Council Agenda

TOWNSHIP OF GEORGIAN BAY COUNCIL Tuesday, February 9, 2021 at 9:00 am Electronic Meeting

PLEASE NOTE: This Council meeting of February 9, 2021 is available for public viewing via the Township of Georgian Bay’s YouTube Channel. There may be a few minute delay for the livestream to begin following the start time.

Due to COVID-19 the municipal offices remain closed to the public. Public comments may be sent in advance of the meeting start time to [email protected]. All comments will be circulated to Council members.

1. Call to Order 9:00 a.m.

2. Land Acknowledgement Statement

3. Declaration of Pecuniary Interest

4. Presentations (a) Nicole Kraftscik, Executive Director Georgian Bay General Hospital (GBGH) Foundation re: Cheque Presentation - 2021 Grant

5. Consent Agenda

(a) Adoption of Consent Agenda 4 - 12 (b) Council Minutes of January 11, 2021 13 - 16 (c) Financial Services Report 2021-06 re: 6-Year Legal Fees Summary 17 - 35 (d) Financial Services Report 2021-07 re: Financial Indicator Review (Based on 2019 FIR)

6. Regular Agenda

(a) Adoption of Regular Agenda

Page 1 of 73 Page

7. Communications From Mayor and Council

8. Communications from CAO

9. Staff Reports 36 - 37 (a) Financial Services Report 2021-05 re: Incentive for Taxpayer Feedback 38 - 43 (b) Financial Services Report 2021-08 re: 2021 Capital Budget - 1st Draft

10. New Business 44 - 48 (a) Georgian Bay Association (GBA) Coastal Protection Advisory Committee (Cooper) re: Request for Georgian Bay Council Representative 49 - 50 (b) Water Quality Monitoring – Discussion Only (Hazelton) 51 - 57 (c) Increased Insurance Rates - Discussion Only (Hazelton) 58 - 63 (d) Construction Noise at Wolverine Beach - Discussion Only (Hazelton) 64 - 65 (e) Revisions to Municipal Elections - Discussion Only (Hazelton) 66 - 69 (f) Georgian Bay Association (GBA) (Jarvis) re: Prohibit Unencapsulated Foam in Docks

11. By-laws

70 - 71 (a) By-law 2021 - MLEO Appointment (Avery)

12. Closed Session (a) WHEREAS, section 239(2) of the Municipal Act, 2001,as amended provides authority for Councils of Municipalities to close a meeting, or parts of a meeting, to the public if the subject matter pertains to a matter identified in Section 239(2);

AND WHEREAS the Council of the Township of Georgian Bay deems it necessary to close this portion of the meeting in order to address matters under the following Sections of 239(2);

a) personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees;

Page 2 of 73 Page

litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board; re: Notice to Muzzle Appeal

NOW BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of the Township of Georgian Bay moves into a Closed Session of Council at ______a.m.

13. Matters Arising From Closed Session (a) BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of the Township of Georgian Bay rise from Closed Session at ______a.m. with / without a report.

14. Confirming By-law

72 - 73 (a) BY-LAW 2021 - Confirming February 9, 2021 Council

15. Adjournment

(a) Adjournment of February 9, 2021 Council

Page 3 of 73

Township of Georgian Bay Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting Monday, January 11, 2020 at 9:00 AM Electronic Meeting

Councillors Present Mayor Koetsier Councillor Bochek Councillor Cooper Councillor Douglas Councillor Hazelton Councillor Jarvis Councillor Wiancko

Staff Present Jessica Gunby, Chief Administrative Officer Céline Anderson, Deputy Treasurer Corinna King, Municipal Law Enforcement Officer Victoria Lemieux, Manager of Planning Jennifer Schnier, Director of Sustainability Brad Sokach, Director of Operations Tony Van Dam, Director of Fire and Emergency Services Karen Way, Clerk

1 Call to Order

9:00 a.m.

2 Land Acknowledgement Statement

3 Declaration of Pecuniary Interest

None.

4 Consent Agenda

4a Adoption of Consent Agenda

Council Minutes of January 11, 2021 Page 4 of 73 C-001-2021 Bochek / Cooper BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council adopts the Consent Agenda of January 11, 2021 as circulated; AND THAT Council endorses the recommendations contained within the Committee of the Whole December 17, 2020 meeting. CARRIED

4b Council Minutes

C-002-2021 Cooper / Douglas BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council adopts the December 14-15, 2020 Council minutes as circulated. CARRIED

4c Committee of the Whole Minutes

C-003-2021 Douglas / Hazelton BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council adopts the December 17, 2020 Committee of the Whole minutes as circulated. CARRIED

4d Committee of the Whole Resolutions

C-004-2021 Jarvis / Wiancko BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council adopts the December 17, 2020 Committee of the Whole resolutions as circulated. CARRIED

4e Planning Council Minutes

C-005-2021 Wiancko / Bochek BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council adopts the December 14, 2020 Planning Council minutes as circulated. CARRIED

4f Report from Paul Wiancko re: Inland Water Quality Program 2020

Council January 11, 2020 Page 2 of 9

Council Minutes of January 11, 2021 Page 5 of 73 C-006-2021 Jarvis / Cooper BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council receives the Inland Water Quality Program 2020 revised report for informational purposes only. CARRIED

4g Operations Report 2021-02 re: Pratts Road Culvert Update

C-007-2021 Hazelton / Jarvis BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council receives the Pratts Road Culvert Update report dated January 11, 2021 for informational purposes only. CARRIED

5 Regular Agenda

5a Adoption of Regular Council Agenda

C-008-2021 Cooper / Douglas BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council adopts the Regular Agenda of January 11, 2021 as amended to include: 9d Discussion regarding Committee of the Whole Meetings 9e Council Email Addresses CARRIED

6 Communications from Mayor and Council

Councillor Hazelton responded to constituent communications.

Councillor Douglas responded to constituent communications.

Councillor Jarvis responded to constituent communications.

Councillor Cooper attended a District meetings including the Municipal Modernization Committee, and responded to constituent communications.

Councillor Wiancko attended SSEA meeting, and responded to constituent communications.

Councillor Bochek responded to constituent communications

Mayor Koetsier attended the following meetings Land Acknowledgement

Council January 11, 2020 Page 3 of 9

Council Minutes of January 11, 2021 Page 6 of 73 Committee, Land Trust, Georgian Bay Biosphere Reserve, December’s Council and Committee of the Whole, staff virtual Christmas party, District meetings, and attended the Crime Stoppers flag raising; additionally he participated in a Georgian Bay General Hospital video to regarding donations.

7 Communications from CAO

CAO Gunby continues to attend weekly meetings with Dr. Gardiner of the SMDHU and District CAO’s regarding COVID-19. Continues to move forward on the agreement for use of the District legal services.

8 Staff Reports

8a Operations Report 2021-01 re: Subscription Weather Forecasting Service

Mr. Sokach provided an overview of his report and the Township’s obligation to ensure adequate weather monitoring.

Members discussed the costs and felt this is an initiative that should be provided by the District of Muskoka for its area municipalities.

C-009-2021 Douglas / Hazelton BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council receives the Subscription Weather Forecasting Service report dated January 11, 2021; AND THAT the Township of Georgian Bay request the District of Muskoka to obtain the subscription for the Weather Forecasting Service for all area municipalities. CARRIED

8b Sustainability Report 2021-01 re: Results from RFP 2020-13

Council January 11, 2020 Page 4 of 9

Council Minutes of January 11, 2021 Page 7 of 73 C-010-2021 Bochek / Jarvis BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council receives the Results from RFP 2020-13 report dated January 11, 2021; AND THAT Council direct staff to enter into a lease agreement with GreenLots for a ten year period to install two level 3 - 50Kwh chargers; AND THAT Council direct staff to ensure that the two parking spaces used for these installations are further replaced by GreenLots at no cost to the Township to the west of the municipal building in front of the Administration office. CARRIED

8c Sustainability Report 2021-02 re: Food Waste Audit 2021

C-011-2021 Bochek / Cooper BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council receives the Food Waste Audit 2021 report dated January 11, 2021; AND THAT Council direct staff to engage in a one-year pilot project at the Administration Building, Community Services Building and South Shop and report back to Council findings of the pilot project. CARRIED

8d Finance Report 2021-01 re: Interim Tax Levy

C-012-2021 Bochek / Cooper BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council receive the 2021 Interim Tax Levy By-law report dated January 11, 2021; AND THAT Council hereby enacts By-law 2021-001 to provide for an interim tax levy for all classes and to provide for the payment of taxes. CARRIED

8e Finance Report 2021-02 re: Annual Borrowing Report

Council January 11, 2020 Page 5 of 9

Council Minutes of January 11, 2021 Page 8 of 73 C-013-2021 Jarvis / Wiancko BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council receives the Annual Borrowing By-law report dated January 11, 2021; AND THAT Council hereby enacts By-law 2021-002 to authorize the borrowing from time to time to meet current expenditures during the fiscal year ending December 31, 2021. CARRIED

8f Finance Report 2021-03 re: Request for Sole Sourcing Plotting Printer and Folding Machine

C-014-2021 Wiancko / Jarvis BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council receive the Request for Sole Sourcing Plotting Printer and Folding Machine report dated January 11, 2021; AND THAT Council agrees that the Plotting Printer and Folding Machine leases be renewed with the current vendors. CARRIED

8g Finance Report 2021-04 re: Travel and Expense Policy Draft #2

C-015-2021 Douglas / Jarvis BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council receive the Travel and Expense Policy – Draft #2 report dated January 11, 2021; AND THAT Council adopt the Travel and Expense Policy FIN-2021-01. CARRIED

8h Fire and Emergency Services Report 2021-01 re: Increase Parking Fines

Ms. King provided an overview of her report and the recommendation to increase the fine from $50 to $75.

Members discussed and given the parking problems that occurred in 2020, they would like to have a greater fine imposed and recommended an increase to $100.

Council January 11, 2020 Page 6 of 9

Council Minutes of January 11, 2021 Page 9 of 73 C-016-2021 Douglas / Jarvis BE IT RESOLVED THAT that Council receive the Increase Parking Fines report dated January 11, 2021; AND THAT Council directs staff to seek permission from the Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario to raise the fines for parking offences from $50 set fine to $100 set fine. CARRIED

9 New Business

9a MMAH-Financial Indicator Review - Hazelton

C-017-2021 Hazelton / Wiancko BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council direct staff to provide a report regarding the Township’s Financial Indicator Review as provided by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs & Housing (MMAH). CARRIED

9b District of Muskoka Council Composition Review

Members discussed the District’s Council Composition Review process and the potential impacts on the Township; understand a reduction in membership should occur but want to ensure there is equal voting for all member municipalities.

C-018-2021 Cooper / Bochek BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council and the majority of the Township’s local community associations endorse the principles outlined in the letter dated January 8, 2021 from the Muskoka Lakes Association and the Friends of Muskoka regarding the District Council’s Modernization Review; AND THAT this resolution be circulated to the District of Muskoka’s Municipal Modernization Committee. UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED

9c Permit Sunday Hunting with a Firearm (Douglas) re: Ontario Federation of Hunters and Anglers Request

Council January 11, 2020 Page 7 of 9

Council Minutes of January 11, 2021 Page 10 of 73 C-019-2021 Douglas / Bochek BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council direct staff to provide a report and by-law regarding the implementation of Sunday hunting with a firearm in the Township of Georgian Bay. CARRIED

9d Discussion regarding Committee of the Whole meetings

Members discussed their preference to have certain topics reviewed at Committee of the Whole meetings to permit open discussion.

9e Council Email Addresses

Members discussed the recent implementation of @gbtownship.ca email addresses for all members of Council.

10 By-laws

10a By-law 2021 - Appoint members of Council to Committee of Adjustment

C-020-2021 Wiancko / Bochek BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council hereby enacts By-law 2021-003 to appoint two (2) Councillor positions on the Township of Georgian Bay Committee of Adjustment for January and February. CARRIED

11 a Closed Council Minutes of December 14-15, 2020

C-021-2021 Douglas / Hazelton BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council adopts the December 14-15, 2020 Closed Session Council minutes as circulated. CARRIED

13 Confirming By-law

13a Confirming Council By-law for January 11, 2021

Council January 11, 2020 Page 8 of 9

Council Minutes of January 11, 2021 Page 11 of 73 C-022-2021 Hazelton / Jarvis BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council adopts By-law 2021-004 to confirm the proceedings of the January 11, 2021 Council meeting. CARRIED

14 Adjournment

14a Adjournment of December 15, 2020

C-023-2021 Douglas / Jarvis BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council does now adjourn at 12:53 p.m. until Monday, February 8, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. or at the call of the Chair. CARRIED

Clerk Karen Way Mayor Peter Koetsier

Council January 11, 2020 Page 9 of 9

Council Minutes of January 11, 2021 Page 12 of 73

Financial Services Department REPORT 2021-06

To: Mayor Koetsier and Council (Consent) From: Celine Anderson, Deputy Treasurer Date: February 9, 2021 Subject: 6 year Legal Fees Summary

REPORT HIGHLIGHTS

• The 2020 budget for legal fees was $171,500 and actual expenses were $82,034, which is $89,466 less than budget and approximately $29,000 less than 2019 actual expenses of $111,002.

RECOMMENDATION

BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council receive the 2020 legal fees summary report for information purposes.

BACKGROUND

Yearly reports on Legal Fees have been prepared for Council since 2019 as an information item. Prior to 2019, reports were provided on a semi-annual basis.

ANALYSIS

The Financial Services Department was tasked to combine the past 6 years of legal fees into one table. Staff decided that summarizing the data by department and matter provided better information than sorting by Legal Counsel.

The attached Schedule provides a breakdown of legal fees for 2020. A variety of different matters are presented while keeping confidentiality per the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA).

As identified in prior reports, it is common for smaller municipalities to incur cost overruns as it relates to legal fees because of the absence of in-house legal expertise. Larger municipalities usually have a solicitor on staff which mitigates the requirement to seek external advice. Staff members have been working with the District to utilize their legal department which should realize

Financial Services Report 2021-06 re: 6-Year Legal Fees Summary Page 13 of 73

Financial Services Report 2021-06 6 year Legal Fees Summary Page 2 of 3

some savings. This has not been reflected in the 2021 budget.

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION

In 2020, the budget for legal fees was $171,500. As identified in the attached schedule, the actual expenses were $82,034, which is $89,466 less than budget and $29,000 less than 2019 actual expenses of $111,002.

There might still be additional invoices to be received, but it is felt by staff that any additional invoices received would not materially change the total amounts.

The following graph shows the actual and budgeted legal fees for the past 6 years: Actuals vs Budget 2015 - 2020 180000

160000

140000

120000

100000 Actuals 80000 Budget 60000

40000

20000

0 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

The 2021 budget for legal fees is $161,500, which is the estimate for regular annual requirements and for known ad-hoc files at the time of preparing the budget. Any other instances that arise during the year have the potential of affecting the 2021 budget to actual variances.

REPORT SUPPORTED BY:

Strategic Goals Municipal Fiscal Responsibility

Minimize and control municipal budgets by spending wisely, controlling costs and keeping tax increases to a minimum.

Financial Services Report 2021-06 re: 6-Year Legal Fees Summary Page 14 of 73

Financial Services Report 2021-06 6 year Legal Fees Summary Page 3 of 3

RELEVANT BACKGROUND REPORT: None.

Respectfully submitted by: Celine Anderson, Deputy Treasurer

Reviewed By: ☒ Jessica Gunby, Dipl.M.A., Dipl.M.M. - Chief Administrative Officer ☒ Julie Bouthillette, CPA, CGA - Director of Financial Services/Treasurer

Attachments:

ATT1 6-year Legal Fees Summary

Financial Services Report 2021-06 re: 6-Year Legal Fees Summary Page 15 of 73 Township of Georgian Bay Legal Fee Continuity Schedule To December 31, 2020

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Grand Total Row Labels Building Department General 1,221 2,264 3,306 1,608 90 8,488 Structure Failure 611 2,008 2,619 By-law Enforcement General 946 509 327 661 318 2,761 CAO General 109 2,376 28,317 30,801 Clerks Bonneville Rd. 3,505 36 773 4,314 General 432 2,152 11,773 2,408 262 897 17,924 Hasketts Drive 27,296 316 27,612 Honey Harbour Rd 2,870 2,870 Council General 16,310 1,913 18,223 IC - Retainer 2,544 2,544 2,544 458 2,544 2,544 13,178 Interigy Commissionner Matter # 1 33,400 32,856 66,256 Interigy Commissionner Matter # 2 8,370 8,370 Interigy Commissionner Matter # 3 24,900 537 25,437 Integrity Commissioner 10,192 10,192 Finance Year End Audit 204 204 153 305 153 153 1,172 Opinion Re: Municipal Tax Sale 8,124 8,124 HR/Health and Safety General 11,032 2,385 4,343 6,890 3,912 4,103 32,665 Planning Development Agreement 3,304 3,304 General 11,521 5,345 4,992 12,827 2,446 37,130 LPAT appeal - D 16,455 16,455 LPAT appeal - W 10,967 10,967 Macey Bay 34,828 77,635 54,099 14,720 8,078 21,657 211,018 Site Plan Agreement 3,486 3,486 OMB Appeal - PL140231 3,177 9,413 12,590 OMB Appeal - PL120402 9,111 1,185 6,749 17,045 GFA 21,776 30,638 17,796 70,210 OMB Appeal - PL160940 10,225 10,225 OMB Appeals General 4,538 112 153 4,803 OMB Appeal - PL150594 10,229 22 10,251 OMB Appeal - PL131077 7,595 7,595 Roads Maintenance - Township Debenture 4,163 4,163 General 1,624 913 348 2,885 Harrison Trail 11,662 5,371 17,033 Grand Total 141,642 154,390 121,798 109,299 111,002 82,034 720,165

Financial Services Report 2021-06 re: 6-Year Legal Fees Summary Page 16 of 73

Financial Services Department REPORT 2021-07

To: Mayor Koetsier and Council (Consent) From: Julie Bouthillette, Director of Financial Services/Treasurer Date: February 9, 2021 Subject: Financial Indicator Review (based on 2019 FIR)

REPORT HIGHLIGHTS • The Ministry of Municipal Affairs conducts annual financial reviews of all Ontario municipalities. • The current review is based on the 2019 Financial Information Return. • The review consists of several key financial indicators with low, moderate or high levels of challenge being assigned. • The Township scored a “low” level of challenge on all indicators with the exception of a “moderate” score on the Asset Consumption Ratio. • The Asset Consumption Ratio has been at a “moderate” level since at least 2015. • The one “moderate” score indicates the need for the Township to continue to invest in capital assets as they age and require repair and/or replacement. • With the exception of the one “moderate” score, the ratings are consistent with the median and average of the municipalities within the Ministry’s comparator group.

RECOMMENDATION BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council receive the Financial Indicator Review (based on 2019 FIR) for information purposes.

BACKGROUND On an annual basis, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs (Ministry) conducts a financial review of the Financial Information Return (FIR) and audited financial statements of all municipalities in Ontario. The Ministry monitors the financial performance of municipalities through the use of several financial indicators.

ANALYSIS The Township’s 2019 FIR and audited financial statements were filed with the Ministry on September 22, 2020. Attached to this report is the Financial Indicator Review for the Township based on the 2019 FIR (attachment 1). The report provides the financial indicator results on page 1 and an explanation of the terms on page 2. The Ministry organizes municipalities into groupings so that comparisons can be made. The groupings are based on municipalities’ size, type, geographic area and rural versus non-rural. The comparator grouping that the Township of Georgian Bay is within is South - Lower-Tier – Region - Rural municipalities (attachment 2 – page 4).

Financial Services Report 2021-07 re: Financial Indicator Review (BasedPage ...17 of 73

Financial Services Report 2021-07 Financial Indicator Review (based on 2019 FIR) Page 2 of 2

Consistent with the prior year, the Township received a “low” challenge score on all financial indicators with the exception of:

Asset Consumption Ratio – “moderate”

• This indicator measures the age of a municipality’s assets. The Township’s 61.3% rating indicates “moderately old infrastructure”. • The mean and average of the municipalities within the comparator group is approximately 52%. • This indicator is on an upward trend (increase of 4.8% over the last 5 years). • This indicator demonstrates two (2) things: o the need for the Township to continue to invest in capital assets as they age and require repair and/or replacement o the need for improved asset management practices to ensure old / obsolete assets are removed from the asset inventory.

The senior management team (SMT) has discussed asset management at a recent meeting. SMT members are engaged in 2021 in asset management planning and development of appropriate programs for the renewal of assets. We are part of the MFOA initiative amp it up 1.0 refresh which will assist in improving our asset management practices. A new asset management plan is scheduled to be presented to Council in 2021 with recommendations on how to fund the infrastructure gap.

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION No financial consideration at this time.

REPORT SUPPORTED BY: Strategic Goals Municipal Fiscal Responsibility

Minimize and control municipal budgets by spending wisely, controlling costs and keeping tax increases to a minimum.

RELEVANT BACKGROUND REPORT: FIN 2019-01- Financial indicator review

Respectfully submitted by: Julie Bouthillette, Director of Financial Services/Treasurer Reviewed By: ☒ Jessica Gunby, Dipl.M.A., Dipl.M.M. - Chief Administrative Officer ☒ Julie Bouthillette, CPA, CGA - Director of Financial Services/Treasurer

Attachments: ATT1 Financial Indicator Review ATT2 Financial Indicators – Municipal Groupings

Financial Services Report 2021-07 re: Financial Indicator Review (BasedPage ...18 of 73 F I N A N C I A L I N D I C A T O R R E V I E W (Based on 2019 Financial Information Return) Georgian Bay Tp

Date Prepared: 21-Oct-20 2019 Households: 5,786 Median Household Income: 67,904

MSO Office: Central 2019 Population 2,554 Taxable Residential Assessment as a

Prepared By: Diane Ploss 2020 MFCI Index 4.6 % of Total Taxable Assessment: 97.8%

Tier LT Own Purpose Taxation: 5,753,635

S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y I N D I C A T O R S

South - LT - Regions - Indicator Ranges Actuals Level of Risk Rural Median Average

2015 7.4% 8.8% 9.1% LOW

Low: < 10% 2016 7.4% 7.5% 7.6% LOW Total Taxes Receivable less Allowance for Uncollectibles as a % of Mod: 10% to 15% 2017 7.4% 7.4% 7.4% LOW Total Taxes Levied High: > 15% 2018 8.1% 7.9% 7.9% LOW 2019 8.5% 6.9% 6.8% LOW

2015 28.2% 43.5% 53.1% LOW

Low: > -50% 2016 47.6% 45.0% 56.8% LOW Net Financial Assets or Net Debt as % of Own Source Revenues Mod: -50% to -100% 2017 61.8% 56.4% 63.6% LOW High: < -100% 2018 43.8% 42.4% 61.1% LOW 2019 49.5% 64.6% 75.8% LOW

2015 48.6% 47.8% 50.2% LOW

Low: > 20% 2016 60.4% 48.3% 52.0% LOW Total Reserves and Discretionary Reserve Mod: 10% to 20% 2017 64.5% 56.0% 60.9% LOW Funds as a % of Municipal Expenses High: < 10% 2018 55.1% 50.8% 59.0% LOW 2019 77.3% 59.9% 65.0% LOW

2015 3.49:1 3.01:1 2.85:1 LOW

Low: > 0.5:1 2016 8.37:1 2.43:1 3.13:1 LOW Cash Ratio (Total Cash and Cash Equivalents as a % of Current Mod: 0.5:1 to 0.25:1 2017 6.13:1 2.92:1 3.21:1 LOW Liabilities) High: < 0.25:1 2018 4.88:1 3.27:1 3.15:1 LOW 2019 8.32:1 3.28:1 3.56:1 LOW F L E X I B I L I T Y I N D I C A T O R S

2015 2.3% 3.1% 3.7% LOW

Low: < 5% 2016 2.8% 3.0% 3.5% LOW Debt Servicing Cost as a % of Total Revenues (Less Donated TCAs) Mod: 5% to 10% 2017 2.6% 2.8% 3.3% LOW High: >10% 2018 2.6% 2.8% 3.4% LOW 2019 3.5% 3.1% 4.3% LOW

2015 56.5% 46.9% 46.9% MODERATE

Low: < 50% 2016 58.3% 47.7% 47.6% MODERATE Closing Amortization Balance as a % of Total Cost of Capital Assets Mod: 50% to 75% 2017 60.1% 49.9% 49.7% MODERATE (Asset Consumption Ratio) High: > 75% 2018 59.8% 51.4% 50.2% MODERATE 2019 61.3% 52.9% 51.6% MODERATE

2015 25.1% 7.6% 4.8% LOW 2016 11.5% 9.3% 7.1% LOW Annual Surplus / (Deficit) as a % of Own Source Revenues Low: > -1% Mod: -1% to -30% 2017 12.3% 14.8% 13.9% LOW High: < -30% 2018 11.5% 14.1% 11.6% LOW 2019 15.1% 13.6% 20.1% LOW

************************************************************************************************************************************************ The data and information contained in this document is for informational purposes only. It is not an opinion about a municipality and is not intended to be used on its own - it should be used in conjunction with other financial information and resources available. It may be used, for example, to support a variety of strategic and policy discussions. ************************************************************************************************************************************************

Financial Services Report 2021-07 re: Financial Indicator Review (BasedPage ...19 of 73 Printed: 12/17/2020 Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing 1 of 3 F I N A N C I A L I N D I C A T O R R E V I E W (Based on 2019 Financial Information Return) Georgian Bay Tp N O T E S

Financial Information Returns ("FIRs") are a standard set of year-end reports submitted by municipalities to the Province which capture certain financial information. On an annual basis, Ministry staff prepare certain financial indicators for each municipality, based on the information contained in the FIRs. It is important to remember that these financial indicators provide a snapshot at a particular moment in time and should not be considered in isolation, but supported with other relevant information sources. In keeping with our Financial Information Return review process and follow-up, Ministry staff may routinely contact and discuss this information with municipal officials.

Supplementary Indicators of Sustainability and Flexibility The following is a summary, adapted from the Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada Statement of Recommended Practice (SORP) 4. l A government (including a municipality) may choose to report supplementary information on financial condition, to expand on and help explain the government's financial statements. l Supplementary assessment of a government's financial condition needs to consider the elements of sustainability and flexibility. l Sustainability in this context may be seen as the degree to which a municipality can maintain its existing financial obligations both in respect of its service commitments to the public and financial commitments to creditors, employees and others without inappropriately increasing the debt or tax burden relative to the economy within which it operates. l Sustainability is an important element to include in an assessment of financial condition because it may help to describe a government's ability to manage its financial and service commitments and debt burden. It may also help to describe the impact that the level of debt could have on service provision. l Flexibility is the degree to which a government can change its debt or tax level on the economy within which it operates to meet its existing financial obligations both in respect of its service commitments to the public and financial commitments to creditors, employees and others. l Flexibility provides insights into how a government manages its finances. Increasing taxation or user fees may reduce a municipality's flexibility to respond when adverse circumstances develop if the municipality approaches the limit that citizens and businesses are willing to bear. A municipality may temporarily use current borrowing, subject to the requirements set out in the Municipal Act to meet expenses and certain other amounts required in the year, until taxes are collected and other revenues are received. Municipal current borrowing cannot be carried over the long term or converted to long term borrowing except in very limited circumstances. l For each element of financial condition, the report on indicators of financial condition should include municipality-specific indicators and municipality-related indicators. It may be useful to also include economy-wide information when discussing financial condition.

Additional Notes on what Financial Indicators may indicate:

Total Taxes Receivable less Allowance for Uncollectibles as a % of Total Taxes Levied - Shows how much of the taxes billed are not collected.

Net Financial Assets or Net Debt as % of Own Source Revenues - Indicates how much property tax and user fee revenue is servicing debt.

Reserves and Reserve Funds as a % of Municipal Expenses - Indicates how much money is set aside for future needs and contingencies.

Cash Ratio (Total Cash and Cash Equivalents as a % of Current Liabilities) - Indicates how much cash and liquid investments could be available to cover current obligations.

Debt Servicing Cost as a % of Total Revenues (Less Donated TCAs) - Indicates how much of each dollar raised in revenue is spent on paying down existing debt.

Closing Amortization Balance as a % or Total Cost of Capital Assets (Asset Consumption Ratio) - Indicates how much of the assets’ life expectancy has been consumed.

Annual Surplus / (Deficit) (Less Donated TCAs) as a % of Own Source Revenues - Indicates the municipality's ability to cover its operational costs and have funds available for other purposes (e.g. reserves, debt repayment, etc.)

The Northern and Rural Municipal Fiscal Circumstances Index (MFCI) is used by the Ministry of Finance to calculate the "Northern and Rural Fiscal Circumstances Grant" aimed at northern as well as single and lower-tier rural municipalities. The index measures a municipality’s fiscal circumstances. The MFCI is determined by six indicators: Weighted Assessment per Household, Median Household Income, Average Annual Change in Assessment (New Construction), Employment Rate, Ratio of Working Age to Dependent Population, and Per Cent of Population Above Low-Income Threshold. A lower MFCI corresponds to relatively positive fiscal circumstances, whereas a higher MFCI corresponds to more challenging fiscal circumstances. (Note: the MFCI index is only available for northern and rural municipalities)

Financial Services Report 2021-07 re: Financial Indicator Review (BasedPage ...20 of 73 Printed: 12/17/2020 Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing 2 of 3 F I N A N C I A L I N D I C A T O R R E V I E W (Based on 2019 Financial Information Return) Georgian Bay Tp C A L C U L A T I O N S

Total Taxes Rec. less Allowance for Uncollectibles as % of Total Taxes Levied SLC 70 0699 01 / (SLC 26 9199 03 - SLC 72 2899 09)

SLC 70 9945 01 / (SLC 10 9910 01 - SLC 10 0699 01 - SLC 10 0899 01 - Net Financial Assets or Net Debt as % of Own Source Revenues SLC 10 1098 01 - SLC 10 1099 01 - SLC 10 1811 01 - SLC 10 1812 01 - SLC 10 1813 01- SLC 10 1814 01 - SLC 10 1830 01 - SLC 10 1831 01 - SLC 12 1850 04)

Total Reserves and Reserve Funds as a % of Municipal Expenses (SLC 60 2099 02+SLC 60 2099 03)/(SLC 40 9910 11-SLC 12 9910 03-SLC 12 9910 07) Cash Ratio (Total Cash and Cash Equivalents as a % of Current Liabilities) SLC 70 0299 01 / (SLC 70 2099 01 + SLC 70 2299 01) Debt Servicing Cost as a % of Total Revenues (Less Donated TCAs) (SLC 74 3099 01 + SLC 74 3099 02) / (SLC 10 9910 01 - SLC 10 1831 01) Closing Amortization Balance as a % or Total Cost of Capital Assets (Asset Consumption Ratio) SLC 51 9910 10 / SLC 51 9910 06 (SLC 10 2099 01 - SLC 10 1831 01) / (SLC 10 9910 01 - SLC 10 0699 01 - Annual Surplus / (Deficit) (Less Donated TCAs) as a % of Own Source Revenues SLC 10 0899 01 - SLC 10 1098 01 - SLC 10 1099 01 - SLC 10 1811 01 - SLC 10 1812 01 - SLC 10 1813 01- SLC 10 1814 01 - SLC 10 1830 01 - SLC 10 1831 01 - SLC 12 1850 04)

Financial Services Report 2021-07 re: Financial Indicator Review (BasedPage ...21 of 73 Printed: 12/17/2020 Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing 3 of 3 Financial Services Report 2021-07 re: Financial Indicator Review (Based ... M U N I C I P A L F I N A N C I A L P R O F I L E S (Based on 2019 Financial Information Return) Georgian Bay Tp Muskoka D

South - LT - Regions - PROVINCE Rural 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 19/18 % 18/17 % 17/16 % 16/15 %

Population *3 2,063 2,063 2,063 2,063 2,554 10,073 38,762 23.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Households *3 5,681 5,690 5,700 5,736 5,786 5,843 15,556 0.9% 0.6% 0.2% 0.2% Municipal Expenses *7 $ 8,132,045 $ 7,673,957 $ 8,017,580 $ 8,144,595 $ 8,784,770 $ 13,908,908 $ 130,191,809 7.9% 1.6% 4.5% -5.6% Own Source Revenues $ 7,252,272 $ 6,967,788 $ 7,396,173 $ 7,480,947 $ 7,872,160 $ 12,798,752 $ 107,683,847 5.2% 1.1% 6.1% -3.9% Own Source Revenue per Household $ 1,277 $ 1,225 $ 1,298 $ 1,304 $ 1,361 $ 2,254 $ 3,624 4.3% 0.5% 6.0% -4.1% Own Source Revenue as a % of Total Revenues (Less Donated TCAs) 72.6% 82.0% 82.8% 83.1% 79.0% 77.6% 71.0% -5.0% 0.3% 1.1% 13.0% Total Revenues $ 9,994,310 $ 8,500,201 $ 8,928,608 $ 9,001,599 $ 9,970,067 $ 16,331,492 $ 152,172,594 10.8% 0.8% 5.0% -14.9% Annual Repayment Limit $ 1,249,176 $ 1,470,754 $ 1,589,777 $ 1,510,474 $ 1,615,555 $ 3,201,061 $ 19,394,610 7.0% -5.0% 8.1% 17.7% Own Purpose Taxation $ 5,105,621 $ 5,163,168 $ 5,277,348 $ 5,461,898 $ 5,753,635 $ 9,428,954 $ 59,285,331 5.3% 3.5% 2.2% 1.1% Direct Water Billings as % of Gross Water Expenditures 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 60.2% Taxable Res. Assessment as a % of Total Taxable Assessment 97.5% 97.8% 97.8% 97.8% 97.8% 80.4% 78.5% D I S C O U N T E D W E I G H T E D A S S E S S M E N T *1 (Source: Financial Information Return) 2019 AVERAGES FOR:

South - LT - Regions - PROVINCE Rural 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Taxable 2,583,214,204 2,686,868,157 2,612,242,048 2,665,935,382 2,727,565,631 2,470,257,167 8,396,692,794 PIL 49,764,706 55,947,560 56,863,675 58,367,365 60,889,032 20,851,236 122,253,301 Total 2,632,978,910 2,742,815,717 2,669,105,723 2,724,302,747 2,788,454,663 2,491,108,403 8,518,946,095 Page 22 of 73

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Printed: 12/22/2020 1 of 10 Financial Services Report 2021-07 re: Financial Indicator Review (Based ... M U N I C I P A L F I N A N C I A L P R O F I L E S (Based on 2019 Financial Information Return) Georgian Bay Tp Muskoka D

South - LT - Regions - PROVINCE Rural 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 19/18 % 18/17 % 17/16 % 16/15 % # of Residential Households 5,609 5,628 5,657 5,659 5,689 5,523 11,624 0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 0.3% Avg Municipal Property Taxes Per Avg Residential Household $ 2,326 $ 2,411 $ 2,407 $ 2,425 $ 2,502 $ 2,844 $ 2,392 3.2% 0.8% -0.2% 3.6% Avg Total Property Taxes per Avg Residential Household $ 3,150 $ 3,236 $ 3,167 $ 3,163 $ 3,214 $ 3,432 $ 2,781 1.6% -0.1% -2.1% 2.7% Avg Total Property Taxes per Avg Residential Household as a % of Median Household Income (Tax Effort) 6.1% 4.8% 4.7% 4.7% 4.7% 4.4% 4.2%

# of Residential Households Excluding Recreational Properties (Excl. RDUs) 1,071 1,091 1,108 1,097 1,109 3,961 11,156 1.1% -1.0% 1.6% 1.9% Avg Municipal Property Taxes Per Avg Residential Household (Excl. RDUs) $ 1,771 $ 1,809 $ 1,781 $ 1,818 $ 1,882 $ 2,575 $ 2,371 3.6% 2.0% -1.6% 2.2% Avg Total Property Taxes per Avg Residential Household (Excl. RDUs) $ 2,398 $ 2,428 $ 2,344 $ 2,371 $ 2,418 $ 3,081 $ 2,754 2.0% 1.2% -3.5% 1.2% Avg Total Property Taxes per Avg Residential Household (Excl. RDUs) as a % of Median Household Income (Tax Effort) 4.6% 3.6% 3.5% 3.5% 3.6% 3.9% 4.2% R E S I D E N T I A L T A X R A T E S *2 (Source: Financial Information Return)

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 19/18 % 18/17 % 17/16 % 16/15 % Lower / Single-Tier General Rate 0.0018930 0.0018227 0.0019126 0.0019029 0.0019211 1.0% -0.5% 4.9% -3.7% Upper-Tier General Rate 0.0027832 0.0028513 0.0028723 0.0028759 0.0028585 -0.6% 0.1% 0.7% 2.4% Education Rate 0.0019500 0.0018800 0.0017900 0.0017000 0.0016100 -5.3% -5.0% -4.8% -3.6% T A X E S R E C E I V A B L E 2019 AVERAGES FOR:

South - LT - Regions - PROVINCE Rural 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 19/18 % 18/17 % 17/16 % 16/15 % Page 23 of 73 Total Taxes Receivable less Allowance for Uncollectibles $ 1,458,031 $ 1,489,797 $ 1,471,725 $ 1,614,587 $ 1,715,418 $ 1,935,058 $ 3,829,623 6.2% 9.7% -1.2% 2.2% Total Taxes Rec. less Allowance for Uncollectibles as % of Total Taxes Levied 7.4% 7.4% 7.4% 8.1% 8.5% 6.8% 8.7% Current Year Taxes Receivable as % of Total Taxes Receivable 72.1% 72.9% 79.3% 78.9% 78.4% 56.4% 57.3% Working Fund Reserves & Contingency Funds as % of Current Yr Taxes Rec. 123.2% 119.2% 106.2% 86.1% 204.0% 87.6% 279.0% Previous and Prior Years Taxes Receivable as % of Total Taxes Receivable 23.2% 22.1% 16.5% 16.4% 17.0% 33.3% 32.0%

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Printed: 12/22/2020 2 of 10 Financial Services Report 2021-07 re: Financial Indicator Review (Based ... M U N I C I P A L F I N A N C I A L P R O F I L E S (Based on 2019 Financial Information Return) Georgian Bay Tp Muskoka D

South - LT - Regions - PROVINCE Rural 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 19/18 % 18/17 % 17/16 % 16/15 % Total Unconditional Grants $ 1,037,800 $ 1,101,500 $ 1,136,500 $ 1,099,700 $ 1,641,410 $ 1,537,981 $ 1,367,789 49.3% -3.2% 3.2% 6.1% Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund $ 1,037,800 $ 1,101,500 $ 1,136,500 $ 1,099,700 $ 1,037,300 $ 1,121,800 $ 1,211,180 -5.7% -3.2% 3.2% 6.1% As % of Municipal Expenses 12.8% 14.4% 14.2% 13.5% 11.8% 8.4% 9.7% Other $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 604,110 $ 416,181 $ 156,609 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Total Ontario Conditional Grants $ 1,455,409 $ 63,815 $ 84,049 $ 129,725 $ 99,601 $ 773,578 $ 23,856,639 -23.2% 54.3% 31.7% -95.6% As a % of Municipal Expenses 17.9% 0.8% 1.0% 1.6% 1.1% 6.0% 15.3% Total Ontario Conditional and Unconditional Grants As a % of Municipal Expenses 30.7% 15.2% 15.2% 15.1% 19.8% 16.6% 19.4% T O T A L D E B T B U R D E N 2019 AVERAGES FOR:

South - LT - Regions - PROVINCE Rural 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 19/18 % 18/17 % 17/16 % 16/15 % Total Debt Burden $ 2,045,125 $ 1,910,711 $ 1,769,299 $ 3,120,522 $ 2,911,837 $ 4,132,606 $ 64,686,891 -6.7% 76.4% -7.4% -6.6% Per Household $ 360 $ 336 $ 310 $ 544 $ 503 $ 660 $ 1,362 -7.5% 75.3% -7.6% -6.7% Debt Servicing Cost $ 233,981 $ 236,110 $ 236,017 $ 235,921 $ 348,458 $ 795,248 $ 6,282,918 47.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% Per Household $ 41 $ 41 $ 41 $ 41 $ 60 $ 127 $ 179 46.4% -0.7% -0.2% 0.8% As a % of Municipal Expenses 2.9% 3.1% 2.9% 2.9% 4.0% 5.2% 4.0% As a % of Own Purpose Taxation 4.6% 4.6% 4.5% 4.3% 6.1% 7.2% 7.6% As a % of Own Source Revenue 3.2% 3.4% 3.2% 3.2% 4.4% 5.4% 4.6% As a % of Total Revenues (Less Donated TCAs) 2.3% 2.8% 2.6% 2.6% 3.5% 4.3% 3.3% Debt Service Coverage Ratio (Target: Ratio >= 2) 15 10 10 10 8 17 43 Page 24 of 73

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Printed: 12/22/2020 3 of 10 Financial Services Report 2021-07 re: Financial Indicator Review (Based ... M U N I C I P A L F I N A N C I A L P R O F I L E S (Based on 2019 Financial Information Return) Georgian Bay Tp Muskoka D

South - LT - Regions - PROVINCE Rural 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 19/18 % 18/17 % 17/16 % 16/15 % Temp. Loans for Current Purposes as % of Municipal Expenses 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% Post-Employment Benefits $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 114,863 $ 24,843,415 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Total Reserves and Reserve Funds for Post-Employment Benefits $ 5,214 $ 5,214 $ 5,214 $ 5,214 $ 5,214 $ 130,431 $ 3,987,549 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% R E S E R V E S A N D R E S E R V E F U N D S 2019 AVERAGES FOR:

South - LT - Regions - PROVINCE Rural 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 19/18 % 18/17 % 17/16 % 16/15 % Total Reserves $ 3,953,208 $ 4,636,896 $ 5,172,330 $ 4,484,748 $ 6,786,677 $ 6,554,118 $ 27,948,601 51.3% -13.3% 11.5% 17.3% Total Discretionary Reserve Funds $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,179,790 $ 37,147,255 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Total Reserves and Discretionary Reserve Funds $ 3,953,208 $ 4,636,896 $ 5,172,330 $ 4,484,748 $ 6,786,677 $ 8,733,908 $ 65,095,855 51.3% -13.3% 11.5% 17.3% Per Household $ 696 $ 815 $ 907 $ 782 $ 1,173 $ 1,555 $ 2,603 50.0% -13.8% 11.4% 17.1% As a % of Total Taxes Receivable 266.3% 305.8% 345.3% 273.4% 389.8% 620.6% 1124.1% As a % of Municipal Expenses 48.6% 60.4% 64.5% 55.1% 77.3% 65.0% 64.0% As a % of Own Purpose Taxation 77.4% 89.8% 98.0% 82.1% 118.0% 93.2% 115.6% F I N A N C I A L A S S E T S

2019 AVERAGES FOR:

South - LT - Regions - PROVINCE Rural 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Page 25 of 73 Net Financial Assets or Net Debt as a % of Total Revenues (Less Donated TCAs) 20.5% 39.0% 51.2% 36.4% 39.1% 57.6% 32.3% Net Financial Assets or Net Debt as % of Own Source Revenues 28.2% 47.6% 61.8% 43.8% 49.5% 75.8% 46.3% Net Working Capital as a % of Municipal Expenses 73.9% 90.3% 102.0% 101.5% 99.8% 83.8% 65.2% Net Book Value of Capital Assets as a % of Cost of Capital Assets 40.3% 38.4% 36.7% 40.6% 41.0% 48.2% 54.2% Asset Sustainability Ratio (Target: > 90%) 203.6% 70.7% 71.6% 164.4% 84.3% 119.3% 173.8% Closing Amortization Balance as a % of Total Cost of Capital Assets (Asset Consumption Ratio) 56.5% 58.3% 60.1% 59.8% 61.3% 51.6% 46.2%

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Printed: 12/22/2020 4 of 10 Financial Services Report 2021-07 re: Financial Indicator Review (Based ... M U N I C I P A L F I N A N C I A L P R O F I L E S (Based on 2019 Financial Information Return) Georgian Bay Tp Muskoka D

2019 AVERAGES FOR:

South - LT - Regions - PROVINCE Rural 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 19/18 % 18/17 % 17/16 % 16/15 % Annual Surplus / (Deficit) (Less Donated TCAs) $ 1,819,509 $ 800,574 $ 911,028 $ 857,004 $ 1,185,297 $ 2,217,379 $ 16,518,431 38.3% -5.9% 13.8% -56.0% Annual Surplus / (Deficit) (Less Donated TCAs) Adjusted for Ontario Budget Reg. 284/09) $ 3,197,460 $ 2,079,274 $ 2,157,670 $ 2,030,361 $ 2,408,113 $ 4,857,529 $ 30,488,125 18.6% -5.9% 3.8% -35.0% Annual Surplus / (Deficit) (Less Donated TCAs) as a % of Own Source Revenues 25.1% 11.5% 12.3% 11.5% 15.1% 20.1% 24.0% Current Ratio (Target: >= 100%) 567.4% 1127.7% 799.5% 641.2% 1095.7% 458.5% 611.8% O T H E R I N D I C A T O R S 2019 AVERAGES FOR:

South - LT - Regions - PROVINCE Rural 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Rates Coverage Ratio (Target: >=40%) 84.2% 85.1% 87.2% 86.0% 83.9% 79.0% 74.3% Cash Ratio (Total Cash and Cash Equivalents as a % of Current Liabilities) 3.49:1 8.37:1 6.13:1 4.88:1 8.32:1 3.56:1 4.62:1 Operating Balance as a % of Total Revenues (Less Donated TCAs)*5 18.2% 9.4% 10.2% 9.5% 11.9% 15.3% 16.0% Cumulative Annual Growth Rate *6 9.1% 5.8% 0.1% -3.3% 1.0% 3.9% 3.3% Interest Payments as a % of Total Revenues (Less Donated TCAs) 1.1% 1.2% 1.1% 1.0% 1.4% 1.0% 0.8% Page 26 of 73

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Printed: 12/22/2020 5 of 10 Financial Services Report 2021-07 re: Financial Indicator Review (Based ... M U N I C I P A L F I N A N C I A L P R O F I L E S (Based on 2019 Financial Information Return) Georgian Bay Tp Muskoka D

2019 AVERAGES FOR:

South - LT - Regions - PROVINCE Rural 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Own Source Revenue as a % of Total Revenues (Less Donated TCAs) 72.6% 82.0% 82.8% 83.1% 79.0% 77.6% 71.0% -5.0% 0.3% 1.1% 13.0% Own Source Revenue per Household $ 1,277 $ 1,225 $ 1,298 $ 1,304 $ 1,361 $ 2,254 $ 3,624 4.3% 0.5% 6.0% -4.1% Avg Municipal Property Taxes Per Avg Residential Household $ 2,326 $ 2,411 $ 2,407 $ 2,425 $ 2,502 $ 2,844 $ 2,392 3.2% 0.8% -0.2% 3.6% as a % of Median Household Income (Tax Effort) 6.1% 4.8% 4.7% 4.7% 4.7% 4.4% 4.2%

S U P P L E M E N T A R Y I N D I C A T O R S O F S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y , F L E X I B I L I T Y A N D V U L N E R A B I L I T Y

The following is a summary, adapted from the Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada Statement of Recommended Practice (SORP) 4:

l A government (including a municipality) may choose to report supplementary information on financial condition, to expand on and help explain the government's financial statements. l Supplementary assessment of a government's financial condition needs to consider, at a minimum, the elements of sustainability, flexibility and vulnerability. l Vulnerability in this context may be seen as the degree to which a municipality is dependent on sources of funding outside its control or influence or is exposed to risks that could impair its ability to meet its existing financial obligations both in respect of its service commitments to the public and financial commitments to creditors, employees and others. l Vulnerability is an important element of financial condition because it provides insights into a municipality's reliance on funding sources outside its direct control or influence and its exposure to risks. A municipality whose vulnerability is relatively low has greater control over its financial condition. l For each element of financial condition, the report on indicators of financial condition should include municipality-specific indicators and municipality-related indicators. It may be useful to also include economy-wide information when discussing financial condition.

ADDITIONAL NOTES ON WHAT FINANCIAL MEASURES MAY INDICATE: Own Source Revenue as a % of Total Revenues (Less TCAs) Indicates the extent to which a municipality has a high proportion of revenues for its own sources, reducing its impact to a change in transfers from other levels of government.

Page 27 of 73 Own Source Revenue per Household Indicates the demand for resources and the municipality's ability and willingness to provide resources. Average Municipal Property Taxes per Average Residential Household Indicates the level of taxes on residential households for municipal purposes. Average Municipal Property Taxes per Average Residential Household as a % of Average Household Income Indicates the portion of a ratepayer's income used to pay municipal property taxes.

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Printed: 12/22/2020 6 of 10 Financial Services Report 2021-07 re: Financial Indicator Review (Based ... M U N I C I P A L F I N A N C I A L P R O F I L E S (Based on 2019 Financial Information Return) Georgian Bay Tp Muskoka D

***************************************************************************************************************************************************** The data and information contained in this document is for informational purposes only. Any use of the data and information in this document should be done by qualified individuals. This information is not intended to be used on its own and should be used in conjunction with other financial information and resources available. ***************************************************************************************************************************************************** N O T E S

1* 2015 and 2016 assessment use phase-in assessment based on 2012 property values. 2017 , 2018 and 2019 assessment uses phase-in assessment based on 2016 property values. 2* Average tax rates are calculated where necessary when amalgamations occur. 3* Household and Population data are as reported by the municipality on Schedule 02 of the FIR. 4* Median Household Income - Source: Statistics Canada - 2016 Census - File: 98-402-X2016006-t1-CSD-ENG. 5* Total Revenues include revenues from other municipalities. 6* The Cumulative Annual Growth Rate has been measured over a three year period. Infrastructure Ontario uses a five year period. 7* Total Municipal Expenses exclude amounts for other municipalities 8* MFCI index - Source: Ministry of Finance. This index is available for northern and rural municipalities only. N U M B E R O F M U N I C I P A L I T I E S I N C O M P A R I S O N G R O U P S

South - LT - Regions - Province Rural 2015 16 444 2016 16 444 2017 16 444 2018 16 444 2019 12 334 Page 28 of 73

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Printed: 12/22/2020 7 of 10 Financial Services Report 2021-07 re: Financial Indicator Review (Based ... M U N I C I P A L F I N A N C I A L P R O F I L E S (Based on 2019 Financial Information Return) Georgian Bay Tp Muskoka D

Date Prepared: 2019 FIR Load Status: Accepted Clean 2019 Households: 5,786 Median Household Income (2016) : *4 67,904 MSO Office: Central Last Updated: September 22, 2020 2019 Population: 2,554 2020 Annual Repayment Limit: 1,640,660 Prepared By: 2020 MFCI Index: *8 4.6 Borrowing Capacity 7% over 10 yrs: 11,523,309 C A L C U L A T I O N S S T A T I S T I C A L I N F O R M A T I O N Population *3 SLC 02 0041 01 Households *3 SLC 02 0040 01 Municipal Expenses *7 SLC 40 9910 11 - SLC 12 9910 03 - SLC 12 9910 07 Own Source Revenues SLC 10 9910 01 - SLC 10 0699 01 - SLC 10 0899 01 - SLC 10 1098 01 - SLC 10 1099 01 - SLC 10 1811 01 - SLC 10 1812 01 - SLC 10 1813 01 - SLC 10 1814 01 - SLC 10 1830 01 - SLC 10 1831 01 - SLC 12 1850 04 Own Source Revenue per Household Own Source Revenues / SLC 02 0040 01 Own Source Revenue as a % of Total Revenues (Less Donated TCAs) Own Source Revenues / (SLC 10 9910 01 - SLC 10 1831 01) Total Revenues SLC 10 9910 01 Annual Repayment Limit The annual repayment limit is calculated annually as per Ontario regulation 403/02. To view the full calculation of the annual repayment limit, please go to the FIR website. https://efis.fma.csc.gov.on.ca/fir/ViewARL.htm ARLs for all municipalities (except the City of Toronto) are posted here as they are made available. Own Purpose Taxation SLC 10 0299 01 Direct Water Billings as % of Gross Water Expenditures (SLC 12 0831 04 + SLC 12 0832 04) / (SLC 40 0831 11 + SLC 40 0832 11) Taxable Res. Assessment as a % of Total Taxable Assessment SLC 26 0010 17 / SLC 26 9199 17

D I S C O U N T E D W E I G H T E D A S S E S S M E N T *1 (Source: Financial Information Return)

Taxable SLC 26 9199 17 PIL SLC 26 9299 17 Total SLC 26 9199 17 + SLC 26 9299 17 R E S I D E N T I A L T A X E S

# of Residential Households Residential CVA and corresponding household counts are provided by OPTA (excludes the City of Toronto). Residential assessment includes: Avg Municipal Property Taxes Per Avg Residential Household Single Family, 2 - 6 Units, Farm Residential and Recreational (where included). Note: does not include vacant land. Avg Total Property Taxes per Avg Residential Household Avg Total Property Taxes per Avg Residential Household If labeled (Excl. RDUs) Recreational units are excluded. as a % of Median Household Income (Tax Effort) An average household assessment is calculated by taking the sum of the CVA for these residential groups divided by the corresponding households.

Page 29 of 73 # of Residential Households Excluding Recreational Properties (Excl. RDUs) Avg Municipal Property Taxes Per Avg Residential Household (Excl. RDUs) An estimated tax rate for each tier (i.e. lower tier, upper tier and school) is applied to the average household assessment to calculate the averages taxes per household by tier. Avg Total Property Taxes per Avg Residential Household (Excl. RDUs) (the estimated tax rates are provided by OPTA). Avg Total Property Taxes per Avg Residential Household (Excl. RDUs) as a % of Median Household Income (Tax Effort)

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Printed: 12/22/2020 8 of 10 Financial Services Report 2021-07 re: Financial Indicator Review (Based ... M U N I C I P A L F I N A N C I A L P R O F I L E S (Based on 2019 Financial Information Return) Georgian Bay Tp Muskoka D

R E S I D E N T I A L T A X R A T E S *2 (Source: Financial Information Return)

Lower / Single-Tier General Rate SLC 22 0010 12 / SLC 22 0010 16 Upper-Tier General Rate SLC 22 0010 13 / SLC 22 0010 16 Education Rate SLC 22 0010 14 / SLC 22 0010 16 T A X E S R E C E I V A B L E

Total Taxes Receivable less Allowance for Uncollectibles SLC 70 0699 01 Total Taxes Rec. less Allowance for Uncollectibles as % of Total Taxes Levied SLC 70 0699 01 / (SLC 26 9199 03 - SLC 72 2899 09) Current Year Taxes Receivable as % of Total Taxes Receivable SLC 70 0610 01 / (SLC 70 0690 01 + SLC 70 0699 01) Working Fund Reserves & Contingency Funds as % of Current Yr Taxes Rec. (SLC 60 5010 02 + SLC 60 5020 03) / SLC 70 0610 01 Previous and Prior Years Taxes Receivable as % of Total Taxes Receivable (SLC 70 0620 01 + SLC 70 0630 01) / (SLC 70 0699 01 + SLC 70 0690 01) G R A N T S

Total Unconditional Grants SLC 10 0699 01 Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund SLC 10 0620 02 As % of Municipal Expenses SLC 10 0620 01 / (SLC 40 9910 11 - SLC 12 9910 03 - SLC 12 9910 07) Other SLC 10 0699 01 - SLC 10 0620 01 Total Ontario Conditional Grants SLC 10 0810 01 + SLC 10 0815 01 As a % of Municipal Expenses (SLC 10 0810 01 + SLC 10 0815 01) / (SLC 40 9910 11 - SLC 12 9910 03 - SLC 12 9910 07) Total Ontario Conditional and Unconditional Grants As a % of Municipal Expenses (SLC 10 0699 01 + SLC 10 0810 01 + SLC 10 0815 01) / (SLC 40 9910 11 - SLC 12 9910 03 - SLC 12 9910 07) T O T A L D E B T B U R D E N

Total Debt Burden SLC 74 9910 01 Per Household SLC 74 9910 01 / SLC 02 0040 01 Debt Servicing Cost SLC 74 3099 01 + SLC 74 3099 02 Per Household (SLC 74 3099 01 + SLC 74 3099 02) / SLC 02 0040 01 As a % of Municipal Expenses (SLC 74 3099 01 + SLC 74 3099 02) / (SLC 40 9910 11 - SLC 12 9910 03 - SLC 12 9910 07) As a % of Own Purpose Taxation (SLC 74 3099 01 + SLC 74 3099 02) / SLC 10 0299 01

Page 30 of 73 As a % of Own Source Revenue (SLC 74 3099 01 + SLC 74 3099 02) / (SLC 10 9910 01 - SLC 10 0699 01 - SLC 10 0899 01 - SLC 10 1098 01 - SLC 10 1099 01 - SLC 10 1811 01 - SLC 10 1812 01 - SLC 10 1813 01 - SLC 10 1814 01 - SLC 10 1830 01 - SLC 10 1831 01 - SLC 12 1850 04) As a % of Total Revenues (Less Donated TCAs) (SLC 74 3099 01 + SLC 74 3099 02) / (SLC 10 9910 01 - SLC 10 1831 01) Debt Service Coverage Ratio (Target: Ratio >= 2) (SLC 10 9910 01 - SLC 40 9910 11 + SLC 40 9910 02 + SLC 40 9910 16) / (SLC 74 3099 01 + SLC 74 3099 02)

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Printed: 12/22/2020 9 of 10 Financial Services Report 2021-07 re: Financial Indicator Review (Based ... M U N I C I P A L F I N A N C I A L P R O F I L E S (Based on 2019 Financial Information Return) Georgian Bay Tp Muskoka D

Temp. Loans for Current Purposes as % of Municipal Expenses SLC 70 2010 01 / (SLC 40 9910 11 - SLC 12 9910 03 - SLC 12 9910 07) Post-Employment Benefits SLC 70 2899 01 Total Reserves and Reserve Funds for Post-Employment Benefits SLC 60 5060 02 + SLC 60 5060 03 + SLC 60 5070 02 + SLC 60 5070 03 + SLC 60 5080 02 + SLC 60 5080 03 + SLC 60 5090 02 + SLC 60 5090 03 R E S E R V E S A N D R E S E R V E F U N D S

Total Reserves SLC 60 2099 03 Total Discretionary Reserve Funds SLC 60 2099 02 Total Reserves and Discretionary Reserve Funds SLC 60 2099 02 + SLC 60 2099 03 Per Household (SLC 60 2099 02 + SLC 60 2099 03) / SLC 02 0040 01 As a % of Total Taxes Receivable (SLC 60 2099 02 + SLC 60 2099 03) / (SLC 70 0699 01 + SLC 70 0690 01) As a % of Municipal Expenses (SLC 60 2099 02 + SLC 60 2099 03) / (SLC 40 9910 11 - SLC 12 9910 03 - SLC 12 9910 07) As a % of Own Purpose Taxation (SLC 60 2099 02 + SLC 60 2099 03) / SLC 20 0299 01 F I N A N C I A L A S S E T S

Net Financial Assets or Net Debt as a % of Total Revenues (Less Donated TCAs) SLC 70 9945 01 / (SLC 10 9910 01 - SLC 10 1831 01) SLC 70 9945 01 / (SLC 10 9910 01 - SLC 10 0699 01 - SLC 10 0899 01 - SLC 10 1098 01 - SLC 10 1099 01 - SLC 10 1811 01 - SLC 10 1812 01 - SLC 10 1813 01- SLC 10 1814 01 - SLC 10 1830 01 - Net Financial Assets or Net Debt as % of Own Source Revenues SLC 10 1831 01 - SLC 12 1850 04) Net Working Capital as a % of Municipal Expenses (SLC 70 0299 02 + SLC 70 0499 01 + SLC 70 0699 01 + SLC 70 0830 01 + SLC 70 0835 01 + SLC 70 6250 01 + SLC 70 6260 01 + SLC 70 2010 01 + SLC 70 2299 01) / (SLC 40 9910 11 - SLC 12 9910 03 - SLC 12 9910 07) Net Book Value of Capital Assets as a % of Cost of Capital Assets (SLC 70 6210 01 - SLC 51 2005 11 - SLC 51 2205 11) / (SLC 51 9910 06 - SLC 51 2005 11 - SLC 51 2205 11) Asset Sustainability Ratio (Target: > 90%) SLC 51 9910 03 / SLC 51 9910 08 Closing Amortization Balance as a % of Total Cost of Capital Assets (Asset Consumption Ratio) SLC 51 9910 10 / SLC 51 9910 06 S U R P L U S / D E F I C I T

Annual Surplus / (Deficit) (Less Donated TCAs) SLC 10 2099 01 - SLC 10 1831 01 SLC 10 2099 01 - SLC 10 1831 01 + SLC 40 9910 16 + (SLC 70 2799 01 (CY) - SLC 70 2799 01 (PY)) + (SLC 70 2899 01 (CY) - SLC 70 2899 01 (PY)) - SLC 74 3099 01 Annual Surplus / (Deficit) (Less Donated TCAs) Adjusted for Ontario Budget Reg. 284/09) (CY = CURRENT YEAR, PY - PREVIOUS YEAR)

(SLC 10 2099 01 - SLC 10 1831 01) / (SLC 10 9910 01 - SLC 10 0699 01 - SLC 10 0899 01 - Page 31 of 73 Annual Surplus / (Deficit) (Less Donated TCAs) as a % of Own Source Revenues SLC 10 1098 01 - SLC 10 1099 01 - SLC 10 1811 01 - SLC 10 1812 01 - SLC 10 1813 01- SLC 10 1814 01 - SLC 10 1830 01 - SLC 10 1831 01 - SLC 12 1850 04) Current Ratio (Target: >= 100%) (SLC 70 9930 01 - SLC 70 0829 01 - SLC 70 0845 01 - SLC 70 0898 01) / (SLC 70 2099 01 + SLC 70 2299 01) O T H E R I N D I C A T O R S

Rates Coverage Ratio (Target: >=40%) (SLC 10 0299 01 + SLC 10 1299 01 + SLC 10 1880 01 + SLC 10 1885 01) / SLC 40 9910 01 Cash Ratio (Total Cash and Cash Equivalents as a % of Current Liabilities) SLC 70 0299 01 / (SLC 70 2099 01 + SLC 70 2299 01) Operating Balance as a % of Total Revenues (Less Donated TCAs)*5 (SLC 10 9910 01 - SLC 40 9910 07) / (SLC 10 9910 01 - SLC 10 1831 01) Cumulative Annual Growth Rate *6 ((SLC 10 9910 01 (CY) / SLC 10 9910 01 (CY - 3) ^ (1/3) - 1) - ((SLC 40 9910 07 (CY) / SLC 40 9910 07 (CY -3) ^ (1/3) - 1) Interest Payments as a % of Total Revenues (Less Donated TCAs) SLC 74 2099 02 / (SLC 10 9910 01 - SLC 10 1831 01)

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Printed: 12/22/2020 10 of 10 MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS FINANCIAL INDICATORS MUNICIPAL GROUPINGS - SOUTHERN ONTARIO

Toronto MSO NAME Central Toronto C

South - Single Tier MSO NAME MSO NAME Central Barrie C Western Norfolk County Eastern Belleville C Central Orillia C Western Brant County Eastern Ottawa C Western Brantford C Western Pelee Tp Eastern Brockville C Eastern Pembroke C Western Chatham-Kent M Eastern Peterborough C Eastern Cornwall C Eastern Prescott ST Eastern Gananoque ST Eastern Prince Edward County C Western Guelph C Eastern Quinte West C Western Haldimand County Eastern Smiths Falls ST Central Hamilton C Western St. Marys ST Eastern Kawartha Lakes C Western St. Thomas C Eastern Kingston C Western Stratford C Western London C Western Windsor C

South - Upper Tier - Regions MSO NAME MSO NAME Central Durham R Western Oxford Co Central Halton R Central Peel R Central Muskoka D Western Waterloo R Central Niagara R Central York R

South - Upper Tier - Counties MSO NAME MSO NAME Western Bruce Co Eastern Leeds and Grenville UCo Central Dufferin Co Eastern Lennox and Addington Co Western Elgin Co Western Middlesex Co Western Essex Co Eastern Northumberland Co Eastern Frontenac Co Western Perth Co Western Grey Co Eastern Peterborough Co Eastern Haliburton Co Eastern Prescott and Russell UCo Eastern Hastings Co Eastern Renfrew Co Western Huron Co Central Simcoe Co Western Lambton Co Eastern Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry UCo Eastern Lanark Co Western Wellington Co

Financial Services Report 2021-07 re: Financial Indicator Review (Based ... Page 32 of 73 MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS FINANCIAL INDICATORS MUNICIPAL GROUPINGS - SOUTHERN ONTARIO

South - Lower Tier Municipalities in Regions, Rural MSO NAME MSO NAME Western Blandford - Blenheim Tp Western Norwich Tp Central Bracebridge T Central Scugog Tp Central Brock Tp Western South-West Oxford Tp Western East Zorra - Tavistock Tp Central Wainfleet Tp Central Georgian Bay Tp Western Wellesley Tp Central Gravenhurst T Central West Lincoln Tp Central Huntsville T Western Wilmot Tp Central Lake of Bays Tp Western Zorra Tp Central Muskoka Lakes Tp

South - Lower Tier Municipalities in Regions, Non-Rural MSO NAME MSO NAME Central Ajax T Central Niagara Falls C Central Aurora T Central Niagara-on-the-Lake T Central Brampton C Western North Dumfries Tp Central Burlington C Central Oakville T Central Caledon T Central Oshawa C Western Cambridge C Central Pelham T Central Clarington M Central Pickering C Central East Gwillimbury T Central Port Colborne C Central Fort Erie T Central Richmond Hill T Central Georgina T Central St. Catharines C Central Grimsby T Central Thorold C Central Halton Hills T Western Tillsonburg T Western Ingersoll T Central Uxbridge Tp Central King Tp Central Vaughan C Western Kitchener C Western Waterloo C Central Lincoln T Central Welland C Central Markham C Central Whitby T Central Milton T Central Whitchurch - Stouffville T Central Mississauga C Western Woodstock C Central Newmarket T Western Woolwich Tp

South - Lower-Tier Municipalities in Counties, Non-Rural MSO NAME MSO NAME Western Amherstburg T Central New Tecumseth T Central Bradford-West Gwillimbury T Central Orangeville T Western Central Elgin M Western Owen Sound C Western Centre Wellington Tp Central Penetanguishene T Eastern Clarence-Rockland C Eastern Petawawa T Eastern Cobourg T Western Point Edward V Central Collingwood T Eastern Port Hope M Western Guelph-Eramosa Tp Eastern Russell Tp Eastern Hawkesbury T Western Sarnia C Central Innisfil T Eastern Selwyn Tp Western Kingsville T Central Springwater Tp Western LaSalle T Western St. Clair Tp Western Lakeshore T Western Strathroy-Caradoc M Western Leamington M Central Tay Tp Eastern Loyalist Tp Western Tecumseh T Central Midland T Western Thames Centre M Central Mono T

Financial Services Report 2021-07 re: Financial Indicator Review (Based ... Page 33 of 73 MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS FINANCIAL INDICATORS MUNICIPAL GROUPINGS - SOUTHERN ONTARIO

South - Lower-Tier Municipalities in Counties, Rural (Part 1 of 2) MSO NAME MSO NAME Eastern Addington Highlands Tp Western Essex T Western Adelaide-Metcalfe Tp Eastern Faraday Tp Central Adjala-Tosorontio Tp Eastern Front of Yonge Tp Eastern Admaston-Bromley Tp Eastern Frontenac Islands Tp Eastern Alfred and Plantagenet Tp Western Georgian Bluffs Tp Eastern Algonquin Highlands Tp Western Goderich T Eastern Alnwick-Haldimand Tp Central Grand Valley T Central Amaranth Tp Eastern Greater Madawaska Tp Eastern Arnprior T Eastern Greater Napanee T Western Arran-Elderslie M Western Grey Highlands M Western Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh Tp Eastern Hamilton Tp Eastern Asphodel-Norwood Tp Western Hanover T Eastern Athens Tp Eastern Hastings Highlands M Eastern Augusta Tp Eastern Havelock-Belmont-Methuen Tp Western Aylmer T Eastern Head, Clara and Maria Tp Eastern Bancroft T Eastern Highlands East M Western Bayham M Eastern Horton Tp Eastern Beckwith Tp Western Howick Tp Western Bluewater M Western Huron East M Eastern Bonnechere Valley Tp Western Huron-Kinloss Tp Eastern Brighton M Eastern Killaloe, Hagarty and Richards Tp Western Brockton M Western Kincardine M Western Brooke-Alvinston M Western Lambton Shores M Eastern Brudenell, Lyndoch and Raglan Tp Eastern Lanark Highlands Tp Eastern Carleton Place T Eastern Laurentian Hills T Eastern Carlow-Mayo Tp Eastern Laurentian Valley Tp Eastern Casselman V Eastern Leeds and the Thousand Islands Tp Eastern Cavan Monaghan Tp Eastern Limerick Tp Eastern Central Frontenac Tp Western Lucan Biddulph Tp Western Central Huron M Eastern Madawaska Valley Tp Eastern Centre Hastings M Eastern Madoc Tp Eastern Champlain Tp Western Malahide Tp Western Chatsworth Tp Western Mapleton Tp Central Clearview Tp Eastern Marmora and Lake M Eastern Cramahe Tp Eastern McNab-Braeside Tp Western Dawn-Euphemia Tp Western Meaford M Eastern Deep River T Central Melancthon Tp Eastern Deseronto T Eastern Merrickville-Wolford V Eastern Douro-Dummer Tp Western Middlesex Centre M Eastern Drummond-North Elmsley Tp Eastern Minden Hills Tp Western Dutton-Dunwich M Western Minto T Eastern Dysart et al Tp Eastern Mississippi Mills M Central East Garafraxa Tp Eastern Montague Tp Eastern East Hawkesbury Tp Western Morris-Turnberry M Eastern Edwardsburgh-Cardinal Tp Central Mulmur Tp Eastern Elizabethtown-Kitley Tp Western Newbury V Western Enniskillen Tp Eastern North Algona-Wilberforce Tp Western Erin T Eastern North Dundas Tp Central Essa Tp Eastern North Frontenac Tp

Financial Services Report 2021-07 re: Financial Indicator Review (Based ... Page 34 of 73 MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS FINANCIAL INDICATORS MUNICIPAL GROUPINGS - SOUTHERN ONTARIO

South - Lower-Tier Municipalities in Counties, Rural (Part 2 of 2) MSO NAME MSO NAME Eastern North Glengarry Tp Western South Huron M Eastern North Grenville M Eastern South Stormont Tp Western North Huron Tp Western Southgate Tp Eastern North Kawartha Tp Western Southwest Middlesex M Western North Middlesex M Western Southwold Tp Western North Perth M Eastern Stirling-Rawdon Tp Eastern North Stormont Tp Eastern Stone Mills Tp Western Northern Bruce Peninsula M Eastern Tay Valley Tp Western Oil Springs V Western The Blue Mountains T Central Oro-Medonte Tp Eastern The Nation M Eastern Otonabee-South Monaghan Tp Western The South Bruce Peninsula T Western Perth East Tp Central Tiny Tp Western Perth South Tp Eastern Trent Hills M Eastern Perth T Eastern Trent Lakes M Western Petrolia T Eastern Tudor and Cashel Tp Western Plympton-Wyoming T Eastern Tweed M Western Puslinch Tp Eastern Tyendinaga Tp Central Ramara Tp Western Warwick Tp Eastern Renfrew T Central Wasaga Beach T Eastern Rideau Lakes Tp Western Wellington North Tp Western Saugeen Shores T Western West Elgin M Central Severn Tp Western West Grey M Central Shelburne T Western West Perth M Western South Bruce M Eastern Westport V Eastern South Dundas Tp Eastern Whitewater Region Tp Eastern South Frontenac Tp Eastern Wollaston Tp Eastern South Glengarry Tp

Financial Services Report 2021-07 re: Financial Indicator Review (Based ... Page 35 of 73

Financial Services Department REPORT 2021-05

To: Mayor Koetsier and Council From: Celine Anderson, Deputy Treasurer Date: February 9,2021 Subject: Incentive for Taxpayer Feedback

REPORT HIGHLIGHTS

• Incentive for Residents to submit a survey is not recommended. • Gathering of resident, users of service, customers has many complex facets.

RECOMMENDATION

WHEREAS, Council feels that gathering residents, users of service and customers information is a priority

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council received the report for information purposes;

AND THAT Council directs the CAO to put together a workgroup to explore the opportunities, risks and limitations of gathering residents, users of service and customers information;

AND THAT a preliminary report of who the members of the workgroups including preliminary findings be brought forward in Q3 of 2021.

BACKGROUND

In late 2020, Council was looking for information to see if there could be incentive on the tax bill in terms of an additional fee, provision of a discount or user fee incentive to generate resident “customer” feedback. The additional fee could be refunded or credited if they completed a survey.

ANALYSIS

People typically respond to surveys or information requests for three main reasons:

• They want to be helpful • They enjoy the topic of the survey • For a tangible benefit, which typically comes in the form of an incentive

The below will discuss the incentives from: Financial Services Report 2021-05 re: Incentive for Taxpayer FeedbackPage 36 of 73

Financial Services Department Report 2021-05 Incentive for Taxpayer Feedback Page 2 of 2

1. Taxation 2. User fee

1 - Should Council wish to increase taxes to potentially provide a refund to those who complete a survey, the amount would be different for each property owner since it would be based on their assessment value. According to the Municipal Act, there are a few sections that allow for discounts, reliefs or write offs but they are not related to responses to a survey (see sections 319, 345(10) and 354).

2 - There are times when user fees are added to a tax bill, but this is typically done as a local improvement charge or levy. User Fees can be imposed but must be billed as a reasonable cost of providing the service. The term User Fee clearly indicates that the fee is to be charged for someone who uses the material or service. In the case of an incentive, we would be refunding the fee for those who use it.

This being said, either of the options above would, firstly, not be in line with the Municipal Act and secondly, would cause an administrative burden for the finance department.

Therefore, we recommend that should Council wish to gather data on the user of services /customers that they request that the CAO put forward a workgroup to create a program designed to capture this information which could include the use of paper surveys, Engage Georgian Bay, etc.

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION

None at this moment.

REPORT SUPPORTED BY: Goal 2 – Transparency within Government Provide local governance that is transparent and create a unified municipality that celebrates diversity.

RELEVANT BACKGROUND REPORTS: N/A

Respectfully submitted by: Celine Anderson, Deputy Treasurer

Reviewed By: ☒Jessica Gunby, Dipl.M.A., Dipl.M.M. –Chief Administrative Officer ☒Julie Bouthillette, CPA, CGA - Director of Financial Services/Treasurer

Financial Services Report 2021-05 re: Incentive for Taxpayer FeedbackPage 37 of 73

Financial Services Department REPORT 2021-08

To: Mayor Koetsier and Council From: Julie Bouthillette, Director of Financial Services/Treasurer Date: February 9th, 2021 Subject: 2021 Capital Budget – 1st DRAFT

REPORT HIGHLIGHTS

• The Municipal Act, 2001 requires local municipalities to adopt a budget each year. • The 10 year capital plan will not be presented for 2021 because staff are in the process of refining the asset management data to be able to use asset management software to provide analysis of scenarios as well as be able to have complete / pertinent data for long term financial planning • Capital Contributions from Tax Levy for 2021 should be $1,691,816

RECOMMENDATION

BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council receive the 2021 Capital Budget - DRAFT#1;

AND THAT Council agrees that the presented capital budget is in line with the guidelines provided to staff;

AND THAT Council directs staff to prepare the 2021 Capital Budget By-Law as per the draft presented;

AND THAT Council agrees that staff may start drafting the related procurement documentation as the 2021 Capital budget is approved in principle with in year approvals in the sum of $2,164,273 and re-affirms the prior approved sum of $2,604,142 for a total project budget of $4,768,415.

AND THAT Council limits capital purchases intended to be purchased by grants to only be purchased should those grants be successful.

BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council receive the 2021 Capital Budget - DRAFT#1;

AND THAT Council directs staff to prepare the 2021 Capital Budget By-Law as per the draft presented and the following additional changes: ______

Financial Services Report 2021-08 re: 2021 Capital Budget - 1st DraftPage 38 of 73

Financial Services Department Report 2021-08 2021 Capital Budget 1st Draft Page 2 of 3

AND THAT Council agrees that staff may start drafting the related procurement documentation with the exceptions of the items named above;

AND THAT Council limits capital purchases intended to be purchased by grants to only be purchased should those grants be successful.

BACKGROUND

A Capital Budget should be established based on a plan that optimizes the rehabilitation or replacement of assets based on their desired levels of services including an analysis of their risk (likelihood and impact) of failure.

To date, capital budgets have been presented to Council from excel spreadsheets. Staff are in the process of refining the asset management data to be able to use asset management software to provide analysis of scenarios as well as be able to have complete / pertinent data for long term financial planning. Therefore, for 2021, staff is postponing the 10 year capital plan in order to focus efforts on refining the data in the software.

In order to obtain a 2021 Capital Budget amount, the 2014 asset management plan was used. The 2014 asset management plan (AMP) was a 10 year plan and is still relevant today. The AMP is publicly available by clicking here. According to P29 of the plan, Capital Contributions from Tax Levy for 2021 should be $1,691,816. This amount was included in the 2021 operating budget.

ANALYSIS The attached Capital Budget Summary is in a different format this year. Here are the column headers defined.

• Project Cost (Total): We attempted to show the full costs of projects even though they may be multi-year projects.

• Amount Already Approved: are amounts that have already been approved through past budgets or in year resolutions.

• CY amount to be approved: is the current year amount to be approved.

• Then there is a thick black line to separate the next three columns as these relate to how the CY amount to be approved will be funded.

• CY Tax base: is the current year tax base

• Gas Tax: is Federal monies received in form of grants for gas tax

Financial Services Report 2021-08 re: 2021 Capital Budget - 1st DraftPage 39 of 73

Financial Services Department Report 2021-08 2021 Capital Budget 1st Draft Page 3 of 3

• Reserves: are funded from monies put away in prior years (see Reserve Policy & related appendix)

The total of the Project Cost (Total) column is $4,768,415 where $2,604,142 has already been approved (including $1,715,300) already spent.

Currently, the amount in the CY Tax Base to be funded is $1,695,998. This means a small unadjusted difference of $4,182 from the amount included in the operational budget.

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION

As per above analysis section. It is important to adopt the budget as early as possible in order to secure the best capital pricing.

REPORT SUPPORTED BY:

Strategic Goals

Municipal Fiscal Responsibility Minimize and control municipal budgets by spending wisely, controlling costs and keeping tax increases to a minimum.

RELEVANT BACKGROUND REPORTS: FIN 2020-16 - 2021 Budget Guideline, Process and Timeline 2021 Budget folder in the Council Portal FIN 2020-20 - 2021 Budget - Preliminary Figures and Related Taxation Impacts REPORT FIN 2020-24 2021 Budget - Draft #1 2014 AM plan Report FIN 2020-27 2021 Operating Budget – Draft#2 Operating Budget By-law 2020-098

Respectfully submitted by: Julie Bouthillette, Director of Financial Services/Treasurer

Reviewed By: ☒Jessica Gunby, Dipl.M.A., Dipl.M.M., Chief Administrative Officer

ATT 1 – Capital Budget Summary DRAFT # 1

Financial Services Report 2021-08 re: 2021 Capital Budget - 1st DraftPage 40 of 73 Financial Services Report 2021-08 re: 2021 Capital Budget - 1st Draft

Current Year Amount Funded by: Amount CY amount Project Cost Already to be (Total) Approved approved CY Tax Base Grants Reserves 1 Administration 522,000 288,725 233,275 65,000 168,275 2 Equipment 357,000 288,725 68,275 68,275 3 Facility Networking 32,000 32,000 4 Telephone System 25,000 0 25,000 25,000 5 Townsuite Software 300,000 256,725 43,275 43,275 6 Facilities 100,000 0 100,000 100,000 7 Audio Visual System AV (Council Chambers) 100,000 0 100,000 100,000 8 Fleet 65,000 0 65,000 65,000 9 Electric Vehicle 65,000 0 65,000 65,000 10 Fire & ES 438,000 6,000 432,000 372,000 60,000 11 Equipment 87,000 0 87,000 87,000 12 Auto extrication equipment (Air Bags) 15,000 0 15,000 15,000 13 Bunker Gear 15,000 0 15,000 15,000 14 SCBA 30,000 0 30,000 5,000 15 Thermal Imaging Camera 13,000 0 13,000 30,000 16 Pump replacememt 5,000 0 5,000 13,000 17 Radio Communications Equipment 9,000 0 9,000 9,000 18 Fleet 66,000 6,000 60,000 60,000 19 Pickup 1/2 ton 4X4 60,000 0 60,000 60,000 20 Track system for All Terran Vehicle 6,000 6,000

Page 41 of 73 21 Reserve (To) 285,000 0 285,000 285,000 22 Contribution to Reserves 285,000 0 285,000 285,000 23 Operations 3,808,415 2,309,417 1,498,998 1,323,998 75,000 100,000 24 Equipment 55,000 25,000 30,000 30,000 25 Hot Box for Asphalt Repairs 25,000 25,000 26 Vehicle Hoist 30,000 0 30,000 30,000

Page 1 of 3 Financial Services Report 2021-08 re: 2021 Capital Budget - 1st Draft

Amount CY amount Project Cost Already to be (Total) Approved approved CY Tax Base Grants Reserves 27 Facilities 402,000 180,000 222,000 222,000 28 HH Fire Hall Roof Replacement 50,000 50,000 29 MacTier Arena Flat Roof Replace (Comm. Ctr. Portion) 80,000 80,000 30 MacTier Fire Hall Flat Roof 50,000 50,000 31 Roof BW 160,000 0 160,000 160,000 32 HVAC Admin Builiding 15,000 0 15,000 15,000 33 Security Cameras - MacTier Arena 13,000 0 13,000 13,000 34 Exterior Landscaping - CSB 7,000 0 7,000 7,000 35 Interior Luminaries - BW 10,000 0 10,000 10,000 36 Flooring - Port Fire Hall 17,000 0 17,000 17,000 37 Fleet 128,500 0 128,500 128,500 38 Commercial Zero Turn Mower 9,000 0 9,000 9,000 39 Grader - Tires 12,500 0 12,500 12,500 40 P59 Kubota BX2360V Tractor w/mower 37,000 0 37,000 37,000 41 T45 Ford F450 3 ton with box 60,000 0 60,000 60,000 42 Tilt Trailer 10,000 0 10,000 10,000 43 Parks and Natural Capital 2,470,000 2,054,417 415,583 315,583 100,000 44 Concrete Launch Pannels at Vollicks 20,000 20,000 45 Honey Harbour Boat Launch Panels 50,000 50,000 46 Honey Harbour Waterfront Development 2,000,000 1,884,417 115,583 115,583 47 Minors Bay Boat Launch 200,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 48 Minors Bay Parking Upgrades 200,000 0 200,000 100,000 100,000 49 Reserve (To) 285,000 0 285,000 285,000 Page 42 of 73 50 Contribution to Reserves 285,000 0 285,000 285,000

Page 2 of 3 Financial Services Report 2021-08 re: 2021 Capital Budget - 1st Draft

Amount CY amount Project Cost Already to be (Total) Approved approved CY Tax Base Grants Reserves 51 Roads Network 467,915 50,000 417,915 342,915 75,000 52 Baxter Loop 46,875 0 46,875 46,875 53 Kings Farm Road 138,000 0 138,000 63,000 75,000 54 Lamoureux Lane 5,943 0 5,943 5,943 55 Lily Pond Road 6,960 0 6,960 6,960 56 Metis Road 2,062 0 2,062 2,062 57 Minors Bay Road 15,075 0 15,075 15,075 58 Mohawk Road 77,000 0 77,000 77,000 59 South Gibson Road 71,000 0 71,000 71,000 60 Vollicks Road 55,000 0 55,000 55,000 61 Recycled Asphalt Application (Multiple roads) 50,000 50,000 62 Grand Total 4,768,415 2,604,142 2,164,273 1,695,998 140,000 328,275 Page 43 of 73

Page 3 of 3 February 25, 2020

Coastal Protection Advisory Committee Mandate

Mandate • Provide advice and guidance to the GBA board on GBA coastal protection projects and other coastal protection matters. • Liaise with member associations and municipalities to seek input on GBA coastal protection projects and other coastal protection matters.

Chair • The President will be the Chair of the Committee.

Membership • Minimum of 8 members; maximum of 15 • Members: the President, Executive Director, and representatives from the Georgian Bay archipelago* communities to be nominated by the Chair and approved by the Board. In addition, each of the municipalities in the region will be invited to appoint a representative to the Committee. • Members are appointed for 1-year terms, renewable for the duration of the Committee.

Meetings • Meetings held at the call of the Chair. • To be held at least quarterly.

Accountabilities • Strategy – Develop strategy for GBA coastal protection projects and other coastal protection matters, recommend policy positions and provide written reports for board consideration. • Identify and draft for board approval key messages to be presented to stakeholders. • Liaison – Each member to liaise with member associations, the relevant coastal municipalities and other stakeholders in the areas that they will represent.

1 Georgian Bay Association (GBA) Coastal Protection Advisory CommitteePage (Co... 44 of 73 • Feedback – Each member to provide feedback on recommendations, issues and concerns raised through the liaison process. • Responses – Committee to provide direct responses to recommendations, issues and concerns raised through the liaison process, or refer such matters to the board, as appropriate.

Authorities • The Committee Chair reports to the Board on behalf of the Committee. A report on the Committee’s activities during the past month should be provided at each Board meeting. • Proposals or matters that require a decision of the Board should be referred to the next Board meeting. • Issues of strategy and GBA policy must be referred to the full Board for a decision.

Record Keeping and Reporting • The Committee will report to the Board on its activities at each Board meeting. • Minutes will be taken of all Committee meetings and distributed to the Committee members for review within 1 week of meetings. • All relevant documentation and external correspondence of the Committee will be added to the centralized document database when finalized.

* Georgian Bay Archipelago shall mean the archipelago of islands that extends from the south end of the east coast of Georgian Bay across the north coast and into the east end of the North Channel – Bay of Islands.

2 Georgian Bay Association (GBA) Coastal Protection Advisory CommitteePage (Co... 45 of 73

Proposal to Township of the Archipelago (ToA) Topic: Municipal Official Plans & Comprehensive Zoning By-laws Comparison

Background Following discussions in 2019 on how the coastal Georgian Bay communities on the east coast might address their shared objective of protecting the natural landscape and environment along the coast, the Georgian Bay Association (GBA) decided that it would be beneficial to develop certain “Coastal Protection” projects that involve collaboration with municipalities. One of these concerns is comparing Municipal Strategic Plans, Official Plans and Comprehensive Zoning By- laws. The coastal municipalities are: Town of North East Manitoulin and Islands (NEMI) Municipality of Killarney Township of the Archipelago Township of Carling Township of Georgian Bay Purpose The purpose of this initiative is to establish base data on the current status and main features of each municipality’s Strategic Plan, Official Plan (OP) and Comprehensive Zoning By-laws (CZB), compare them and then share information on the results with the partners in the project. The focus will be on the OP policies, and CZB regulations that apply to the coastal area of the municipalities. We expect that this exercise will surface both commonalities and key differences in the planning policies and regulations, which can be analyzed to identify core principles, and how the policies and regulations might be made more consistent, if appropriate for various municipalities. After the findings are shared, the partners could discuss potential sound or best practice approaches. The goal will be to focus on the more significant planning issues rather than drilling down into the fine details, in particular developing data on planning and land use policies and regulations to improve preservation and protection of the east and north coasts of Georgian Bay. This will primarily be a research project aimed at gathering knowledge and then sharing key insights and important information. Key to the project’s success will be establishing and maintaining good communications among the partners in the project, including GBA and participating municipalities.

Georgian Bay Association (GBA) Coastal Protection Advisory CommitteePage (Co... 46 of 73

Benefits The key benefits to the project partners and residents will be:  Identify the main commonalities and differences in the content of OPs and CZBs, for the information and consideration of municipal planning departments and Councils.  Develop a basis for discussion of potential ways to develop more consistent planning and land use policies and regulations throughout the coast, including identifying and sharing information on sound procedures and best practices.  Serve as a platform for potential future discussion and information sharing among municipalities.  Develop communications material for residents and GBA members to better inform them on the policies and regulatory requirements in their municipalities. The partners may think of more benefits or uses for the results as the project unfolds. Action Steps GBA suggests that the project commence with a review of the official plans, followed by a review of the key zoning by-law regulations. At this point we suggest that the main steps would be: 1. Assemble copies of the current OPs and CZBs. 2. Develop a list of significant planning policies and regulations that should be compared. 3. Put together a comparison chart that clearly identifies commonalities and differences. 4. Determine which differences are significant and which are less important from a planning and coastal protection standpoint. 5. Carry out further research on the significant differences to determine how the policies and regulations might be made more consistent, and to identify potential best practices. 6. Communicate the findings to all municipalities. The goal could be to complete these steps by the end of 2021, but the timeline should be adjusted as appropriate as the project proceeds, or if requested by municipalities, particularly given the current impact of COVID-19 on the availability of municipal staff. Requested Assistance from Municipalities  Provide a staff resource to work with GBA and other municipalities to pursue the above action points, including participating in discussions on items 4 and 5.  GBA would welcome receiving input and ideas from Municipal Councils and planning departments to help guide this project as it proceeds.  We also request that each municipality consider appointing a representative to the GBA Coastal Protection Committee. The mandate of the Committee is attached. We will follow up to provide details of what is involved. Costs GBA has established that funding is available for most of the costs of employing an intern to carry out the majority of the initial work required for this project. Therefore, it is anticipated that only some minor staff time will be required from municipalities at this time. We will review requirements as this project proceeds.

Georgian Bay Association (GBA) Coastal Protection Advisory CommitteePage (Co... 47 of 73 Resolution; Be it resolved that the Township of Georgian Bay responds to the request from the GBA (Georgian Bay Association) for a council appointed member for a new and important permanent committee at the GBA. That committee is called the Coastal Protection Advisory Committee. Given that this appointment would ideally be a councillor who has a strong understanding of coastal issues related to environmental protection and the relationship between that and planning oversight. With that in mind, I nominate Councillor Allen Hazelton as our appointment to that committee. Report; The GBA has established a new important advisory committee which will be giving consideration regarding environmental and planning matters. Some community members have been recruited for this committee including from the T of G, Mr. Douglas Carr and Mr. Brett Berman. The GBA has also recruited members from the coastal townships including a council member from the Township of the Archipelago. The T of GB has been requested to appoint an appropriate member from our council and thus the nomination today for Councillor Hazelton. The committee and its members plan to tackle a variety of challenging environmental and planning matters and this will allow the GBA to respond to issues as they surface and to provide advice to the coastal communities, associations and councils. Included with this resolution and report, please find two background documents from the GBA which provide additional insight into this initiative and role.

Georgian Bay Association (GBA) Coastal Protection Advisory CommitteePage (Co... 48 of 73 Water quality monitoring proposal to sample nearshore regions of the Township of Georgian Bay 2021.

McMaster University, Pat Chow-Fraser, Professor of Biology, Dept of Biology, Georgian Bay Great Lakes Foundation, Mary Muter, Chair

Tasks: • Sample 50 long-term stations in nearshore areas within the Township of Georgian Bay on at least 5 occasions during June, July and August of 2021 o Areas that had been sampled in 2020 by the McMaster team as well as any other areas that are deemed to be important by the Township of Georgian Bay • Collect water samples and analyze for E. coli, total phosphorus, soluble reactive phosphorus and chlorophyll-a on each sampling • Collect water samples to analyze for total nitrogen, total ammonia, total nitrate nitrogen on a monthly basis. • To collect information on temperature, dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, pH and water turbidity at each station on each sampling occasion; at sites sufficiently deep, carry out a study to determine stratification characteristics, specifically for dissolved oxygen and accumulation of hypolimnetic dissolved phosphorus • To use artificial substrates to quantify periphyton biomass (benthic algae growing on rocks and sediments) in up to 10 problem areas to be determined in consultation with the Township of Georgian Bay • To conduct a direct comparison of the two techniques (Tecta B16 and coliplates) using split samples for three sampling cycles. • To deliver an oral report of findings to the Council during a December council meeting— content that can be reported will depend on COVID-19 constraints on access to and use of McMaster lab during the summer and fall of 2021 • To deliver a written analysis and final report of all data collected and analyzed to the Council by the end of April • Results in this project will form the basis of a M.Sc. thesis to be supervised by Dr. Chow- Fraser

Budget: (breakdown on next page)

Requested from Township of Georgian Bay: $28,600 and use of a room that can be used to carry out analytical tests during the summer in Honey Harbour

In-kind contribution from McMaster University: $21,000

In-kind contribution from GBGLF: $9,750

Project cost 2021: $52,750

Water Quality Monitoring – Discussion Only (Hazelton) Page 49 of 73 Proposed budget (per year May 2021 to April 30 2022:

Township of McMaster Expense category GBGLF Total GB (in-kind) Salary Student stipend and TA-ship from $ 10,000 $ 11,000 $ - $ 21,000 Faculty of Science Salary for boat captain/field assistant (13 weeks x $15/h x $ 8,000 $ - $ - $ 8,000 35h/wk) Subtotal $ 18,000 $ 11,000 $ - $ 29,000 Travel Operation of boat and truck, food for field crew and accommodation $ 4,000 $ - $ - $ 4,000 (campsite when host not available) Cottage accommodation (13 wks @ $ - $ - $ 9,750 $ 9,750 $750/wk) Subtotal $ 4,000 $ - $ 9,750 $ 13,750 Equipment and supplies Use of boat, truck, limnological equipment, Tecta B-16 analyzer of $ - $ 5,000 $ - $ 5,000 fecal bacteria, spectrophotometer, oven, fluorometer, etc. 250 Tecta B-16 test cartridges for E. $ - $ 3,500 $ - $ 3,500 coli @ $14/test Chemicals and disposables for nutrients and periphytic chlorophyll $ - $ 1,500 $ - $ 1,500 analyses Subtotal $ - $ 10,000 $ - $ 10,000

Total for salary, travel and $ 22,000 $ 21,000 $ 9,750 $ 52,750 equipment 30% overhead $ 6,600 Requested From TGB $ 28,600

Water Quality Monitoring – Discussion Only (Hazelton) Page 50 of 73 Increased Insurance Rates - Discussion Only (Hazelton) Page 51 of 73 Increased Insurance Rates - Discussion Only (Hazelton) Page 52 of 73

TEL: (705)-544-7525 FAX: (705)-544-2369 [email protected] www.charltonanddack.com

January 7th, 2021

The Honourable Doug Ford Premier of Ontario

Sent by email: [email protected]

RE: MOTION REGARDING - Insurance

The following resolution was passed by the Council for the Municipality of Charlton and Dack on December 18th, 2020:

WHEREAS the cost of municipal insurance in the Province of Ontario has continued to increase – with especially large increases going into 2021.

AND WHEREAS Joint and Several Liability continues to ask property taxpayers to carry the lion’s share of a damage award when a municipality is found at minimum fault;

AND WHEREAS these increases are unsustainable and unfair and eat at critical municipal services;

AND WHEREAS the Association of Municipalities of Ontario outlined seven recommendations to address insurance issues including:

1. The provincial government adopt a model of full proportionate liability to replace joint and several liability. 2. Implement enhancements to the existing limitations period including the continued applicability of the existing 10 day rule on slip and fall cases given recent judicial interpretations and whether a 1 year limitation period may be beneficial. 3. Implement a cap for economic loss awards. 4. Increase the catastrophic impairment default benefit limit to $2 million and increase the third party liability coverage to $2 million in government regulated automobile insurance plans. 5. Assess and implement additional measures which would support lower premiums or alternatives to the provision of insurance services by other entities such as non profit insurance reciprocals. 6. Compel the insurance industry to supply all necessary financial evidence including premiums, claims and deductible limit changes which support its

287237 Sprucegrove Road Englehart, ON P0J 1H0 Increased Insurance Rates - Discussion Only (Hazelton) Page 53 of 73

and municipal arguments as to the fiscal impact of joint and several liability. 7. Establish a provincial and municipal working group to consider the above and put forward recommendations to the Attorney General.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council for the Municipality of Charlton and Dack call on the Province of Ontario to immediately review these recommendations and to investigate the unethical practice of preferred vendors who are paid substantial amounts over industry standards, despite COVID 19 delays, as insurance premiums will soon be out of reach for many communities.

AND FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED THAT this motion be provided to the Honourable Doug Ford, Premier of Ontario, the Honourable Rod Phillips, Minister of Finance, the Honourable Doug Downey, Attorney General of Ontario, the Honourable John Vanthof, MPP for Timiskaming- Cochrane, and all Ontario municipalities.

Yours Truly,

Dan Thibeault Clerk Treasurer CAO Municipality of Charlton and Dack

CC: Honourable Peter Bethlenfalvy, Minister of Finance Honourable Doug Downey, Attorney General of Ontario Honourable John Vanthof, MPP for Timiskaming- Cochrane All Ontario Municipalities

287237 Sprucegrove Road Englehart, ON P0J 1H0 Increased Insurance Rates - Discussion Only (Hazelton) Page 54 of 73 P a g e | 1

January 22, 2021

RE: Insurance Rates Resolution

Please be advised that the Council of the Municipality of Grey Highlands, at its meeting held January 20, 2021, passed the following resolution:

2021-39 Moved by Tom Allwood, Seconded by Aakash Desai

Whereas the cost of municipal insurance in the Province of Ontario has continued to increase – with especially large increases going into 2021; and

Whereas Joint and Several Liability continues to ask property taxpayers to carry the lion’s share of a damage award when a municipality is found at minimum fault; and

Whereas these increases are unsustainable and unfair and eat at critical municipal services; and

Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario outlined seven recommendations to address insurance issues including:

1. The provincial government adopt a model of full proportionate liability to replace joint and several liability. 2. Implement enhancements to the existing limitations period including the continued applicability of the existing 10-day rule on slip and fall cases given recent judicial interpretations and whether a 1 year limitation period may be beneficial. 3. Implement a cap for economic loss awards. 4. Increase the catastrophic impairment default benefit limit to $2 million and increase the third-party liability coverage to $2 million in government regulated automobile insurance plans. 5. Assess and implement additional measures which would support lower premiums or alternatives to the provision of insurance services by other entities such as nonprofit insurance reciprocals. 6. Compel the insurance industry to supply all necessary financial evidence including premiums, claims and deductible limit changes which support its own and municipal arguments

The Municipality of Grey Highlands  206 Toronto Street South, Unit One P.O. Box 409 Markdale, Ontario N0C 1H0 519-986-2811 Toll-Free 1-888-342-4059 Fax 519-986-3643 Increased Insurance Rates - Discussionwww.greyhighlands.ca Only (Hazelton)  [email protected] 55 of 73 P a g e | 2

as to the fiscal impact of joint and several liability. 7. Establish a provincial and municipal working group to consider the above and put forward recommendations to the Attorney General;

Now therefore be it resolved that the Council for the Municipality of Grey Highlands call on the Province of Ontario to immediately review these recommendations and to investigate the unethical practice of preferred vendors who are paid substantial amounts over industry standards, despite COVID 19 delays, as insurance premiums will soon be out of reach for many communities and

Be it further resolved that this motion be provided to the Honourable Doug Ford, Premier of Ontario, the Honourable Peter Bethlenfalvy, Minister of Finance, the Honourable Doug Downey, Attorney General of Ontario, the Honourable Bill Walker, MPP for Bruce - Grey - Owen Sound, and all Ontario municipalities. CARRIED.

As per the above resolution, please accept a copy of this correspondence for your information and consideration.

Sincerely,

Jerri-Lynn Levitt Deputy Clerk Council and Legislative Services Municipality of Grey Highlands

TOWNSHIPOFGEORGIANBAY Dear Mayor Peter Koetsier and Council

As the 2020 cottage season comes to a close, we try to understand and recover from a summer that was punctuated with so much noise that there was little time for enjoyment at our cottage on the bay. “Noise is the muf?ing ofsauna’,the erasing ofquiet. ” As the Grinch profoundly stated ‘Oh the noise, oh the noise! noise! noise! noise!’ The clanging and banging, the thumping and bumping, the groaning and moaning. For us, the construction noise at Wolverine Beach!

Last year two new guest cottages, new retaining walls and landscaping were completed on Wolverine Beach. Then the new road construction and this summer the complete destruction of about 1,000 feet of natural shoreline and a retaining wall around the point perimeter. Large truck and heavy equipment noise from early morning to early evening, every work day from the beginning of the season to the end of the season. When is enough. ..enough!!

We could not enjoy morning coffee, summer dock activities or early evening quiet on the water. The incessant noise destroyed any sense of peace and tranquility at the cottage. As attached, the recent Killing Us Softly article by Leslie Garrett in Cottage Life talks about balancing the noise and the quiet. About respecting cottagers who hope for respite and the serenity, the health and well being that nature can bring. I have included some of her quotes in this article. There has been no accommodation in the Wolverine Beach construction for the two dozen or more cottages on Tobies and Sunset Bay. Why?

On the weekends we are assaulted with personal water crafe and cigar boat motors, the sounds of full throttle ride ‘em lawn mowers, weed eaters, leave blowers and chain saws. Often times there are also cottage maintenance noises along with never ending fireworks. “Again? We’re celebrating what exactly?”Many of these are unavoidable and temporary, but a constant barrage of noise is upsetting, unhealthy and disrespectful of cottage neighbours sharing the bay.

We understand that there would have been an approval process for Mr. McConnell to take on such a monumental shoreline task, but no conditions were included to provide some daily quiet, some break from the dozens upon dozens of gravel trucks, large ?atbeds bringing in boulders, excavators and graders that permeated the air every work day.

Keeping in mind that we are the trespassers, the local wildlife was also affected by the constant level of construction noise. Sadly, the chatter of the squirrels, birds singing and geese swimming by was taken over by the sound of dump trucks, heavy machinery and equipment. The loon family left the bay to escape the noise after their chick was born and the trumpeter swans choose not to stop on the bay this year during their annual migration.

Construction Noise at Wolverine Beach - Discussion Only (Hazelton)Page 58 of 73 The ability for birds to communicate in the early morning disrupted. “Sometime between 8:30 and 10:00 am is a really important time for birds. ” Why was there not a condition to start constructionat 10:00 am to give both the cottagers and wildlife some needed morning quiet?

There were booms in place to try and capture some of the retaining wall contaminants, but the signs of air and water pollution were evident throughout the summer. ..cloudinessin the water, particulate matter on the boats and dock furniture, asthmaticattacks. Every time it rains, more gravel and rock debris is added to the bay. What will be the long term effects on the fish and other wildlife? We question on a bay where the water level ?uctuates, why would such a destructiveand unhealthy project be approved?

We are surprised in 2020, that the negative impact of this work on Wolverine Beach was not addressed and appropriate measures put in place to mitigate the short and long term harm of the project. Researchhas shown us how bene?cial the natural environment is to our mental and physical health and also how fragile. “The WHO has declared noise pollution to be the second leading environmentalcause ofillness and death. ” Please let us know the decision making process behind this total disruption of the bay this summer and perhaps longer. As mentioned, it

' never seems to end. Thank you!

We are tax payers in Georgian Bay Township and alsoresidents of Huntsville. The stewardship of Muskoka district is important to us. We are all the caretakers, and you are the decision and policy makers. Sadly, the real estate and tourism messages and pictures of a serene and tranquil wilderness are quickly disappearingin cottage country, soon to be a twentieth century myth. “There was a time when the expectation ofquiet at the lake was not only reasonable, but routine. ”

We look forward to your response. Thank you! ML” 94/

Lorna and Rob Larsen Island 390 #4576 Tobies Bay Honey Harbour, ON 705-789-6922

PC: Ministry of Natural Resources

Construction Noise at Wolverine Beach - Discussion Only (Hazelton)Page 59 of 73 vi Cottage Watch

p KillingO C us softly Have you been noticing that life at the lake is not as quiet as.,youremember? What the amped-upvolume means for wildlife——andus ByLeoneGarrett

Caroline Brooks expects noise at her home in Toronto. But after the drive and boat ride to her in—laws‘place on Lake Rosseau, Ont., she wants to hear little more than wind in the pines and the gentle lap of waves against rock. Caroline, a musician, craves quiet. But quiet at the lake, she says, is hard to ?nd. Huron——writingthis story on quiet and the value a As I sit in my cottage on Lake in preserving it where we’ve, historically, sought it—I take note of the sounds around me. Yes, there are the calls of throaty tree frogs, which grow more insistent as the sun melts into the lake. There is what my uncle, who’d lived in seven countries over his lifetime, insisted was the quintessentially Southern Ontario sound of wind moving through the poplar trees. But there is also the nasal drone of inboard boat engines, the whine of a distant lawn mower, the subtle slosh of a dishwasher, even the gentle whirr of my computer. Later, though it’s an ordinary summer Saturday, subtle night sounds are pierced by the pop and whizz of ?reworks, driving my dogs to quiver beneath the beds and me to grit my teeth. Because...seriously? Again? We’re celebrating what exactly? » Construction Noise at Wolverine Beach - Discussion Only (Hazelton)Page 60 of 73 June/July 2020 cot1ag—elife.com37

PHOTO ILLUSTRATIONS: COTTAGE LIFE. PHOTOS: SHUTTERSTOCK I Cottage Watch

There was a time——canyou recall?- while in residency at the Banff Centre, we're acclimatizing to noise and also when the expectation of quiet at the lake sought out quiet in the Kananaskis area to the incremental absence of natural was not only reasonable, but routine. of the Rocky Mountains in Alberta. He sounds, says Truax. “People are becoming No dishwashers. Often no phones.Rarely was looking for total quiet, but even in more environmentally conscious, but even a TV. Fireworks may have ushered a very remote location, he couldn't get they don't necessarily put the sound- in and out the summer, leaving the a window longer than 10 minutes. And scape on the endangered list. The acous- remainder explosion—free.There were that's not even excluding human voices tic habitat is essential for wildlife species, boats, of course. After all, we were at from hikers. In an area with helicopters but we are just as vulnerable." Fifty years the lake. But not so many. Not so loud. ferrying tourists through the mountains, into the project and even our quiet places And Pwcs were still few and far between. “my biggest challenge was air traffic,” he are noisier than ever. Perhaps you've had that conversation says. “Quiet was very, very hard to ?nd.” on the dockwith your cottage friends. The That change is something Truax helps one about your neighbour's unhealthy catalog as part of the World Soundscape love of his chainsaw, the one about why Project. The ambitious work, spearheaded There's something primal in the sounds boat muf?ers don’t seem tomuffle, the in 1969 by Canadian classical composer of our natural world, the experts tell us. one about stereos blasting Top40 across R. Murray Schafer, arguably launched It begins in the womb, of course, where the water. The one about how bloody acoustic ecology. The researchers record we can hear long before we can see. Our noisy our lakes have become. soundscapes over time, and as they did, ears deliver information to our brains But here's a conversation you might they noticed the rising levels of noise over much greater distances than our not have had. The one about how quiet pollution. Part ofthe problem is that eyes. For millennia, sound has helped isn't just lovely, it's necessary. About to keep us alive. But noise? Noise is the how the World Health Organization muf?ing of sound, the erasing of quiet. has declared noise pollution to be the "For Noise makes our connection to the natu- second leading environmental cause of ral world more tenuous. Consider, for illness and death in Western Europe after millennia, instance, that our peak hearing sensitiv- air pollution. About research published sound has ity matches birdsong, their alarm calls in the medicaljournal TheLancet that and communications landing squarely in found noise exposure can lead to hearing helped to the range our ears have evolved to hear. loss, heart disease, disturbed sleep,and keep We are uniquely attuned to creatures increased blood pressure. The one about us alive. whose song generally indicates habitat how noise isn't just annoying, it’s toxic. But noise? that also is good for humans, explains Howtoo much of it can, literally, kill us. Gordon Hernpton, an acoustic ecologist But let's back up. Because of course who has traveled the globe recording the noise levels in cottage country aren't sounds in the world's most quiet places. as high as in say, London,New York City, “Our ears are tuned to hear the sounds even Toronto or Vancouver. Noise lev- that allow us to survive,” says Hemp- els on our lakes might be increasingly ?g ton, “both by attracting us to positive annoying, and more noticeable than in sounds such as birdsong, which signals, an urban setting—-but lethal? It makes our ecologically, that there’s food, water, and Maybe not, but intrusive noise is a generally favourable weather, but also stressor on the entire body, says Barry connection to by repelling us from sounds that rob us Truax, a professor emeritus in acoustic the natural from gathering relevant information.” communication at B.C.’s Simon Fraser So the more noise there is, the less of the University. And the converse is true: world more reassuring sounds our ears can perceive. quiet—and the sound of nature~is tenuous" Younger generations of kids, unex- restorative. Science tells us that quiet posed to regular quiet, establish a new reduces the stress in our body, it lowers normal as their baseline soundscape. Dan our heart rate.And, the higher the stress Kraus, a senior conservation biologist level, as measured by brain scans, with the Nature Conservancy of Canada breathing rate, and heart-rate monitors, who cottages near Algonquin Provincial the greater the bene?ts of listening to Park warns, “the wild soundscapes are nature’s sounds. often drowned out by human sounds and Despite knowing this, finding quiet ‘ now so many people grow up without is proving more and more difficult. Just " hearing them.” Cue the metaphor of the ask JonKawchuk, a composer who, oblivious frog being boiled alive. »

Construction38 cottagelifexom NoiseJune/July at zozoWolverine Beach - Discussion Only (Hazelton)Page 61 of 73 ;_. CottageWatch

fireworks (at 3 feet) chainsaw .

thunder

Q i power la i Inowe E i normal i 2 dishwasher i 3 conversation Z i The softest E ralnlall sound a person can t hear with orm 3 normal E hearing i i i 3 i

And about those frogs. Noise, of course, Canada is leading a world—wideeffort and construction. Human voices, how- sound, doesn't just affect humans. Kraus calls to reduce ship noise. Researchers are ever, are generally considered of a healthy noise pollution a growing threat to bio- unsure whether it's enough to help the not noise.We can be part diversity conservation. “Because so orcas, but Weilgart says the changes soundscape; after all, we’re animals too. “the white many species, from birds to frogs, ?nd are certainly worth doing. JonKawchuk calls quiet who each other through sound, when they're Nicola Koper, a professor of conserva- space of a painting.” The composer the Rockies elabo- having to compete with human sounds, tion biology at the University of Manitoba searched for quiet in understand it can be more difficult to do things like in Winnipeg who cottages on Bird Lake rates, saying, “We can’t really act- ?nd a mate or set up territory.” in Nopiming Provincial Park, has been a shape without that ‘white space’ Lindy Weilgart is an ocean policy studying the impact of noise on song- ing as a foil—showing us its bounds. consultantand adjunct professorin biol- birds. Koper’s research along with others Ithink the same is true of understand- context to ogy at Dalhousie in Halifax, N.S. She’s has found that birds exposed to noise, ing sound. That quiet gives lives. been monitoring the impact of noise on particularly unpredictable noise——think the sounds that punctuate our listen.” coastal marine species and notes that chainsaws, lawn mowers, leaf blowers, We need silence in order to truly to note too is underwater noise affects everything Pwcs-— get so distracted by it that they What's important for from zooplankton to whales, and it can stop or change their normal behaviours, that none of these crusaders quiet anti-doing- cause anatomical, behavioural, develop- such as hunting for food, caring for their are anti-powerboating, or mental, and physiological damage. “It’s young, and remaining vigilant for preda- work—around—the-cottage, or anti-fun. the sound of across the board," she says. Whales, tors, all of which affects their survival Caroline Brooks delights in chatting on the in what researchers believe is a panic rate. Koper and her research partner, her children and others themselves into response to underwater sonar (specif- Miya Warrington, call birdsong a “mes- dock or joyfully ?inging ically naval anti-submarine warfare sage in a bottle," warning us of the dan- the water. She doesn't take issue with mid—frequency sonar), change their dive gers of too much noise to the health of the shrieks of cottagers being pulled a boat. It's just that pattern and get decompression sickness, various species but also to our own. on a tube behind she a.k.a. diver’s bends. “They hemorrhage sometimes she needs...quiet, which run on the old in their brain and in their hearts and ?nds when she goes for a die within four hours,” she says. B.C.’s hydro line that zigs and zags the island a special orcas, already experiencing disturbingly But what, exactly, is “quiet”? The sound where she cottages. “It's really low numbers, are endangered by a host of engineers and acoustic ecologists and, place for me,” she says. “It just allows urgency to stressors, including the noise pollution well, cottagers, that spoke to me for this me to reset.” It's partly this of increased ship traffic. Authorities have story note that quiet can include sound reclaim quiet that motivated cottag- introduced incentives, including reduced but is marked by the absence of human- ers like Caroline to get involved with region's Safe Lakes port fees for quieter ships, and Transport » caused noise intrusions, such as traffic the Muskoka Quiet

Construction40 cottagelifexoiu NoiseJune/July at Wolverine2020 Beach - Discussion Only (Hazelton)Page 62 of 73

SOURCE: CENTRE FOR HEARINGAND COMMUNXCATION umxwmvabihm mm.mmm'wmmm.mm«mm CtittageWatch

Park-certi?ed initiative. Formed in 2011 through a col- lure tourists keen to experience a noise- ested in becoming Quiet laboration of cottagers’ associations, less nirvana. Based on this notion, and need only contact the group and invite it Safe Quiet Lakes encourages a more the success of Dark Sky Preserves, to help. “So if somebody says they want respectful environment on lakes, which which brought attention to the impact to make their community a little more includes recognizing that noise can be of light pollution, Hempton has created quiet, or have intervals of quiet,we can a part of cottage life, but that quiet is Quiet Parks International (QP1),which, assist them in developing community equally crucial. . despite its name, isn't just about preserv- codes and regulations,” says JonKaw- As a member of the Safe Quiet Lakes ing quiet in parks but also on trails and chuck, QPI’sCanadian rep. board, Caroline is aware that there are in communities and urban areas. QPI Hempton’s group has discoveredthat competing desires among cottagers. "I aims to establish an economic value to what doesn't typically work is setting recognize that other people's enjoyment quiet by creating an actual certi?cation limits on decibel levels, because those of the cottage includes high-speed loud that you can apply for. Cottagers in a tasked with enforcing such rules don't boats," she says. “But I need to have quiet community are not only improving have the necessary equipment to mea- quiet." She pauses. “I struggle a little bit their health, Hempton believes that it will sure noise. What does work, Hempton with coming in and saying ‘it should be increase their property Value.Those inter- says, is annoyance bylaws. “These are more quiet.’ Is it my place tbdo that?” enforceable,” he says. Safe Quiet Lakes did a survey of Hempton points to Green Moun- a Parks International 3,300 area cottagers and residents in tain Farm, Quiet planned community in rural North Caro- 2017 that suggests that a majority of "One thing respondents wished there was more we can do as lina, which has tough community codes quiet. “Regardless of the type of boats and regulations around noise. Everyone you own or the activities you participate cottagers is must agree to them before buying a in, if you perceive your part of the lake home there. it's a to be less noisy you enjoy it more,” says Sometimes, says Nicola Koper, Safe Quiet Lakes board member Greg matter of understanding when quiet is Wilkinson, a Lake Joseph cottager. “And most crucial and taking steps to protect half of the respondents feel that their it. For instance, the dawn chorus——which part of the lake is noisier today than it starts at sunrise and ends sometime @ on was ?ve years ago." between 8:30and 10 a.m., depending People,Wilkinson says, are also Pour yourself the temperature and time of year—is a unhappy about “lots of things that aren't really important time for birds, she says. a coffee, go and in Can- relatedto boats,” things such as chain- Especially during May June ada, birds are singing to attract mates. saws and ATVs. He walks his talk and to the end now, for instance, uses a chainsaw that Through July, songs help them check he says, “is about four times quieter of the dock, their nests and guard against predators. communica- than a gasoline—poweredchainsaw." just enjoy After about 10 a.m., their These cottagers and even those who tion usually drops off. “One thing we can have made the seeking of silence part of yourself" do as cottagers is avoid making a lot of their work aren’t looking to restrict how noise earlier in the day,” she says. “Pour people enjoy a space. Rather, they want yourself a coffee, go to the end of the to ensure that quiet is protected,at least dock, just enjoy yourself.” weekday some of the time. Otherwise, it's becom- I take Koper’s advice. It's a ing clear, we’ll lose it entirely. morning so the lake is less busy, I hear the whistle of the kettle letting me know I can pour my tea. I take my mug out to the deck and listen to the familiar sound Acoustic ecologist Gordon Hempton’s of the waves— the wind is from the with the newest initiative——afteryears lobbying north and they’re huge—-along U.S. Congress, unsuccessfully, to pre- poplar leaves. My 90-year-old father, serve the quietest spot in America—is who's been cottaging on this lake since

K perhaps the most ambitious. As quiet " he was 17, joins me. It's nice, we agree. becomes an increasingly scarce resource, For now, it's quiet.1.. he says, it becomes more valuable.Just ask Finland, which is now banking on LeslieGarrett is a longtimeCL contributor, its branding as a silent destination to author and LakeHuron cottager.

Construction42 cottagelifexom NoiseJune/July at Wolverine2020 Beach - Discussion Only (Hazelton)Page 63 of 73 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF MISSISSIPPI MILLS 3131 OLD PERTH ROAD  PO BOX 400  RR 2  ALMONTE ON  K0A 1A0

PHONE: 613-256-2064 FAX: 613-256-4887 WEBSITE: www.mississippimills.ca

January 18, 2021

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing 17th Floor, 777 Bay Street TORONTO, ON M7A 2J3

Attention: The Honourable Steve Clark

Re: Request for Revisions to Municipal Elections

Dear Minister Clark,

On October 20, 2020 the Council of the Municipality of Mississippi Mills passed a resolution in support of Wollaston Township to request the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to review the Municipal Elections Act and provide amendments to provide clearer, stronger wording, to assist municipal Clerks in addressing issues to allow for a more definitive decision to be made when adding names to the voters’ list and to ensure that there is a clear and accessible way to report election fraud and that the rules described in the Municipal Elections Act are actually enforceable even if there is not a current case law.

A copy of the resolution is attached for your reference.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Russell Deputy Clerk [email protected] 613-256-2064 x 225 3131 Old Perth Rd, PO Box 400 Almonte, ON K0A 1A0

cc. Premier Doug Ford, Daryl Kramp, AMO and all Ontario Municipalities

Attachment: Resolution No. 421-20

Revisions to Municipal Elections - Discussion Only (Hazelton) Page 64 of 73 COUNCIL RESOLUTION October 20, 2020

Resolution No 421-20 Moved by Deputy Mayor Minnille Seconded by Councillor Dalgity CW148-20 Info List Item #6 - Request for Revisions to Municipal Elections BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the Municipality of Mississippi Mills ask Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Hon, Steve Clark, to review the Municipal Elections Act and provide amendments to ensure that loopholes are closed on any pay to play schemes in rural communities where non-resident electors are permitted to participate in elections so that $100.00 leases do not tum into ballots for garden sheds;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council of the Municipality of Mississippi Mills ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Hon. Steve Clark, to review the Municipal Elections Act and provide amendments to provide clearer, stronger wording, to assist municipal Clerks in addressing issues to allow for a more definitive decision to be made when adding names to the voters' list;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council of the Municipality of Mississippi Mills ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Hon. Steve Clark, to ensure that there is a clear and accessible way to report election fraud;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council of the Municipality of Mississippi Mills ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Hon. Steve Clark, to ensure that the rules described In the Municipal Elections Act are actually enforceable even if there is not current case law;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that support for this resolution be sent to Premier Doug Ford, Daryl Kramp, M.P.P. for Hastings-Lennox and Addington, all Ontario Municipalities and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

I, Jennifer Russell, Deputy Clerk for the Corporation of the Municipality of Mississippi Mills, do hereby certify that the above is a true copy of a resolution enacted by Council.

______Jennifer Russell, Deputy Clerk Revisions to Municipal Elections - Discussion Only (Hazelton) Page 65 of 73 New Business – Georgian Bay Association Re: Prohibit Unencapsulated Foam in Docks Submitted by Councillor Jarvis Council Meeting of February 9, 2021

Resolution

BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council of the Township of Georgian Bay supports the Township of Archipelago Resolution 19-210 regarding the initiation of an education program in cooperation with the Ratepayers Association, Georgian Bay Forever, Georgian Bay Biosphere Reserve, Georgian Bay Association, and the Great Lakes Mayors regarding the environmental impact of foam docks, including lobbying efforts to encourage the Provincial Government to ban the use of foam for docks;

AND THAT Council endorse Bill 228 for Keeping Polystyrene Out of Ontario’s Lakes and Rivers Act, 2020;

AND THAT the Township of Georgian Bay’s resolution in support of Bill 228 be circulated to the Norm Miller, MPP Parry Sound-Muskoka, District of Muskoka and Area Municipalities, Township of Archipelago, Georgian Bay Forever, Georgian Bay Biosphere Reserve, Georgian Bay Association, and Great Lakes Mayors.

Report

Title: Bill 228, Keeping Polystyrene Out of Ontario's Lakes and Rivers Act, 2020

Bill 228 is an Act to prohibit unencapsulated expanded or extruded polystyrene in floating docks, floating platforms and buoys. The essence of this proposed legislation is to ban the use of unencapsulated polystyrene foam for new dock construction or dock repairs. Polystyrene foam is the major plastics pollution source in the Great Lakes. In Georgian Bay analysis of shoreline clean-up materials collected and Seabin contents (see: https://georgianbay.ca/seabins-at-marinas-to-scoop-up-plastic-waste/ ) prove that is the case. Reasonably priced alternatives are available for construction of new docks and dock repairs.

Council, in an effort to confront the ongoing degradation of our lakes, rivers and bays due to the proliferation of plastics, we must accept that we need to work harder to gradually phase out certain items where we have some control of over their usage. It has therefore been helpfully suggested that

Georgian Bay Association (GBA) (Jarvis) re: Prohibit UnencapsulatedPage Foam... 66 of 73 the TGB adopt the resolution in support of the Archipelago Resolution 19- 210:

Township of Archipelago Resolution 19-210 RE: Use of Dock Foam

Moved by Councillor Manners Seconded by Councillor Sheard

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Township of The Archipelago initiate an education program in cooperation with Ratepayer Associations, Georgian Bay Forever, Georgian Bay Biosphere Reserve and the Great Lakes Mayors regarding the environmental impact of foam docks, including lobbying efforts to encourage the Provincial Government to ban the use of foam for docks. Carried.

Attachments

ATT1 - GBA letter to Other MPPs on Norm Miller Dock Foam Bill 228 - Jan 27, 2021

Georgian Bay Association (GBA) (Jarvis) re: Prohibit UnencapsulatedPage Foam... 67 of 73 New Business – Georgian Bay Association Re: Prohibit Unencapsulated Foam in Docks Submitted by Councillor Jarvis Council Meeting of February 9, 2021

Resolution

AND THAT Council endorse Bill 228 for Keeping Polystyrene Out of Ontario’s Lakes and Rivers Act, 2020;

Report

Title: Bill 228, Keeping Polystyrene Out of Ontario's Lakes and Rivers Act, 2020

Georgian Bay Association (GBA) (Jarvis) re: Prohibit UnencapsulatedPage Foam... 68 of 73 the TGB adopt the resolution in support of the Archipelago Resolution 19- 210:

Township of Archipelago Resolution 19-210 RE: Use of Dock Foam

Moved by Councillor Manners Seconded by Councillor Sheard

Attachments

ATT1 - GBA letter to Other MPPs on Norm Miller Dock Foam Bill 228 - Jan 27, 2021

Georgian Bay Association (GBA) (Jarvis) re: Prohibit UnencapsulatedPage Foam... 69 of 73 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF GEORGIAN BAY

BY-LAW 2021-XXX

Being a By-law to appoint Municipal Law Enforcement Officers for the Township of Georgian Bay.

WHEREAS pursuant to Section 15(1) of the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter P.15, a municipal council may appoint persons to enforce the by-laws of the municipality;

AND WHEREAS pursuant to Section 15(2) of the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter P. 157 municipal law enforcement officers are peace officers for the purpose of enforcing municipal by laws;

AND WHEREAS pursuant to the Municipal Act 2001, R. S.O. 2001, Chapter 25, as amended, the Council of a municipality may appoint persons to enter any property in order to ascertain whether provisions of a By-law are being obeyed and to enforce or carry into effect the By-laws;

AND WHEREAS the Council of the Township of Georgian Bay deems it necessary to appoint Municipal Law Enforcement Officers for the Township of Georgian Bay.

NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF GEORGIAN BAY ENACTS THE FOLLOWS:

1. That Cody Avery is hereby appointed as a Municipal Law Enforcement Officer for The Corporation of the Township of Georgian Bay to perform all the powers and to perform all the duties of a Municipal Law Enforcement Officer in the enforcement of the By-laws of the Township of Georgian Bay and all relevant Provincial Statues that are consistent with this office;

2. That this By-law shall come into force and take effect immediately after the final passing hereof.

READ AND ENACTED in Open Council this 8th day of February, 2021.

______PETER KOETSIER, MAYOR

______KAREN WAY, CLERK

By-law 2021 - MLEO Appointment (Avery) Page 70 of 73

By-law 2021-XXX Page 2 of 2

By-law 2021 - MLEO Appointment (Avery) Page 71 of 73 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF GEORGIAN BAY

BY-LAW 2021-000

Being a By-law to confirm the proceedings of the Council of the Township of Georgian Bay at the Council Meeting held February 9, 2021

(Confirming February 9, 2021)

WHEREAS pursuant to Section 5 (1) of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, as amended, the powers of a municipality shall be exercised by its Council;

AND WHEREAS pursuant to Section 5 (3) of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, as amended, A Municipal power, including a municipality’s capacity, rights, powers and privileges under section 9, shall be exercised by by-law unless the municipality is specifically authorized to do otherwise;

AND WHEREAS it is deemed expedient that proceedings of the Council of Township of Georgian Bay as herein set forth be confirmed and adopted by by-law

NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Township of Georgian Bay enacts as follows:

1. The actions of the Council of the Township of Georgian Bay at the Meeting held on February 9, 2021, in respect of each recommendation contained in the minutes of Standing and Special Committees as adopted or amended and each motion and resolution passed and other action taken by the Council of the Township of Georgian Bay at this meeting is hereby adopted and confirmed as if all such proceedings were expressly embodied in this by-law.

2. The Mayor and proper officials of the Township of Georgian Bay are hereby authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to the actions of the Council of the Township of Georgian Bay referred to in the preceding section hereof.

3. The Mayor and Clerk are authorized and directed to execute all documents necessary in that behalf and to affix thereto the Seal of the Township of Georgian Bay.

4. Section 1 does not apply to any action or matter that is required by law to be done by resolution.

5. Section 1 does not apply to any action or matter to which Local Planning Appeal Tribunal approval is required until such approval is obtained but Section 2 applies for the purpose of obtaining such approval.

BY-LAW 2021 - Confirming February 9, 2021 Council Page 72 of 73 By-law 2021-000 Page 2 of 2

6. This by-law shall come into force and take effect on the day it is passed.

READ AND ENACTED in Open Council on this 9th Day of February, 2021.

PETER KOETSIER, MAYOR

KAREN WAY, CLERK

BY-LAW 2021 - Confirming February 9, 2021 Council Page 73 of 73