Greater Napanee GREATERFOR MANY REASONS

Community & Corporate Services 12 Market Square. P.O. Box97 Napanee. ON K7R3L4 TEL613-354-335] FAX613-354-5991 www.greaternoponee.com

January 11, 2018

The Honourable Kathleen Wynne The Honourable Ya5ir Naqvi Premier of Ontario Minister of the Attorney General of Ontario Legislative Building McMurtry-Scott Building Queen’s Park 720 Bay Street, 11th Floor Toronto, ON M7A 1A1 Toronto, ON M7A 259 e-mail: [email protected] e-mail: [email protected]

The Honourable Charles Sousa The Honourable BillMauro Minister of Finance Minister of Municipal Affair5 7 Queen’s Park Crescent, 7th floor 777 Bay Street, 17th Floor Toronto, ON M7A 1Y7 Toronto, ON M5G 2E5 e-mail: [email protected] e-mail: [email protected]

RE: TOWN OF GREATERNAPANEE REQUESTFOR DIRECTIONFROM THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO ON PUBLICPOUCY MATTERSRELATINGTO OPP POLICEBILLINGSAND FUTURE POLICINGGOVERNANCE.

Please find attached the Town of Greater Napanee’s request for direction from the Provincial Government on public policy matters relating to OPP police billings and future policing governance. Council would very much appreciate a response from the provincial government to the three public policy questions outlined in the document.

If more information or clarification is required, please contact Raymond Callery, CAO at 613-354-3351, ext. 2002 or [email protected].

Thank you in advance for your attention to this request.

Yours truly,

Susan M. Beckel Clerk

Att: 1

Cc: Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) Rural Ontario Municipal Association (ROMA) County of Lennox & Addington Council Loyalist Township Council Township of Stone Mills Council Township of Addington Highlands Council Greater Napanee GREATER FOR MANY REASONS

Community & Corporate Services l2MarketSquare, PD. Box97 Naponee, ON K7R3L4 TEL613-354-3351 FAX 613-354-5991 www.greaternaponee.com

Town of Greater Napanee Request for Direction from the Provincial Government of Ontario on Public Polkv Matters Relating to OPP Police Billingsand Future Policing Governance

January 2018

Summary

The nature of policingand how we look at communities of interest for policingwillchange with the amendments proposed to the Police Services Act. The Councilof the Town of Greater Napanee is seeking direction from the Province on the following three public policy questions, so that the municipality can act accordingly when developing local budgets and safety planning initiatives.

1. Does the Province believe municipal Councils should have the autonomy and authority to establish local levy areas within a municipal political boundary, to reflect differences in calls for service data? 2. Given the larger areas that detachment resources are shared over and the reduced influence of local municipal Councils to deal with policing issues, does the Province agree that calls for service should be billed equally within the detachment or Police Services Board area as opposed to “municipal political boundaries”? 3. Given that Community Safety Plans will attempt to establish the best way to reduce future needs for calls for service in a municipality and that the majority of agencies represented on municipal planning committees will have very broad organizational areas of influence; does the Province agree community safety plans should be developed for OPP Detachment Areas or Police Services Board Areas instead of “municipal political boundaries”?

Background Greater Napanee is a rural/urban municipality in eastern Ontario that was created by the 1998 amalgamation of four townships and one Town. The former Town of Napanee was the only municipality in the County of Lennoxand Addington paying for policingat the time, so a section of the Minister’s Order, allowed for Greater Napanee to area rate the Ontario Provincial Policecontract costs. The Councilof Greater Napanee eventually used this authority to create a two-rate system of taxation that was originally based on this differential, but over time never made substantial adjustments to reflect costing or legislative changes.

The Municipal Actgrants the authority for municipalities to create variations in taxation based on differences of services received through localized area rates. This is common with items such as sidewalks and streetlights. Duringa citizen committee review of our provision of services, it was questioned at length whether or not this variation could apply to policing (ifall residents receive the service from a single municipal wide OPP contract). Acopy of the Watson &Associates Report is included for information. The Councilpassed the following resolution to further explore this issue: ______

RESOLUTION#371/1 6: Kaiser& Cole That this new taxation policyconsider ‘Method 4” of the Taxation PolicyReview Committee Final Report in so far that we take the area-rating offire services, streetlights and sidewalks as included in the report; Andfinally, that we not leave the OPPissue alone, such that we seek dialogue with the OPPand/or the Pravince tofind a clear and final decision as to whether or not the ‘callsfor service”far the OPPcan be area-rated within a given municipality; and that we seek that decision within this term of Council; And that the phase in period be changed to 5 years, with the first year having already been done.

Mayor Schermerhorn requested a recorded vote. Yes:CouncillorsSchenk, Kaiser,Cole,Harvey, Deputy Mayor lsbester and Mayor Schermerhorn No: CouncillorLucas Yes:6 No: I As a result of the recorded vote the resolution was declared CARRIED.

In 2015, after years of consultation, a new billingmodel for the OPPwas implemented which requires municipalities to pay based on a property count system for basic proactive police costs and then also pay additionally for reactive callsfor services.

Greater Napanee participated on provincial working groups that established recommendations going forward for the new formula being used. Prior to 2015, police costing was based on a staffing approach, where a municipality paid according to the staffing requirements, needed to respond effectively to detachment workload. Under the previous formula, if a municipality had no recorded activity, they could in theory, pay nothing toward OPPpolicing costs. Taken to the extreme, ifthere were no calls for service in the Province, the aPP would incur no costs and have to bill nothing to municipalities. It was identified that this made no practical sense. Avery detailed process took place to determine, what exactly the base cost of providing an app service to the Province was. These costs are shared evenly across the province by those that receive aPP services, based on an established number of property counts.

Beyond base costs, municipalities pay for reactive services, based on a fixed rate per classification of call. Various locations that use app services have diverse levels of use. The higher a municipality’scall volumes, the larger the reactive portion of your app billingwill be in any given year. To avoid large swings, especially in smaller communities, a rolling average of callvolumes is used. This reflected the reality of 2015; municipalities could negotiate a contract with the app to receive enhanced levels of service or to retain the right to have a PoliceServices Board for their municipality. Amunicipality can influence the implementation of aPP resources through local Police Services Boards. Thisvariable portion of the billalso reflected that municipalities had some abilityto control factors within their community that influence crime.

Base 191.35 = Greater Amount: Properties 7,641 @ $1,462,105 Callsfor Service: 1.1746% of all municipalities = $1,770,757

Base Amount: Properties 6,942 @ 191.35 = $ 1,328,352 Callsfor Service: 0.6041% of all municipalities = $ 910,680 Proposed changes to the Police ServicesAct, are creating changes to the ability of local jurisdictions to effectively manage the variable portion of their bill.The proposal to alter the number of Police Services Boards to closely align with Detachment geography willreduce local representation and input in the use of police funds raised through municipal taxation. Community Safety Plans will be required by all municipalities but the prescriptive nature of the representation required on the oversight committees willcreate an imbalance between local and regional input. These changes in the landscape of policing could result in local municipalities being required to cover the variable portion of the OPPbillwithin their jurisdiction, but having reduced say on Police Services Boards that help implement detachment operations. Community Safety Planswill ultimately help determine how community based programs will be delivered to help pre-empt OPPservice calls; but those plans will be developed based on regional agency concerns rather than local municipal objectives.

Havingconsidered these continuing changes to both the provision of service, the cost of services and governance of policing;all ProvincialMinistries having a stake in the policingportfolio need to bring recommendations forward to answer complex but fundamental questions facing Ontario, regarding the funding of OPP policingservices.

Considering that base OPPcosts are divided equally across municipal users; the particular issue that this correspondence wishes to address is how defined an area willthe Province allow a municipality or group of municipalities receiving OPPservices, to assess and tax the variable portion of the bill. It is clear from the OPPthat they have the ability to attach calls for service data to individual civicaddresses. Infact, this data is used to billmunicipalities for the calls for service (variable) portion of the bill.

As an example, Greater Napanee is an amalgamated municipality with possibly four distinct communities of interest within it. The communities of interest do not necessarily follow the former municipal boundaries prior to the 1998 amalgamation. Councilhas in the past allowed for a differential in tax rates for policing. Thiswas based on the Minister’s Order at the time of amalgamation and the determination of Council in 2000 that there was a difference in the provision of service.

The OPP provides a single service to the municipality under a contract but various areas within the community would have varying numbers and types of callsfor service.

Example: Billingwithin an area of influence Base Amount: Properties x @ 191.84 = Callsfor Service: x%of all municipalities =

No net change to the total Municipal or Provincial Billing 1. Does the Province believe municipal Council’sshould have the autonomy and authority to establish local levy areas within a municipal political boundary, to reflect differences in calls for service data?

The Napanee OPP Detachment currently patrols in three different Counties, seven municipal lower tier jurisdictions and one self governed territory. Should this detachment have one Police Services Board, there may be no need for any of the individual politicaljurisdictions to have a contract with the OPP unless they have service enhancements. Atypical contract has little affect on the overall cost. The proposed larger PoliceServices Board will be influencing the use of detachment resources, not the local municipality. It is unlikelyin a detachment this size; the PoliceServices Board would have any more than one representative from each municipal jurisdiction (ifone representative per municipality is even possible).

Napanee DetachmentEnvironmentalScan DetachmentOverview TheNapaneeDetachmentprovidespolicingservices to the County of Lennox and Addington, Tyendinaga Township,the Townof Deseronto,andthe Barrie Ward in North Frontenac Township. The total area is over 300,000 square hectares with 2,284kilometresof roadway,124 inlandlakesand extensive LakeOntario and Quinte Bayshoreline.

Napanee Detachment patrols the King’sHighway401, from the western boundary of Hastings County, 76 kilometres to the eastern boundary of Lennox and Addington, and Highway 7 across Lennox and Addington County.

The Napanee Detachment is the administrative host clustered with the Loyalistand Kaladar satellite detachments.

Example: Billing within a Detachment Area of influence Base Amount: Properties within detachment y @ 191.84 = Calls for Service: y% for a detachment of all OPP Detachments municipal workload =

Example: Billing within a Police Services Board Area of influence Base Amount: Properties within Police Services Board z @ 191.84 = Sz Calls for Service: z% for a Police Services Board of all OPP municipal workload =

These examples create no change to total Provincial Billing. Municipalities could pay based on percentage of weighted assessment of Detachment or Police Services Board total cost

2. Given the larger areas that detachment resources are shared over and the reduced influence of local municipal councils to deal with policing issues, should calls for service be billed equally within the detachment or Police Services Board area as opposed to “political communities of interest”. The proposed amendments to the PoliceServices Act requires all lower tier or single tier municipalities to develop a Community Safety Plan. The purpose of these plans isto develop strategies to influence the requirements for future reactive policing in a positive manner and as a result, reduce the numbers of callsfor service. However, when considering the operational area of the Napanee Detachment, can the OPPeffectively and efficiently operate in a manner that can respond to potentially eleven vastly different community safety plans? (assumes the 3 upper tiers also wish to voluntarily develop plans as opposed to sitting on a number of lower tier processes.)

The other issue with community safety plans is the PoliceService Act is prescriptive in representation required on committees to develop these plans. Other than the OPP,consider two additional members of Greater Napanee’s potential committee. The Kingston,Frontenac and Lennoxand Addington Health Unit has a jurisdiction covering two Counties. Their staff could potentially sit on nine different committees. Asan organization, they willwant to have a common set of goals and vision. This means that the Greater Napanee (16,000 population with four potential communities of interest internally) plan will have to reflect needs from across two counties and a city of 160,000 people. How reflective willthis be of local social issues affecting specific policingissues?

Kingston Frontenac and Lennoxand Addington Health Unit Operational Jurisdiction.

¶ 2 Counties iE7 Ua ilolleford 1; Perth Road SLower tier Municipalities Ilartinglor Datteroca Cityof Kingston IIarrov:zmith r Inverary Davidcons Fvlurvalc...- _Uca:h r

)deosa 5SL

yin aven fl Even more pronounced is the local Catholic School Board’s operational area.

2 Counties

18 Lower Tier Municipalities

Cityof Belleville

Cityof Quinte West

The Algonquin and Lakeshore District Catholic School Board would have representation on the community safety planning committee and their operational jurisdiction is very wide reaching. They only have one elementary school within Greater Napanee but their vision and mission would include community influences from the diverse communities they serve. This further reduces the ability for local issues to be specifically addressed in the plan.

Operational effectiveness of an OPP Detachment deserves fair consideration. It is possible that the Napanee Detachment of the OPPwill have to operationally administer up to eleven community safety plans having a great deal of overlap in regional attendees at committee meetings. This would in effect re-create the workload that is proposed to be eliminated, by decreasing the number of PoliceService Boards within a detachment. This could also further increase political involvement in detachment operations, as Community Safety Plans might be seen as an opportunity for local Councilto dictate department resources. Thiscould blur the line between Counciland Police Service Board functions.

Ifthe general thought process is that crime prevention cannot be addressed within isolated pockets of geography and requires much broader social changes to effect future policing needs; then the Province may need to consider the size of geographical boundaries that make sense for dividingreactive policing costs.

3. Given that Community Safety Plans will attempt to establish the best way to reduce future needs for calls for service in a municipality and that the majority of agencies represented on municipal planning committees have very broad organizational areas of influence; should community safety plans be developed for OPP Detachment Areas or Police Services Board Areas instead of “political areas of influence”?

The Councilof the Town of Greater Napanee respectfully requests answers to these three questions prior to the municipal elections to be held in 2018. This information is vital for the newly elected Council to effectively make determinations on budget, taxation policy,crime prevention strategies and future OPPcontract negotiations. When responding, the Province may wish to consider that a single approach to each answer may not work in all regions of Ontario. Some flexibilityat the local level may be required.