Majority Process

Municipality of Brighton Memo

To: Mayor Herrington and Members of Council Peter Corry, Chair of Police Services Board Doug Bodon, O.P.P. From: Gayle Frost, Chief Administrative Officer Date: May 22, 2008 Re: Northumberland County Policing Study

Please be advised that the final consultant report and the addendum report dated May 9, 2008 will be on the agenda of the Municipality of Brighton Committee of the Whole meeting of June 9, 2008.

In attendance at that meeting will be Bill Pyatt, CAO for Northumberland County; Jack Watkins, Consultant who prepared the study; and Inspector Doug Borton from the O.P.P. They will be prepared to discuss the study and answer questions.

As a triple majority vote is required, a draft resolution has been prepared by the steering committee to be passed by all municipal Councils as follows:

WHEREAS the County of Northumberland has been carrying out a study of County wide policing;

AND WHEREAS as part of the Triple Majority process to transfer a lower tier power to the upper tier it is necessary for the Countys seven member Municipal Councils to deliberate and vote on a motion to support or not support the transfer ofpower;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that The Council of the Municipality of______(supports) OR (does not support) the transfer of policing powers from the lower tier to the County of Northumberland subject to: 1) the maintenance of the existing levels of service for policing as laid out in the Request for Proposal with the Ontario Provincial Police dated April 2007; 2) the costs being apportioned on the basis of the Fee For SeMce with Rural Adjustment and Equal Increased Grant Sharing as laid out in the Policing Study Final Report for Northumberland County and the Addendum to the Policing Report dated May 9, 2008.

The solicitor is reviewing the draft resolution and will finalize the exact wording as well as a proposed transfer by-law. The resolution as prepared by the solicitor will be available at the meeting of June 9.

Following are the anticipated steps and dates to finalize the process:

June 9 - Municipality of Brighton — CoW review of report and addendum

June 16— Municipality of Brighton Council vote on resolution

July 16— Northumberland County Council vote on resolution

Attached is the Addendum to the Policing Study Report dated May 9, 2008. Should any of you not have a copy of the Policing Study Report, please contact me as I have a few extra copies which I can make available.

• Page 2

Uta

•— Ca •— -o C a =

CCI zOL) z C

ADDENDUM - Table of Contents

1. Background 3 2. Streamlining of Decision Making Considerations 4 a) Enhanced Civilian Data Entry 4 b) Cost Apportionment 5 3. Additional Costing Investigations 6 a) Original Costing Assumptions 6 b) One Time Costs 7 • Severances 7 • Equipment 9 • Communication systems 11 • Port Hope & Cobourg Police Buildings 12 • Reference Screening Revenues 15 c) Fire Dispatch 17 4. Cost Comparisons 17 a) Introduction and Assumptions 17 b) County-wide Costs 18 • Year One Costs 18 • Final 4 Years 19 • Total Savings Over 5 Years 19 c) Each Member Municipality • Alnwick/Haldimand Township 20 • Municipality of Brighton 21 • Town of Cobourg 22 • Cramahe Township 23 • Hamilton Township 24 • Municipality of Port Hope 25 • Municipality of Trent Hills 26 5. Triple Majority Cost Apportionment 27 6. Next Steps 33 7. Standard Council Resolution 33

1. Background buring the second phase of public consultation at the seven member Municipal Councils there were a number of questions raised which could not be fully answered in the areas of:

• Transition cost impacts for the Town of Cobourg and the Municipality of Port Hope; • Providing a guarantee of the cost apportionments proposed in the Triple Majority Process.

Best efforts have been made to provide answers to these questions; however, it was not possible for the study consultant, and through the consultant the OPP, to thoroughly investigate some issues without the consent and approval of the two municipal Police Services. As a result there are still some unresolved questions. Where it was not possible to gain access, assumptions had to be made and in all cases the cost assumptions made were in an attempt to provide a “worst case” assessment, i.e. the cost savings would be under-estimated.

Another area of concern was the complexity of the cost comparisons because of the number of potential options in a County-wide system and the difficulty these options posed for the public and Municipal Councillors to understand. As a result the Steering Committee wished to see if they could reasonably eliminate certain sub-options to facilitate the final considerations. The two sub-options which were considered are:

• Enhanced civilian data entry option or continuation of the existing officer entry practices; • A recommendation on one cost apportionment model.

3 2. Streamlining of Decision Making Considerations a. Enhanced Civilian baTh Entry

The consultant strongly recommended that an enhanced civilian data entry model be considered and that it be funded from a small portion of the projected annual savings in a County-wide policing model.

Currently all three forces - OPP, Cobourg and Port Hope have the uniformed officers complete the data entry on their cases and incidents. Because they are not trained or particularly expert at key boarding this part of an officer’s job can be very time consuming. While they are key boarding they are not on patrol in our communities where their presence and skills are put to their best use.

Many police services are implementing enhanced civilian data entry as a cost effective solution to, in effect, put more police on the street or in their cars. It is widely accepted that enhanced civilian data entry increases an officer’s time in the field by a factor of 20-25%. In Northumberland where there are 96 uniformed officers this option has the impact of having an additional 19-24 uniformed officers in the field without actually hiring more police officers.

It is not proposed to cut back the existing officer complement as some have misunderstood but rather to retain all the existing officers and employ additional civilians to do the data entry, filing, and administrative duties. This will reduce the layoff impacts on the existing Port Hope and Cobourg civilian employees. The annual cost of the enhanced civilian data entry is $245,072 representing the salary and benefits of five full-time equivalent civilian data entry positions.

Within the Steering Committee there was the opinion that by carrying the extra costs of the enhanced civilian data entry, the cost savings of a County-wide model are unfairly understated. This is true; the comparison is not a true apples-to-apples comparison. There was also

4 the opinion that enhanced civilian data entry will greatly defer the need for additional uniformed officers in future years as the County grows and policing needs grow and that somehow these cost savings should be incorporated. Again, this is true as the 20-25% increased police presence will likely negate the need for additional officers for at least 5 years. In the end the Steering Committee agreed that it was important to simplify the cost comparison for the general public even if it meant significantly understating the cost savings now and into the future with a County-wide policing model. The Steering Committee made the decision that all future costing comparisons would be based upon the extra $245,072 costs associated with the enhanced civilian data entry model in the OPP proposal which brings the total cost to $14,633,621. b. Cost Apportionment

The final study report contained two cost apportionment models:

1. Percentage Weighted Assessment; and 2. Fee for Service with Rural Adjustment.

The Percentage Weighted Assessment model had significant negative financial impacts for four out of the seven member municipalities. Additionally all four municipalities are already policed by the OPP. The Steering Committee felt that these four municipalities would be unfairly subsidizing savings in the other three municipalities and that another more acceptable model needed to be developed. In considering the basis for a fairer apportionment of costs the Steering Committee considered the following principles:

• If an individual municipality wishes to have an enhanced level of service above what the other municipalities receive, such as extra bicycle patrols, it should be prepared to pay for the extra cost;

5 • No municipality should lose its existing Police Services Grant which recognizes the challenges facing rural municipalities with large geographic areas and much lower property tax bases; • The additional Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund Police Services Grant should be shared equitably by all seven municipalities.

These principles led to the development of a cost apportionment option which was called the Fee for Service with Rural Adjustment Option.

Within the Fee for Service Option with Rural Adjustment Option there were two sub-options and the Steering Committee elected to adopt the sub-option which considers paying on the basis of actual services (number of officers) with the allowances noted above which consider the rural ability to pay and the equitable sharing of any additional Police Services Grants.

Status Quo aPP with Savings Enhanced Civilian bata Entry Alnwick/Haldimand $629,962 $522,818 $107,144 Brighton 979,965 775,976 203,989 Cobourg 5,145,772 3,249,893 1,895,879 Cramahe 638,459 419,190 219,269 Hamilton 896,326 749,619 146.707 Port Hope 3,742,040 2,917,239 824,801 Trent Hills 1,608,671 1,463,294 145,377 TOTAL $13,641,195 $20,098,030 $3,543,165

3. Additional Costing Investigations a. Original Costing Assumptions

6 The Policing Study has focused on the annual savings which will be realized year after year. Because the OPP policing proposal is a legally binding signed contract the cost savings are firm and total $3.7 million per year without enhanced civilian data entry and $3.54 million with enhanced civilian data entry. In transitioning to a County-wide police service there will be some one-time costs incurred. These costs were difficult to estimate as it requires access to Cobourg and Port Hope Police Service information. Further, it is not possible to determine with certainty some costs until after a transition actually occurs such as potential costs for severance entitlements by senior officers who may not retain the same equivalent rank or remuneration from the positions they now hold. These officers will undergo a standardized rank determination process that will determine their equivalent ranking in the OPP structures. The condition and usability of existing police equipment will also need to be evaluated at the time of the amalgamation of the two police services. The consultant and the app have made their best efforts to firm up these one-time costs but some transition costs are not quantifiable until the actual transition occurs. b. One Time Costs

Severances

There will be no severance cost implications for uniformed officers as all existing Port Hope and Cobourg uniformed officers are guaranteed positions with the OPP.

The potential for severance costs lies with the civilian employees of the two Services whose positions will become redundant. With the enhanced civilian data entry model there will be a total of 31 redundant full and part-time civilian positions (based on the number of civilian positions reported at the time of the kFP completion). Of these 31 positions 24 of the positions are Communications Operators at the Port Hope and Cobourg Police Services. It has been assumed that there will

7 be an equal number of civilian layoffs at the Cobourg Police Service and at the Port Hope Service.

The Municipality of Port Hope and the Town of Cobourg were asked to estimate their potential severance costs. The County and its consultant do not have access to the personal information which is needed to carry out these calculations. The Town of Cobourg has estimated that their civilian severance costs would be in the range of $200,000 to $410,000 and the Municipality of Port Hope has estimated their costs to be in the range of $125,500 to $512,000. The above numbers are seen as the high end of costs and could be reduced if additional civilians are utilized for reference screen checks and/or fire dispatch.

There was no allowance or adjustment made to allow for the potential for redundant civilian employees to be used for reference screening or fire dispatch. For example, the Port Hope Police Service employs three full-time and five part-time civilians for reference screening. If there is a decision to go with a County Fire Dispatch system or to carry out reference screens the number of civilian layoffs will be decreased and the associated severance costs reduced. The County’s RFP document requires and the OPP accepted that any civilian positions needed to perform enhanced civilian data entry and reference screens would be offered first to those redundant civilian Port Hope and Cobourg employees. If the County and its seven member municipalities elect to provide a County Fire Dispatch System then the existing Cobourg and Port Hope civilian employees would have the first choice of these positions. None of these potential job savings and the resulting severance cost savings have been included in the cost comparisons for the sole reason to simplify the decision making considerations. As a result, the potential cost savings are under-estimated. The number one priority of all our Municipal Councillors and their staff administrators will certainly be to reduce the number of civilian

8 employee layoffs, not just for financial reasons but rather most importantly to preserve jobs for loyal employees.

As noted earlier, all uniformed officers will be offered positions therefore there are no severance costs associated with these officers. There may, however, be some financial obligations with respect to the senior officers — the Chief and beputy Chief. These positions must go through a rank determination process with the OPP. The senior officers are guaranteed positions; however, their rank and remuneration could change. The Municipality of Port Hope has estimated these one-time costs could total $10,000. The Town of Cobourg did not offer an estimate because it most likely will be zero. Again, to be on the conservative side, the cost comparisons include $10,000 for Cobourg also.

Equipment

In a transition from a local Police Service to the OPP there is a need to re-equip the municipal police officers with standard OPP equipment such as uniforms, app standard use firearms, etc. The original study cost estimates noted the costs could be in the high-end range of $609,318. These OPP costs will be reduced by the app purchasing any useable equipment from the municipal services at fair market value. Unusable equipment or equipment not purchased by the QPP can be sold through the Ontario Municipal Police Cooperative purchasing systems or sold publicly, if it is appropriate to do so (e.g. police vehicles).

Given that the market valuation of this equipment will occur at the time of the amalgamation it is difficult to provide highly accurate estimates for this equipment. The transition to the new force is expected to take 10-12 months to complete and equipment can be damaged, disposed of, or replaced by the police services during this period.

9 The OPP were not allowed by the Cobourg Police Service to carry out an assessment of the existing equipment, therefore the worst case was assumed, i.e. none of the existing police equipment was suitable for transfer and all new equipment is purchased. Any residual resale value would have the effect of increasing the Year One savings associated with a County-wide model. The OPP carried out an assessment of the existing Port Hope equipment and determined there was presently $32,012 in value of equipment which could be transferred.

The Steering Committee has taken the position that the net one-time equipment costs would be part of the overall policing costs and not borne solely by Municipality of Port Hope and Town of Cobourg. The rationale for this position is that all seven member municipalities will realize cost savings year after year with a County-wide model and therefore there should be some sharing of the costs to go to the new OPP policing model. The way this scenario would play out is as follows:

• All existing useable equipment would be assumed by the OPP free of charge; • The County would be responsible for the cost to purchase the missing equipment; • Any revenues for the sale of existing equipment will go to the County; • The County will charge out the net equipment costs to all its member municipalities.

The following chart shows the allocation of the one-time equipment costs for two scenarios - the first on the basis of $577,306 net costs and the second on the basis of $577,306 MINUS $32,000 (assumed Cobourg equipment) MINUS $49,800 (assumed re-sale revenues) = $495,106.

10 Municipality #1 - $577,306 #2 - $495,106 Net Costs Net Costs Alnwick/Haldimand $29,890 $25,634 Brighton 44,363 38,046 Cobourg 185,797 159,342 Cramahe 23,965 20,553 Hamilton 42,856 36,754 Port Hope 166.779 143,032 Trent Hills 83,656 3 71,745 TOTAL $577,306 ± $495,106

As noted earlier, the worst case scenario of $577,306 will be used in the cost comparison analyses. The actual final revenues recovered could be utilized as contingency funds for other unforeseen costs or if not needed would be returned on the same cost sharing basis to each member municipality.

Communication Systems

The Policing Study looked at all potential costs of both a new County wide service and the status quo police models. For some time the Cobourg and Port Hope Police Service capital forecasts had included significant monies to replace the two communications systems. The Policing Study attempted to identify any future costs which could be avoided with all the options.

The Cobourg and Port Hope communication systems are almost identical. They are older systems and some components of these systems are reaching the end of their serviceability without major upgrades or total replacement. There have been a number of operational issues with the two systems and as a result a study was carried out in 2004 and 2005. The study consultant recommended in 2005 that $1.2 million was required to upgrade each system. Certain

11 improvements were carried out by each Police Service in 2007 to improve the systems. The actual costs incurred have not been released. In late 2007 the Study Steering Committee asked both municipalities to have their consultants update their cost estimates. Attached is a report from KVA Consultants outlining the current status. It is now estimated that the costs to upgrade certain equipment will be $200,000.

As before, no allowance will be made in the cost analyses for these potential costs and they are simply noted as costs which could be avoided if there is a move to County-wide policing.

Port Hope and Cobourg Police Buildings

There are two issues relative to costs to be dealt with in respect to the two proposed detachments as follows:

• The costs to upgrade them to OPP standards; and • The costs to operate the municipal police buildings (rental, utilities) and who should pay for it.

The OPP carried out an assessment of the two buildings and provided an estimate of $176,000 to upgrade both buildings to serve as “Main Street” detachment buildings. As with the allocation of police equipment costs, the Steering Committee is recommending that these costs be part of the overall County-wide policing costs. There was one significant deficiency noted in both the Cobourg and the Port Hope Police buildings when the County’s consultant reviewed both buildings. This deficiency may hove been recently rectified. Both police detachments had only one shower for officers. It is highly desirable, if not soon legally required, that there should be separate locker rooms and showers for male and female officers. No allowance has been made for the cost of these building improvements even though the OPP may require them. It has been assumed that Cobourg and Port Hope would

12 be responsible for these costs no matter whether the status quo policing remains or there is a decision to go with an OPP service.

The OPP propose to house the majority of the required uniformed officers in their three existing Northumberland detachment buildings

— Cobourg, Brighton and Campbellford. The OPP contract bid includes charges for the costs to house these officers in the three existing OPP detachments but does not include any accommodation costs to house officers in the Cobourg and Port Hope detachments. The QPP charges are $921 per year for each officer in their three detachments for office rent and cleaning services. It is widely acknowledged that the $921 charge per officer is low and does not recover the actual accommodation costs.

In order to maintain the existing levels of service in Port Hope and Cobourg the existing “Main Street” police detachments at 107 King Street West in Cobourg and at 230 Walton Street in Port Hope will be retained. Each police detachment would require sufficient room for a reception area, an open office with workstations for the uniformed officers and the civilian employees, one office, an interview room, mole and female washrooms, male and female locker rooms with showers, a secured storage area, a general storage area, first aid room, and a kitchenette with eating area. The two existing buildings are older buildings which were not originally designed and built as police stations so their space layout is somewhat inefficient. A brand new building would require less square footage because it would be expressly designed as a “Main Street” detachment and could require as little as 3,000 sq. ft. not including cells. The existing buildings will take approximately 5,000 - 6,000 sq. ft. to house the same functions. On the other hand an older building will typically have a lower lease or rental rate than a brand new one so these factors can be offsetting.

The existing Port Hope building is comprised of 5,900 sq. ft. which includes some prisoner cells. These cells do not meet OPP standards

13 and would not be used in a County-wide OPP service. It is proposed that the entire 5,900 sq. ft. building be leased at $10.00 per sq. ft. for an annual lease of $59,000. The Pease rate is at the low end of the rates but acknowledges the age of the building and the fact that if only 5,000 sq. ft. was leased the Municipality could not realistically rent out the remainder of the building. The OPP have indicated that they would house the civilian staff needed for the enhanced civilian data entry function in the Port Hope detachment. These staff would then be available to continue with the 24/7 public reception function.

The existing Cobourg Police Building is a former Armory and has over 17,000 sq. ft. of space on two floors. In recent years the Cobourg Police Service constructed a new 2,600 sq. ft. cell block which is located to the rear of the police building. The QPP would fully utilize the new cell block in a County-wide OPP service. It is proposed that the Town of Cobourg be compensated on the following basis:

• 5,900 sq. ft. of police building @ $10.00 per sq. ft. or $59,000 annually; • 2,600 sq. ft. of cell block @ $15.00 per sq. ft. or $39,000 annually.

The Town of Cobourg would then be free to look for opportunities to lease the remaining 11,100 sq. ft. (17,000 - 5,900) of the former Armory building for other purposes.

In this study there was no attempt made to document the capital construction costs which would be incurred by the Port Hope and Cobourg Police Services to upgrade the two police buildings if the County-wide OPP police service does not proceed.

14 Reference Screening Revenues

The Cobourg and Port Hope Police Services run “for profit” reference screening businesses for clients across Canada. The Port Hope Police Service employs eight civilians (3 FT and 5 PT) and generates net revenues of approximately $1 million per year. The Cobourg Police Service operation is smaller and generates approximately $200- $300,000 per year. The above revenues have generally been placed in reserve funds with a possible future use being to offset future Police Service Capital expenditures. The final Study Report noted these programs but did not include any allowances in the cost summaries for County-wide policing based upon the OPP carrying on with a similar reference screening program. There were several considerations involved in this position; however, the over-riding reason was the indication that the RCMP was seriously considering not allowing the use of the CPIC system for bulk third party screens. When the final report was released there were strong opinions voiced in some quarters that a firm conclusion should be reached as to whether the OPP could and would continue these programs and achieve similar revenues.

The OPP also completes reference screening programs but the OPP are prohibited from providing any of their services on a “for profit” basis. The OPP are required to operate on a cost-recovery basis only, for all QPP services, including records screening. For reference screens for individuals volunteering to do community work there is no charge. For local companies wanting reference checks there is a set fee province- wide for conducting records checks. The fee is aligned to offset the costs of the staff and the accommodation costs. All revenues collected by the QPP for local criminal record checks will be rebated to the County of Northumberland at the end of the year. Since the cost of the civilian members are included in the OPP annual costs, the revenues generated by the criminal record checks offsets the overall policing costs. To be on the conservative side, there was no allowance made for net reference screening programs in the County-wide policing

15 model costs. Until the OPP service is up and running it is difficult to accurately predict these revenues.

In response to those requests for a more definitive answer as to whether the OPP would continue to operate a reference screening program as the Port Hope Police Service and generate similar revenues, the County requested the OPP to review the Port Hope operations and provide a response. There were approximately three months of negotiations between the Port Hope Police Service and the OPP regarding the conditions of the review and finally on April 2, 2008, the QPP visited the Port Hope Police Service for their examination. That examination limited the OPP access to the Port Hope Record Screening program and a full examination was not able to be conducted. Subsequent to the April 2 site visit, the OPP have advised that they will not carry out the bulk third party reference screening program such as that operated by the Port Hope Police Service. The OPP are prepared to carry out criminal reference checks in response to requests from local community groups, individuals and local businesses. The OPP fee would be $25.00 per screen (the standard Provincial rate), however, screens for community volunteers would be free of charge. The revenues from these screens will return to the County and be shared amongst its member municipalities. The OPP will not carry out the third party bulk screening, however, any other Memorandums of Understanding (MOU’s) they had the OPP would consider subject to examination with the stipulation that the MOU’s would be changed to OPP MOU’s, the checks would be done centrally in GHQ, according to the OPP fee schedule, and the municipality would not receive revenues for those checks.

Because the Town of Cobourg Police screening program mirrors the processes of the Port Hope screening program the OPP was content that the findings in Port Hope would be applicable to the Cobourg processes.

16 c. Fire Dispatch

The Port Hope and Cobourg Police services presently operate the 9-1-1 Services for their municipalities. Both police services also do the fire dispatch for their own and other municipalities. The question was asked whether the Port Hope and Cobourg fire dispatch costs would increase with a County-wide policing model because they would have to contract out or somehow otherwise purchase the fire dispatch service. The response at the time was that it was believed the costs to provide the fire dispatch would be quite similar.

In January, 2008 the County Fire Coordinator, Chief Al Mann of the Cobourg Fire Department, and the other Fire Chiefs of the County’s member municipalities approached County Council with serious concerns with the existing overall fire dispatch system. Chief Mann was asked to approach each of the seven member Municipal Councils to determine the level of support throughout the County for a single County operated fire dispatch service. The consultations with each of the seven member Municipal Councils will take place over April and May, 2008. The Fire Chiefs’ preliminary investigations have found that the costs of a County Fire Dispatch would be comparable to the aggregate of the existing costs. For this reason no allowance for costs for Fire Dispatch are included in the following cost analyses. If a decision is made to stay with the status quo policing arrangements and a County Fire Dispatch system is adopted, there will be revenue decreases to the Port Hope and Cobourg Police Services. As noted earlier, a County Fire Dispatch system would require civilian communications operators and any redundant Cobourg and Port Hope Police Service civilian employees would be ideal candidates for these new positions.

4. Cost Comparisons a) Introduction and Assumptions

17 The OPP contract bid price submitted is for a fixed amount over the five year term with the exception of any annual salary awards to their staff. Each year the local Port Hope and Cobourg Police Services staff will also receive comparable cost of living increases. Historically the OPP and local municipal police salary awards have been very similar therefore no allowances were made for annual salary increase awards. Because there are certain start-up costs inherent in a transition to an OPP policing service, the costs for Year One will be calculated separately and the costs for Years 2-5 will be constant. An overall cost comparison for the entire five year contract will be produced. b) County-wide Costs

Year One Costs

On the basis of using an enhanced civilian data entry model and its higher costs, the ongoing annual cost savings will be $3,543,165. Offset against these savings are the proposed accommodation charges payable to the Municipality of Port Hope and the Town of Cobourg as noted previously:

Officer Accommodation Charges • Port Hope $59,000 • Cobourg $59,000 Cobourg Cell Lease $39,000 Total $157,000

These costs result in the annual ongoing savings being reduced to $3,386,165

In Year One of operation the following one-time costs will be incurred:

18 Low High Severances . Cobourg $200,000 $410,000 . Port Hope $125,200 $512,000 Equipment $577,306 $577,306 Building Renovations $176,000 $176,000 $1,078,506 $1,675,306

In total, the first year savings net out to a low of $1,710,859 to a high of $2,307,659.

Final Four Years

The annual savings as noted earlier for years 2-5 will be $3,543,165 minus $157,000 $3,386,165 for the County’s seven member municipalities.

Total Savings Over 5 Years

The total savings for all seven of the County’s seven member municipalities will be: LOW HIGH Year One $1,710,859 $2,307,659 Year Two $3,386,165 $3,386,165 Year Three $3,386,165 $3,386,165 Year Four $3,386,165 $3,386,165 Year Five $3,386,165 $3,386,165 TOTAL $15,255,519 $15,852,319

The one-time costs of the transition to OPP policing model of

$1,078,506 - $1,675,306 are included in these totals. The time frame to recover these one-time costs is 4 to 6 months.

19 c) Each Member Municipality Costs

Ainwick/Haldimond Township

Year One Share of Annual Savings $107,144 MINUS shore of Accommodation Costs of $157,000 -$8,129 MINUS share of one-time costs for equipment & detachment renovations of $753,306 -$39,002 Total $60,013

Years Two to Five Share of Annual Savings $107,144 MINUS share of Accommodation Costs -$8,129 Total $99,015 Total X 4 Years $396,060

Total Five Year Savings Year One $60,013 Years Two to Five $396,060 Total Ainwick/Haldimand Twp. Savings $456,073

20 Municiallty of Br/c Iiton

Year One Share of Annual Savings $203,989 MINUS share of Accommodation Costs $157,000 -$12,065 MINUS share of one-time costs for equipment & detachment renovations of $753,306 -$57,887 Total $134,037

Years Two to Five Share of Annual Savings $19203,989 MINUS share of Accommodation Costs -$12,065 Total $191,924 Total X 4 Years $767,696

Total Five Year Savings Year One $134,037 Years Two to Five $767,696 Total Municipality of Brighton Savings $901,733

21 Town of Cohour

Year One Share of Annual Savings $1,895,879 MINUS Severances -$200,000 to $410,000 MINUS Share of Accommodation Costs of -$50,528 $157,000 MINUS Share of One-time Costs for Equipment & Detachment Renovations of $753,306 -$242,440 Total $1,192,911 to $1,402,911

Years Two to Five Share of Annual Savinqs $1,895,879 MINUS Share of Accommodation Costs $50,528 Total $1,845,351 Total X 4 Years $7,381,404

Total Five Year Savings Year One $1,192,911 to $1,402,911 Years Two to Five $7,381,404 Total Town of Cobourg Savings $8,574,315 to $8,784,315

NOTE; These figures do not include the annual lease revenue of $96, 000 per year.

22 Township of Cramahe

Year One Share of Annual Savings $219,269 MINUS share of Accommodation Costs of $157,000 -$6,517 MINUS share of one-time costs for equipment & detachment renovations of $753,306 -$31,271 Total $181,481

Years Two to Five 5hare of Annual Savings $219,269 MINUS share of Accommodation Costs -$6,517 Total 212,752 Total X 4 Years $851,008

Total Five Year Savin9s Year One $181,481 Years Two to Five $851,008 Total Cramahe Township Savings $1,032,489

23 Townshijo of Hamilton

Year One Share of Annual Savings $146,707 MINUS share of Accommodation Costs $157,000 -$11,655 MINUS share of one-time costs for equipment & detachment renovations of $753,306 -$55,921 Total $79,131

Years Two to Five Share of Annual Savings $146,707 MINUS share of Accommodation Costs -$11,655 Total $135,052 Total X 4 Years $540,208

Total Five Year Savings Year One $79,131 Years Two to Five $540,208 Total Hamilton Township Savings $619,339

24 Municia//fr of Port Hope

Year One Share of Annual 5avings $824,801 MINUS 5everances -$125,500 to -$512,000 MINUS Share of Accommodation Costs $45,356 MINUS Share of One-time Costs for Equipment & Detachment Renovations of $753,306 -$217,624 Total $49,821 to $436,321

Years Two to Five Share of Annual Savings $824,801 MINUTES Share of Accommodation Costs $45,356 Total $779,445 Total X 4 Years $3,117,780

Total Five Year Savings Year One $49,821 to $436,321 Years Two to Five $3,117,780 Total Municipality of Port Hope Savings $3,167,601 to $3,554,101

NOTE: These fiqures do not include the annual lease revenue of $59000per year.

25 Munic%w//ty of Trent Hills

Year One Share of Annual Savings $145,377 MINUS share of Accommodation Costs $157,000 -$22,750 MINUS shore of one-time costs for equipment & detachment renovations of $753,306 -$109,161 Total $13,466

Years Two to Five Shore of Annual Savings $145,377 MINUS share of Accommodation Costs -$22,750 Total $122,627 Total X 4 Years $490,508

Total Five Year Savings Year One $13,466 Years Two to Five $490,508 Total Municipality of Trent Hills Savings $503,974

26 5. Triple Majority Cost Apportionment

A key concern through the public consultation process was the method of cost apportionment formula and whether a future Council can readily overturn the apportionment provisions. The County retained IX Wayne Fairbrother of Templeman, Menninga, LLP, to provide a legal opinion on the following questions:

1) If a by-law is passed to move policing from the lower tier municipalities to the upper tier municipality, can the decision be reversed at some point in the future? 2) If a cost apportionment policy is included in the transfer by-law, does the “no repeal” section apply to this portion of the by-law?

Mr. Fairbrother’s opinion is attached. Briefly, his opinion concludes that with respect to question #1 that once “policing powers” are transferred from the lower tier to the County, they cannot be re transferred back to the lower tier.

In answer to question #2 his opinion is that no provision of the transfer by-law can be repealed once it comes into force. He recommended that the transfer by-law be worded such that the cost apportionment provisions cannot be amended except by the same triple majority process. The Triple Majority Process requires that 211 three of the following tests be met:-

1) A majority of all votes of County Council must be in favour; 2) A majority of the Councils of the seven County of Northumberland lower tier municipalities must be in favour, i.e. at least four out of the seven must be in favour of the change; 3) The total number of electors in the lower-tier municipalities that have supported the change as per test #2 above must form a majority of all the electors in the County of Northumberland, i.e.

27 if four municipalities support the change, those four municipalities must hove at least 5O.1 of the eligible voters.

If any one of these tests fails then policing will remain a lower-tier responsibility and the proposition to establish a County-wide service fails.

28 Wiffid Mennrnga. BA (Hone.). LLB.’ Ian B. SuU&an. BA. iD. 0, Wayne Fairbmther, LL.B. Roll M Rem. BA, U_B. Harold Van nnen. U_B. DaM W. Dales. BA. LLB. Maureen A. Houetn, BA (Hon.). LLB Termnce& F. Wwte. BA. U_B.. CHRP Brian W. Abram.. U_B. Nammn Dokken Georpe, B. Comm. (Hone.), U_B. ChthtopMrJ. Edwerds. BA (Hon..) U_B. Mary Jean McFaI. BA (Hone.). LLB. Jeffrey 0. PaIne. MSc. LLB.. P. Eng. Jamb Thomas Fraser. BAplons.), MBA. U_B. I. AkjaV,tsentalos BA. B. comm.(Hon..), U_fl., JO. KrisHnA. Muszynski BA. LLB. Vayla Papanicolaou, BA(Hons). MBA. JO. Stephen Ellaworm, BA(Hons.). LLB. rarHfied by the Law Society as a Specialist in CMI UHqaHon

(from the office ofB. Wayne Fairbrother, BELLEVILLE; e-mail: dwf(tmIegaLca) By Facsimile: (9005) 372-1696

March 6, 2008

The Corporation of the County of Northumberland 860 William Street Cobourg, Ontario K9A3A9

Attn: Bill Pyatt, CA.O.

Dear Mr. Pyatt:

Re: Transfer of Powers Between Tiers Our File No. 04020

You have requested our written opinion/legal interpretation of Section 189 of the Municipal Act, 2001, dealing with the transfer of policing powers between tiers of municipalities.

Specifically, you have posed the following two questions:

1. ‘ifa by-law is passed to move policingfrom the lower tier municipalities to the upper tier municipality, can the decision be reversed at some point in the future? “; and

2. “Ifa cost apportionment policy is included in the transfer by-law, does the “no repeal” section [ie. Section 189(3) ofthe Municipal Act] apply to this portion ofthe by-law?”

OVERVIEW

Section 188 to 191 inclusive in the Municipal Act, 2001 deals with the transfer of powers between tiers of municipalities. In preparing this written opinion, we have found no decided court cases or scholarly interpretations that are relevant to the issues noted above. Furthermore, as you will note below, there is potential ambiguity or a lack of clarity in many of these Sections of the Municipal Act, 2001. Nonetheless, we have carefully considered the legislation and have fonnulated our legal interpretations and opinions in order to respond to the issues posed above.

29 ANALYSIS/OPIMONSIINTERPRETATION

Ouestion #1

“Policing in accordance with the Police Services Ac?’ isa “lower tier power” as defined in Section 188(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001. It is important to note for reasons set out below that “policing in accordance with the Police Services Act’ is not listed as an “upper tier power”. Section 189(2) of the Municipal Act, 2001 describes the “triple majority” that is required to transfer a lower tier power [such as policing] to an upper tier municipality.

No provision in a by-law to transfer “policing power” from the lower tier municipalities to the County, properly enacted in accordance with the provisions of Section 189(2) ofthe Municipal Act, 200! [ie that satisfies the “triple majority” requirement), can be repealed in whole or in part by the County after it comes into force. This much seems clear according to the wording of Section 189 (3).

It should be noted that such a by-law of the County could subsequently be “deemed to be repealed” by a by-law of a lower tier municipality passed at a later date in accordance with all of the requirements of Section 191 ofthe Act, including another “triple majority” requirement. This is not entirely certain however. The uncertainty can be explained as follows.

Section 189 (4) of the Act says that a by-law of a lower tier municipality passed in accordance with Section 191 of the Act can, in effect, repeal a County bylaw passed previously under Section 189 of the Act . However, in examining Section 191 of the Act,we note that it expressly relates only to “upper tier powers” and Section 188 of the Act does not list “policing powers” as an “upper tier power”. This leads us to postulate that once “policing powers” are transferred to the County, those powers can not be “re-transferred” back to the lower tier municipalities. If“policing powers” were listed as an “upper tier power” in Section 188 [or deemed by the Act to become an “upper tier power” once transferred up to the County], then it would be clear that policing powers could be “re transferred” to the lower tier municipalities.

Subject to the uncertainty as noted in the previous paragraph, it is our legal opinion that: i) a provision in a by-law, properly enacted in accordance with the provisions of Section 189(2) of the Municipal Act, 2001, to transfer “policing power” from the lower tier municipalities to the County cannot be repealed in whole or in part by the County; and ii) since Section 188 of the Act does not list “policing powers” as an “upper tier power”, Section 191 of the Act does not apply. In other words, once “policing powers” are transferred from the lower tier municipalities to the County, they can not be “re-transferred” back to the lower tier municipalities.

30 question #2

With respect to the second question posed above, it is our opinion that if a cost apportionment policy is included in the aforementioned transfer by-law, then the cost apportionment policy cannot be repealed after the transfer by-law comes into force and effect.

Section 189(3) explicitly states that “a provision” of such a by-law cannot be “repealed in whole or in paW’. This is rather unusual wording. It is our view that if Section 189(3) had been drafted to read that no such by-law can be repealed, it would be open to argue that provisions or portions within the by-law could be repealed as long as the rest of the by-law remained in force. However, Section 189(3) expressly states that no provision of a transfer by-law can be repealed once it comes into force. In our interpretation, this means that not only can the by-law not be repealed but neither can any provision within the by-law itself.

In our initial discussions [Pyatt-Fairbrother], you indicated to us that the manner ofapportioning the costs ofpolicing services is a fundamental consideration in the ultimate determination as to whether or not to transfer policing powers to the County. Specifically, if the method of cost apportionment is not acceptable to the required majority of the lower tier municipalities and the County Council, then the transfer of policing powers will not happen. Accordingly, the municipalities want some assurance that the cost apportionment provisions cannot subsequently be repealed.

Given the foregoing, it is our recommendation that the proposed cost apportionment be determined and agreed upon by all the municipalities in advance and then included expressly as a “provision” in the transfer by-law. If this is done, in our view such a provision cannot subsequently be repealed by virtue of Section 189(3). Further, we recommend that the by-law include a requirement that the cost apportionment provisions cannot be amended without the same “triple majority” requirement that is required to pass the by-law in the first place. Such a requirement would make the intent of the municipalities clear in the event of any future challenge or attempt to amend the cost apportionment provision. Further, there is a general rule of law that the power to amend a by-law must be exercised in the same manner as the power to enact. This would support the inclusion of a “triple majority” requirement in the by-law for any future amendments.

It must be noted that “transitional mailers” are pj subject to the “no repeal” clause set out in Section 189(3) - in other words, they can be repeated. However, it is our recommendation that the by-law be drafted so that it is clear that the cost apportionment provision is a fundamental component of how the policing powers will be exercised by the County on an on-going basis and that “cost apportionment” is not a “transitional” mailer as contemplated by Section 189(1 )(b) ofthe Municipal Act, 2001.

31 -4-

If you have any questions or comments or require further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Yours very truly, TEMPLEMAN MENNWGA LLP

fl Wayne Fairbrother

32 6. Next Steps

It is recommended that County Council take the following steps to bring the Policing Study to a conclusion:

1) Finalize a standard Council resolution and a transfer by-law to be utilized in the Triple Majority becision Making Process. 2) Send the final study report and addendum, the standard Council resolution to be considered and the associated transfer by-law to each of the County’s seven member municipalities. 3) Request each member Municipal Council to consider and either approve or not approve without modifications the standard Council resolution within 45 calendar days of receipt of the request. 4) Upon receipt of the Council resolutions from all seven member Municipal Councils, County Council consider its decision with respect to the Triple Majority Question.

7. Standard Council Resolution

The Triple Majority Process requires that any proposed transfer of power must pass all three of the following tests:-

1) A majority of all votes of County Council must be in favour; 2) A majority of the Councils of the seven County of Northumberland lower tier municipalities must be in favour; 3) The total number of electors in the lower tier municipalities that have passed resolutions under #2) above must form a majority of all the electors in the County of Northumberland.

It is critically important that the Council resolutions considered by each Council be identically worded. If they are modified then it is not possible to definitively conclude that, for example, test #2) above has been passed or whether it failed.

33 ______,

It is proposed that the model Council resolution be based upon the following elements:

• The Council of the Municipality of [approves] OR [does not approve] the transfer of policing powers from the lower tier to the County of Northumberland; • The costs being apportioned on the basis of the Fee for Service Model with Rural Adjustment as laid out in the Policing Study Final Report for Northumberland County Public Information bocument and the Addendum to the Final Report. • The levels of service as set out in the Request for Proposal;

this • bated day of 2008

In accordance with the Steering Committee direction, Mr. Fairbrother will be retained again to finalize the wording on the Model Council Resolution and to draw up the proposed transfer by-law.

34 Municipality of Brighton 3 Committee of the Whole 9th, iJ1,Z!i June 2008.

Report Title:

Announcing the OTF grand opening of refurbished ball diamonds on June 18th at lOam, King Edward Park Diamonds.

BackgroundfPurpose:

We were successful last year in receiving $42,300.00 from the Ontario Trillium Foundation for the purchase of red clay for our ball diamonds. We are now ready to celebrate the project’s completion.

Analysis/Comments: There will be a ribbon cuffing ceremony on Wednesday, June 18th at lOam to acknowledge the grant received from the Ontario Trillium Foundation. MPP Lou Rinaldi, Mayor Chris Herrington, along with members of the Ontario Trillium Foundation will be in attendance to help us celebrate this event. I am at this time inviting members of council who can make it out at this time to join us. User groups as well as Dol Turf have been notified and a press release closer to the date will go out as well announcing this event

Financial Implications: N/A

Strategic Plan Alignment: Strategy #3: Quality of Life Through this project at the ball diamonds we arc enhancing the quality of recreation for our citizens and other participants.

Attachments: N/A

(,Jm Millar Director of Parks and Recreation

Brighton District Fire Department

Incident Type Report (Summary)

Alarm Date Between {05/O1/2008) And {05/31/2008)

Pot of Total Pot of Incident Type Count Incidents Est Loss Losses 1 Fire 100 Fire 1 5.55% 50 0.00% 111 Building fire 1 5.55% $165,000 100.00% 130 Vehicle fire 2 11.11% $0 0.00% 141 Forest, woods, brush or grass fire 1 5.55% $0 0.00% 150 Unauthorized Controlled Burning 1 5.55% 50 0.00% 6 33.33% $165,000 100.00%

3 Rescue & Emergency Medical Service Incidents 311 Medical assist, assist EMS crew 5 27.77% $0 0.00% 322 Vehicle accident 2 11.11% $0 0.00% 7 38.88% $0 0.00%

4 Hazardous Conditions (No fire) 411 Hazardous Spill 1 5.55% $0 0.00% 1 5.55% $0 0.00%

6 Good Intent Call 611 Dispatched & canceled en route 1 5.55% $0 0.00% 1 5.55% $0 0.00%

7 False Alarm & False Call 700 False alarm or false call, Other 2 11.11% $0 0.00% 2 11.11% $0 0.00%

9 Other incident type 900 Other Incident 1 5.55% $0 0. 00% 1 s.55% $0 0.00%

Total Incident Count: 18 Total Est Loss: $165,000

Ccc)

06/03/2008 09:40 Page 1

Brighton District Fire Department

Incident Type Report (Summary)

Alarm Date Between {05/O1/2007} And {05/31/2007}

Pct of Total Pct of Incident Type Count Incidents Est Loss Losses 1 Fire 113 Cooking fire, confined to container 1 5.88% $1, 000 100.00% 141 Forest, woods, brush or grass fire 1 $0 0.00% 143 Rubbish Fire fire 1 5.88% $0 0.00% 3 17.64% $1,000 100.00%

3 Rescue & Emergency Medical Service Incidents 311 Medical assist, assist EMS crew 9 52.94% $0 0.00% 322 Vehicle accident 2 11.76% $0 0.00%

11 64.70% $0 0.00%

5 Service Call

554 Assist other fire department 1 5.88% $0 0 . 00% 1 5.88% $0 0.00%

7 False Alarm & False Call 700 False alarm or false call, Other 2 11.76% $0 0.00%

2 11.76% $0 0.00%

Total Incident Count: 17 Total Est Loss: $1,000

06/03/2008 09:40 Page 1

BRIGHTON Hill DEPARTMENT Officers Meeting June 3, 2008 at 6:30 p.m.

Dunk, Bill Dingman, Wayne Newman. PRESENT: Hany Tackabeny, Lloyd Hutchinson, Jim Jeff Ogden, Linda Kelly/acting secretary

Absent: Brian Brose, Briane Ryckman, Kory Hietala, as printed moved by Bill OF May 6111, 2008 were read, motion to accept the minutes MINUTES Motion Carried. Dingman, seconded by Jeff Ogden. Errors or Omissions: Nil

BUSINESS ARISING FROM MINUTES from the Military at the ‘Salute to the The Brighton Fire Dept. received a ‘Certificate of Appreciation’ Emergency Services’ held in Toronto on May 29th

OLD BUSINESS new rotary saw is not needed at this time. Ventilation Saw — it was decided a the bags for the masks and is having #‘s printed on them SCBA Masks — Harry received for repair/replacement etc — masks need to be checked

NEW BUSINESS cap in 3 weeks, of the new truck. — liner has been installed, Half Ton Truck — Harry advised status lighting on Monday involving the Warkworth Inst., Harry discussed how to handle fires Dust Collectors — due to a concern at Ministry of Labour in Dec.1995 dust collectors, passed around an ALERT issued by the

COMMITTEE REPORTS TRAINING -Jim Dunk. in Warkworth — 8 am > Defib on June 14 @ > Next Training Meeting at South Hall on June 4 at 7:00 p.m.

SOG’s - Jeff Ogden. > Held over to the next Officer’s meeting

FIRE PREVENTION/ EDUCATION - Lloyd Hutchinson. on dust collectors fires > Next County meeting in July and will suggest training Door to Door Smoke Alarm Campaign ready to go, need volunteers

COMMITTEE HIRING already received > Will meet before the end of the month to review applications

OPEN AGENDA Nil

IN CAMERA SESSION Not required

NEXT MEETING Monday, June 3t, 2008 at 6:30 p.m. at 7:20 p.m. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn by Bill Dingman

Co p3 P.O. Box 126, Brighton, Ontario, KOK 1HO Telephone; 613-475-1744 Friuhtcii Fire Fax: 613-475-1385 Lenailment E-mail: bfd(ä.brighton.ca

May 21, 2008

Heart & Stroke Foundation do Dan Collins Director of Emergency Medical Services Northumberland County

I have been assigned by the Municipality of Brighton to forward a request for three defibrillators.

The one I think should be at the top of our list would be the Codrington Recreation Centre. This centre is used for public meetings, a drop in centre and hall rentals. There is a library, two ball diamonds and the grounds are used for other activities. The library is open Tuesdays 2—5 p.m., Thursdays 9:30 — 11:30 a.m., Fridays 5—8 p.m. and Saturdays 10 a.m. —2 p.m. The drop in centre is open Mondays through Thursdays 9:30 — 11:30 a.m. This centre is located in the mral area of the Municipality with ambulances stationed 16 kilometers either way.

The other location we are suggesting is the Municipal Office in Brighton. This building also houses the Brighton Library, Kawartha Pine Ridge District Health Unit offices and Provincial courts are held in this building 2 days a week.

The third location would be the Brighton Legion Branch 100. This branch also has a community hall rented out to seniors organizations and other groups for banquets and ftndraising groups.

On behalf of the Municipality, Council and senior staff, we appreciate and thank the Heart and Stroke Foundation for consideration and approval for the three defibrillator locations for Brighton

Sincerely

Fire Chief Brighton Fire Dept.

Municipality of Brighton Committee of the Whole

Meeting Date — June 9, 2008

Report Title Building Permit Record, May 2008 By-law Enforcement Record, May 2008

Recommendation:

That the Committee of the Whole receives the two Records as information.

Attachments

Building Permit Record, May 2008 2. By-law Enforcement Record, May 2008

4rfor Director of Plan and Development Services

_____

MUNICIPALITY OF BRIGHTON BUILDING PERMIT RECORD 2008

DATE PERMIT # APPLICANT LOCATION USE [SIZE ISSUED - [(Sq.Ft.) COST (5) TOTAL AS OF PREVIOUS PERIOD 32 dOts 8,526,000.00 MAY 5/May 2008-58 chuck DeWal 151 Drummond St. [Single Unit Dwelling 3,600 350,000.00 5/May 2008-59 !SkyIarParks 217 Scriver Rd. [Single Unit Dwelling 2,339 [5 220,000.00 5/May 2008-60 McDonald Homes 250 Raglan St. (Lot 12) [Single Unit Dwelling 1892 [S 200,000.00 6/May 2008-61 Peter Archer 4485 County Rd. 30 Agricultural 50,000.00 6/May [2008-62 McDonald Homes [248 Raglan St. (Lot 13) Single Unit Dwelling 1,794 [S 200,000.00 7/May 2008-63 KeithLee [40 Elgin St. West - [Accessory Addition 120 [ 1,000.00 7/May 2008-64 Cheer Homes f18 Empire Dr. (Lot 15) [Single Unit Dwelling 2677 240,000.00 8/May 2008-65 IvyPatterson 16 Dundas St. [Demolition 5,000.00 8/May 2008-66 MirtrenBuilders 10 Algonquin Ave. (Lot 14) [Single Unit Dwelling 1,902 $ 275,000.00 8/May 20 08-67 Henderson PropertTes 16182022 &24 Chapel St.(Lots78910 &11) MultiUnitpwelling (Splex) 6,328 $ 700,000.00 - 9/May 200868 Doug Whitfield 166 Bayshore Rd. [ShigieUnit Dwelling 3,021 $ 385,000.00 9/May [200869 bou Whitfield 166 Bayshore Rd. Demolition $ 5,000.00 9/May 2008-70 Paul Magee 36 Shewman Rd. Deck $ 3,000.00 9/May 2008-71 Scott 214 Whites Rd. Single UnitDwelling 3,310 $ 320,000.00 Jamie — J 9/May [-72 ‘Robert Morrison 123 Harbour St. Renovation 17,000.00 12/May 8-73 Ray Voskamp constructionLtd. 270 Raglan St. (Lot2) Single UnitDwelling iJO7$ 225,000.00 13/May 2008-74 John Woodhead 4 Grimes St. [Garage 12,000.00 13/May Cheer Homes 5 & 6 Cooper Court (Lots 11 & 12) [Semi-detached (2 units) 3,506 S 400,000.00 15/May 2008-76 Ken Atkins 75 MillsRd. JAddition 144 $ 15,000.00 15/May 200877 Cole’s Tim-BrMart [47Ontario St. [Alteration $ 10,000.00 16/May 2008-78 1652799 Ontario Limited 148 Ontario St. Single UnitDwelling 3,036[ $ 200,000.00 16/May 200879 Ray Voskamp ConsiwcUonLtd. 268 Raglan St. (Lot3) Single Unit Dwe[iing 2768j$ 245,000.00 1/Mái 2008-80 Slàlwàod Homes 8 Royal Gala Dr. (Lot4AJ Single UnitDwelling 1,929 $ 225,000.00 DWellih l6JMay 2008-81 Staiwood Homes 6 Ràiái Silã Dr. (Làt 3Aj Single Unit 2,073 •S 225,000.00 2008-82 James &Audry Snyder Stoney Point Rd. Single UnitDwelling 3,023 S 200,000.00 26]Ml 2008-83 Robert &Pamela Trottman 27 Vicari Rd. 144 S 2,000.00 2008-84 KleTh lñ)eitrñëii1i (Chèèf 266 Ràláñ St. (Páñ Lät 16) UhitDkthllin 2,019 5 180,000.00 27/MV 2008-85 ‘Hàóld Weátèrman HillviéWRöád - jSiñlé UhitDwelling 2,459$ 200,000.00 • -. 2008-86 Gary Wood 1326Richmond St. - 8,000.00 TdtäISö Ft. 49,791 DU 5,118,000.00 TOTAL FOR PERIOD 23 $ TOTALYEARTO DATE 55 DU $ 13,644,000.00 - TOTAL PREVIOUSYEARTO DATE 45 DU S 11,957,800.00

By-law Enforcement

Re: Swmnasy of Complaints & Investigations (May 1”, 2008, to May 3 P’ 2008 mcI.) The following will provide you with a detailed breakdown of complaints and investigations. Most complaints were resolved by oral communication, and no follow up letter was sent. Where it was deemed necessary (possible continuance of the issue leading to the complaint) letters were sent.

Letters:

False Maims 6 Correspondence 1 Dog Control 2 Property Standards 4 Grass & Weeds I

Summary of Enforcement: Complaint Patrol and Follow-up Received Observation

Dog related Issues 7 2 45 Property Standards Issues 6 2 51 Parking Cautions 0 2 N/A Parking Issues 0 0 13 Parking Tags 0 0 0 Garbage/Dumping 0 I 8 Signs 5 23 20 Park Issues 1 0 Daily Patrol * Miscellaneous 5 1 13 Zoning 0 0 6 False Maims 0 0 2 Fires/Burning 1 0 1 Dangerous Dog Investigationst 2 0 13 P.O.T.’s 0 2 3 Part 3 Charges 0 3 6 Smoking 1 0 1 Hunting/Shooting 1 0 1

—

Ron Grumeth By-Law Enforcement Officer

Municipality of Brighton Committee of the Whole it Meeting Date — June 9, 2008

RE: 401 Signage illumination

From: Jim Phillips, Director of Public Works & Environmcntal Services

Recommendation:

That the Committee recommends to Council that the illumination of the municipal display signage on Hwy 401 at County Rd 30 be deferred until the 2009 capital budget.

Background/Purpose:

In June 2006. the Brighton Rotary Club provided the Municipality with a contribution of $2,000.00 towards the illumination of the municipal display signage at Hwy 401 and County Rd 30. Since that time staff has been working with the Ministry of Transportation to obtain approval for illuminating the signs. The first delay was caused by the bridge rehabilitation project carried out in 2006 and 2007 and then we had to submit an application for an encroachment agreement. A response to our formal request and application was recently received from the MTO and is attached ftr reference.

Analysis/Comments:

A lwdro supply is available on the south west corner of the interchange and, therefore, the original concept was to install a meter box and extend an underground cable to light the sign in this corner and then extend the cable in a conduit on the underside of the bridge across to the sign at the north east corner. The MTO is not in favour of the idea of a conduit on the underside of the bridge so they now want us to look at all other possible options. Also, they will only permit a maximum of 250 watts. One of the options that has been explored is the use of solar panels at each location and LED flood lights. This has increased the estimated cost from a few thousand dollars to close to 520.000. The conventional hard wired design would be less than $15,000.

Financial Implications:

A project cost in the range of $4,000 to $7,000 would be possible under the salety and sign matcrials section of otir operations budget. However, if the project is going to cost between S 15.000 and $20.000. this was not contemplated in the 2008 budget.

Strategic Plan Alignment:

The increased awareness of Brighton to outsiders versus 2008 benchmark is one of the Tourism Goals. Improved Highway 401 signage was one of the Thurism 2007/08 Actions.

Attachments: 1. Letter from MTO. dated April 9.2008. flPR 09’06 15:00 FR MTO PORT HOPE 1 905 965 9273 TO 16134752599 P.01

Ministry of Transportation - Provincial Highways Management, Eastern Region , Port Hope Area Office

Fax; 905-885-9273 k” ntario Toil Free: 1-556-224-0522 Email: brenda.johnstcn(WonIario.ca Ta CoverSheet

Municipality of Brighton April 9, 2008 67 Sharp Road Brighton, ON KOK 1HO

Attention: Dave MacPherson Fax No.: (613) 475-2599

Re: Proposed Illumination for Municipal Display Signing at Brighton Highway 4DlICountv Road 30 Interchange, Town of Brighton

MTQ Regional Office has reviewed the proposal submitted by the Town of Brighton for illumination of their existing municipal signs. The following comments are offered.

The proposal is to install 1 5 conduit on the underside of the bridge and on the face of the north abutment wall to provide illumination for existing municipal display signs. Prior to considering this bridge option, the Town of Brighton would need to exhaust all other options of running the conduiVpower to the site. The Town needs to review aD options of connecting in, possibly from another location, prior to the bridge scenario being entertained.

Should there be no other option available, prior to commenting on the bridge option, the MTO would require the actual mounting proposal with the type of hardware to be used and the installation details. The purpose for this is to avoid damage to the bridge elements during installation and the possibility of removing the conduit when future concrete repairs are needed in that area.

In regards to the actual illumination proposal for the sign, you may want to recommend to the Town of Brighton that they contact another Municipality with regards to how they have provided illumination to their municipal display signs. Quinte West would be an appropriate contact as they have recently illuminated their municipal display signs and may be able to provide relevant information to the Town of Brighton.

The proposal is for 1,000 watts of lighting the signs. The MTO luminaires have between 200 and 250 watts and any municipal display sign would need to be substantially lower wattage than the MTO luminaires. MTO will not permit 1,000 watts as proposed.

APR 0308 15:00 FR MTO PORT HOPE 1 905 665 9273 TO 16134752539 P.02

As well, the location of the lights proposed at 50 feet/I 5.24 m from the sign will create a light spillage issue far MTO The Town should be considering using close mount low or close mount high lights to avoid the spillage issue.

The Region is not prepared to endorse this application as submitted due to the above noted issues. Please advise the Town of Brighton that all the MTO concerns will need to be addressed and also, when they are resubmitting their package, illumination engineering drawings will also be required for MTO review and approval.

Far circulation purposes and to expedite the review process, please submit five copies of all plans and ronorts.

Thanking you in advance for your co-operation. If you have any concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at the above number.

Corridor Management Officer

** TOTAL PAGE.002 **

Municipality of Brighton Committee of the Whole

Meeting Date — June 9, 2008

RE: Municipal Service Club Signs

From: Jim Phillips, Director of Public Works & Environmental Scn’ices

Recommendation:

That the Committee of the Whole recommends to Council that the Municipality accept the proposal from Spirit Signs for the replacement of three municipal service club signs.

Background/Purpose:

When the present Brighton logo was introduced about 10 years ago. three sign structures were constructed: on Elizabeth Street. in front of the high school; on County Rd 30. across from Mount Hope Cemetery and on Main Street. west of the downtown. Each sign is supported by two brick columns that represented the heritage of the many red brick buildings in Brighton. The signs were also constructed to inform visitors about the service clubs that were active in our community and the logos of the service clubs are shown along the bottom of the sign.

Analysis/Corn m ents:

The existing signs have deteriorated to point where they need to be replaced. In keeping with the original concept and purpose, the new ones will be constructed to fit between the existing brick columns and carry the logos of Brighton service clubs. Spirit Signs has designed. lithricated and installed all of our municipal signs since amalgamation and the colours, lettering fonts and design styles have been incorporated into most of our signs and letterhead. As shown on the attached print, the replacement signs will include our trademark logo and colours.

Financial Implications:

The quote of $4,535.00, plus GST, can be covered under the safety and sign materials seclion of our 2008 operations budget.

Strategic Plan Alignment:

Values — Our quality of life and community spirit.

Attachments:

1. Quote and sign design by Spirit Signs

Estimate #195 512012008 Prepared For: Prepared By; Brighton Ken Jim Phillips Spirit Signs 67 Sharpe St 120 Spring St. Brighton, On kOk 1h0 Trenton, Ontario K8V 3Z2 Canada Canada Phone 6134721162 Fax: Phone: 6133943267 Fax: Alt. Phone: Alt. Phone: E-Mail: phillipsbrighton.ca E-Mail: spiritsignscogeco.ca Description: Brighton Road side signs Estimated time for production: 21 working days

Quantity Description Each Total Taxable 3 g6 00 in x g6 00 in Prolite Aluminum 965.00 $2,895.00 V

Brighton road side signs. Cut to shape . Refelective and standard lettering applied

Allow room for service clubs . Newly redrawn logo.

8 Installation - 55.00 5440,00 v’• - 3 Wood framing 400.00 $1,200 00 V Subtotal 54:535,00 GST $569 55 Total $5,124.55

Terms: This estimate good for 30 days. Full payment net 30 days. By my signature, I authorize work to begin and agree to pay the above amount in full according to the terms on this agreement.

Signed by Date Amt. Paid Today

Page 1 of 1

- tz4

Municipality of Brighton Committee of the Whole

Meeting Date — June 9, 2008

RE: flerrinuton Pit Agreement

From: Jim Phillips, Director of Public Works & Environmental Services

Recommendation:

That the Committee recommends to Council that a new five (5) year agreement be executed with the Herrington family for the purchase of gravel from the pit on Richmond Street

Background/Purpose:

The five year agreement with Henington Farms to purchase gravel from their pit on Richmond Street has expired. The Municipality holds a Class B license on the l-lelTington pit and has been crushing and hauling gravel from this pit since the early I 980s. Based on estimates from staff there are 2 to 3 years worth of material in the current work area and then another 7 to 8 years in the licensed area on the east side of the property.

Analysis/Comments:

The agreement that just expired had annual increases of $0.05 per cubic yard. We paid $1.25 per cubic yard in 2007. The flerrington family is now seeking a new five year agreement with the same annual increases. Therefore the cost for gravel from the Henington pit would go from $L30 per cubic yard in 2008 to $1.50 per cubic yard in 2012. This arrangement for the supply of gravel is still more economical that purchasing from a private commercial gravel pit.

Financial Implications:

There are no financial implications because the annual increase was anticipated in our 2008 budget.

Strategic Plan Alignment:

Principles — Be fiscally responsible

- Support our local economy

Municipality of Brighton Committee of the Whole g3! Lit June 9, 2008

Waterfront Master Plan

Recommendation: That staff be directed to make a request to the Community Futures Development Corporation to reallocate the $7,500. approved for the Youth Intern program to the Waterfront Master Plan program; and further that staff be directed to make a firnding application to the RED program to partner in the Waterfront Master Plan.

BackgroundIPurpose: At the Council meeting of April 7, 2008 Council approved matching up to $25,000. for the development of a waterfront master plan and directed staff to make application to the Northumberland Community Futures Deve’opment Corporation (CFDC) under the Eastern Ontario Development Program. In addition, Council approved a second application for a Youth Intern to assist in the Community Development as the position of Community Development Officer was vacant.

Analysis/Comments: Applications were submitted for both initiatives as directed by Council. The municipality has been advised of funding approvals in the amount of $10,000. for the Waterfront Master Plan and $7,500. for the Youth Intern.

Since the time that Council decided to recruit a Youth Intern, an analysis was made in regards to the Community Development Officer position, and it was decided to proceed with recruitment for that position immediately. It is expected that the position will be filled within the next 4 weeks, and Council approved hiring interim assisEance which is now in place. As a result, the need for a Youth Intern should be reassessed.

Discussions with the CFDC has resulted in consideration for reallocating the Youth Intern ffinding to the Waterfront Project. Since the Community Development initiatives will have staff resources in place in the near future, this would be a reasonable approach.

As Ml finding was not granted through the CFDC, additional ftinding should be sought through the Rural Economic Development (RED) program for the Waterfront project. The RED program assists with the costs of projects that use the power of partnership to create change. Partnering with the municipality and the CFDC would be seen as a positive application. The program will fund up to 50% of the project costs.

Financial Implications: With the additional application through the RED program the project budget could be expanded to $67,500. which would ensure a more complete master plan. Project funding: Municipality of Brighton $25,000. CFDC $17,500. RED program $25,000.

Strategic Plan Alignment:

Strategy # 4 — Waterfront We will develop integrated recreational, health, social, education and economic opportunities across the breadth of the municipal waterfront, according to an approved Waterfront Master Plan, while ensuring maximum environmental protection for this sensitive area.

Goal /Actions — Create a Waterfront Master Plan as a sub-plan of the Official Plan document dealing with parks, trails, and green spaces by 2009.

Gdyfe £‘Frost Chief Administrative Officer ‘N