THE DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA CORPORATE AND

THE DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA

CORPORATE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES COMMITTEE

A G E N D A

Meeting No. CES-3-2011 Friday, February 25, 2010

9:00 a.m. Council Chamber, District Administration Building

Pages 1. CALL TO ORDER

2. DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTERESTS

1 – 5

3. CEREMONIAL AND INVITED PRESENTATIONS a) Staff Sergeant Roger Kelly, Acting Regional Manager of Planning and Audit

Chief Superintendent Mike Armstrong, Central Region Commanding Officer Re: Civilian Data Entry Pilot Project CES-3-2011-DEL-A

4. EMERGENCY SERVICES STAFF REPORTS

6 – 7 a) Civilian Data Entry

Report No. CES-3-2011-3

Recommendation THAT the cost for the civilian data entry pilot project be included in the 2011 Draft Tax Supported Operating Budget for Council consideration; AND THAT the pilot project operate for a two year period commencing in June 2011 and ending in June 2013.

8 – 19 b) The District Municipality of Muskoka OPP Services Report No. CES-3-2011-4

Recommendation

THAT The District Municipality of Muskoka elect not to participate in a review of police services options with the Town of/Ville de Penetanguishene.

20 – 26 c) Community Policing Offices Report No. CES-3-2011-6

Recommendation

THAT the annual flat rate contribution to the Area Municipalities be amended in 2011 to reflect the lesser of $4,600 per equivalent community policing office or the actual cost of maintaining those offices; AND THAT the Bracebridge Business Improvement Area video recorder initiative be eligible for an annual contribution in lieu of and equivalent to a community policing office.

Pages

27

d) Appointment of Community Emergency Management Coordinator Report No. CES-3-2011-5

Recommendation

THAT Mr. Steven Baxter be appointed as the Community Emergency Management Coordinator (CEMC) for The District Municipality of Muskoka.

28 – 32 e) February 7, 2011 Power Outage at 70 Pine Street Presentation No. CES-3-2011-9

Recommendation

None. For information only.

5. FACILITIES SERVICES

33 – 36 a) Earth Hour 2011 Report No. CES-3-2011-8

Recommendation

THAT The District Municipality of Muskoka endorse and participate in Earth Hour 2011.

6. BUDGETS AND FINANCIAL POLICY

a) Fleet Tenders 11-130080-01 to 11-130080-4 and 11-130080-07 Report No. CES-3-2011-10 To be attached separately with hard copy of agenda package

37 – 43 b) Annual Review and Update of The District Municipality of Muskoka’s User Fees

Report No. CES-3-2011-2

Recommendation THAT By-law 2010-14 being a by-law to update certain fees and charges and establish others be updated in accordance with Schedule “A” as attached to Report No. CES-3-2011-2 Annual Review of The District Municipality of Muskoka’s User Fees.

7. FINANCE

44 – 47 a) Request for Waiver of Landfill Tipping Fees – Muskoka Salvation Army Branches Report No. CES-3-2011-7

Recommendation

THAT the request from the Salvation Army branches in Gravenhurst, Huntsville and Bracebridge for a waiver of tipping fees at Muskoka landfill sites be denied, as it does not meet The District Municipality of Muskoka’s Grant Policy AD:28.

Pages

48 b) 2011 Debenture Issue Report No. CES-3-2011-1

Recommendation

THAT the Commissioner of Finance and Corporate Services be authorized to sell debentures and/or apply for loans for up to $17,500,000.

49 – 54 c) Solid Waste Collection Services For Residential

Condominiums And Other Multiple Unit Residential Buildings Report No. PW-3-2011-4

Recommendation

THAT, subject to the conditions listed in Appendix “A” attached, residential condominiums and other multiple unit residential buildings be provided with solid waste collection services; AND THAT effective January 1, 2012, the owners of residential condominiums and other multiple unit residential buildings that do not receive waste collection services be given relief from that portion of the property tax bill applicable to the collection services; AND FURTHER THAT the owners of residential condominiums and other multiple unit residential buildings that receive or that are eligible to receive solid waste collection service may not opt out of receiving the service.

8. NEW BUSINESS 9. CLOSED SESSION

Recommendation

THAT we do now retire to Corporate and Emergency Services Committee in closed session to discuss a personal matter. Recommendation THAT we do now rise from Corporate and Emergency Services Committee in closed session and immediately reconvene in open session.

10. ADJOURNMENT

Recommendation THAT the Corporate and Emergency Services Committee adjourns to meet again on Friday, March 18, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. or at the call of the Chair.

1

OPP Central RegionCivilian Data Entry

(CDE) Project

Presentation to: The District of MuskokaFebruary 25, 2011

Presentation Summary

CDE Efficacy CDE in the OPPOverview of CR CDE ProjectOverview of CR CDE ProjectImplementing CDE in the District of MuskokaNext Steps

OPP Presenters

Chief Supt Mike Armstrong – Regional Commander, Central Region

S/Sgt Roger Kelly Manager Planning andS/Sgt Roger Kelly, Manager, Planning and Audit, Central Region and CDE Project Manager

CDE EfficacyAlready proven to be effective business model in policingOfficers spend average of 12.5% of day report writing (90 min during 12hr shift)writing (90 min during 12hr shift)Takes CDE member 1/3 of the time of average officer to complete a reportEvery 30 min data entry for CDE saves 75 min of an officer’s timeEvery 15 min of dictation by officer results in 30 min of data entry by CDE member

CES-3-2011-DEL-A

1

2

CDE In The OPPIn 2009 - only 8 detachments were providing CDE in the OPP All 8 detachments operated as stand alone systemssystems 4 CDE sites in Central Region served 5 detachments

Orillia, Caledon, Nottawasaga, CKLCKL provides CDE for Haliburton

More and more becoming part of OPP’s future

Central Region CDE ProjectObjectives/Goals:

Acquire technology to replace existing systemsExpand CDE throughout Central RegionPrepare report/plan/recommendations for province wide expansion

CDE Project Timeline – Key DatesInitiate Project October 2009Business Case - Completed/Approved November 2009 Assign Leads for Research Plans November 2009

Policy - Training - TechnologyJob Descriptions - Performance Measures

Collaborate with municipalities –secure buy in/commitment Ongoingsecure buy in/commitment Ongoing

RFP – Posted MERX December 2009Award RFP March 1, 2010Acquisition/Set up of Server/Network

Telephone Technology March 2010Complete/Submit Research Plans OngoingRMS refresher training May 2010Migration of existing CDE detachments June 1, 2010Expansion to other Detachments July 2010

The Successful Vendor

Contract was awarded in March 2010 to LHCC Holdings Inc.

Lanier Health Care Canada IncLanier Health Care Canada Inc.Includes licences for 23 simultaneous dictations; 23 simultaneous transcriptions; 7 simultaneous manager suites; headsets/foot pedals; training; and 24/7 service support.

2

3

ImplementationNew system live on June 1, 2010Five (5) existing CDE locations migrated to the new system in June 2010

All old standalone systems shut downAll old standalone systems shut downExpanded to Peterborough and Northumberland in August 2010Expanded to Collingwood - October 2010Standardized Dictation GuidebookExpanded pilot to include Essex Det (Jan 2011)

• Network based

• T1 line (23) to GHQ using VNET

ib

Concept

• Transcribers deployed to detachments

• Access dictations via network

Benefits of CDE for Muskoka

Equates to freeing up the equivalent of 10 officers to be redirected for:

calls for servicecrime preventionproactive enforcement

Local jobs for CDE staff (various business model options)

District of Muskoka

Bracebridge: 2.42

CDE FTE REQUIREMENTS

Huntsvillle: 1.38SGB (Muskoka portion only): 0.13

Total CDE FTEs required: 3.93

3

4

CDE Staffing Costs

District of Muskoka

Total CDE Staffing Cost: $184,399.63Total CDE Staffing Cost: $184,399.63

SGB (Muskoka portion only): $6,248.98

Total without SGB portion: $178,150.65

Based on existing CDE operator job description and classification level, at 2011 top level of salary range.

Other CDE Costs

Computer leasing/office furniture - if existing not available

existing admin computers/workstations may be g p yused during non business hours

OPP has absorbed other start up costs within existing budget

e.g., software licences/server costs, telephone lines and headsets/foot pedals

Preparing For Detachment Implementation – Key Steps

Hiring/Security ClearancesWorkspace SetupSystem setupy

User profiles/permissionsWorkflow route groups

TrainingCDE SpecificRMS Niche

Launch

Findings to Date

System performanceOfficer usageTimeliness of reportsTimeliness of reportsFeedback from officers/transcribers Quality of Reports

4

5

Discussion/Questions

5

TO: Chair and Members

Corporate and Emergency Services Committee FROM: Stephen Cairns, Commissioner of Finance and Corporate Services DATE: February 25, 2011 SUBJECT: Civilian Data Entry REPORT NO: CES-3-2011-3 ___________________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION THAT the cost for the civilian data entry pilot project be included in the 2011 Draft Tax Supported Operating Budget for Council consideration; AND THAT the pilot project operates for a two year period commencing in June 2011 and ending in June 2013. ORIGIN At the October 22, 2010 Corporate and Emergency Services Committee meeting, Chief Superintendent Mike Armstrong, Regional Commander Central Region, and Staff Sergeant Roger Kelly, Manager, Planning and Audit Central Region and Project Manager, made a presentation on a proposed civilian data entry pilot project for the OPP’s Central Region. The premise of the project is to assign data entry, transcribing and other clerical functions to lower paying civilian personnel. The deemed benefit of the program is that it would free up the equivalent of ten uniformed officers in Muskoka. That time would be more effectively used in areas that would better align with their qualifications and expertise (i.e. call for services, crime prevention and proactive enforcement). Staff was directed to initiate some exploratory discussions with the OPP and report back to the Corporate and Emergency Services Committee in the New Year. ANALYSIS Subsequent meetings with the OPP representatives did not change the overall functionality of the proposal and its funding formula. It did clarify some key conditions for the District of Muskoka to participate in the pilot program. Those being:

• the clerical positions will report to and be employees of the OPP; • the clerical positions will be located within Muskoka at the Bracebridge and Huntsville OPP

Detachments; • the pilot project will be two years in duration and continuation of the program will be conditional

on Council’s approval; and • in the event that civilian data entry becomes adopted by the OPP as standard business practice

and incorporated into the standard costing used for billing OPP services, funding for the project by the District of Muskoka will cease.

6

Representatives from the OPP will be in attendance at the February 25, 2011 Corporate and Emergency Services Committee meeting to present a PowerPoint presentation (CES-3-2011-DEL-A). EXISTING POLICY The budgetary impact and the increase in the civilian contract positions within the policing services budget will challenge staff in meeting the objectives as outlined in the budgetary guidelines for the 2011 Draft Tax Supported Operating Budget. ALTERNATIVE The alternative is to decline the funding request and let the merits of the existing pilot projects persuade the OPP to incorporate the business model into their standard practice, and only at that time would the District of Muskoka fund the cost of the program as part of its share of locally provided services. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS The District of Muskoka’s share of the annual funding is $178,150. Assuming a June 1, 2011 start date for this project, the budgetary impact in 2011 will be $89,075. Assuming annual wage adjustments, the budgetary impact for 2012 and 2013 will be $183,500 and $94,500, respectively. The benefit of the program is not in direct cost savings, but in more effective use of staff resources. It can also be argued that the implementation of this program would avoid future costs by eliminating or at least delaying the need to add additional uniformed personnel. The underlying assumption is that there is a requirement of an additional 6.5 constables to perform local enforcement within the District of Muskoka. If this is not the case, the argument is moot.

2011 FTE Count Dedicated to Local

Enforcement

Assumed Benefit in Increased Man Hours for Uniform Personnel

(65% of 10 FTE)

Equivalent Cost to Hire Uniformed Personnel

Reflected by Efficiency Gains through the Program

Constables 66 6.5 $767,000 Civilian Data Entry Clerks 4.0 (178,150) Efficiency Gain (Loss) $588,850

Note: The breakeven efficiency gain is a net increase of man hours for uniformed personnel of 2.3 officers instead of the 10 offices as stated in the proposal. STRATEGIC PRIORITIES The information in this report supports the following strategies identified in The District Municipality of Muskoka’s Strategic Priorities:

8.2 Deliver police services to ensure public safety through the Ontario Provincial Police with active participation from the various communities through Community Policing Committees, the Area Councils and District Council.

Respectfully submitted,

Stephen Cairns Commissioner of Finance and Corporate Services

7


Corporate and Emergency Services Committee FROM: Stephen Cairns, Commissioner of Finance and Corporate Services DATE: February 25, 2011 SUBJECT: The District Municipality of Muskoka OPP Services REPORT NO: CES-3-2011-4 _________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION THAT The District Municipality of Muskoka elect not to participate in a review of police services options with the Town of/Ville de Penetanguishene. ORIGIN The Town of Penetanguishene circulated a request for interested municipalities to participate in a joint review of policing services to coincide with the expiry of their existing contract with the OPP. Given the nature of the request and the significant turn-over in Council, the following report has been prepared to provide background information on the District of Muskoka’s policing services arrangement. ANALYSIS Municipalities (single or upper-tier) are required to ensure that adequate and effective police services are provided in accordance with the provisions of the Police Services Act (the Act). Under the Act, core policing services include crime prevention, law enforcement, assistance to victims of crime, public order maintenance, emergency response services, and the administration and infrastructure required for providing such services. In addition to the core services, specialized services may be required or desirable (i.e. forensic identification teams, traffic reconstructionist and technical traffic investigation units, canine units, bicycle/ATV/Snowmobile units, marine units, drug units, major crimes/criminal investigations, Crime Stoppers support, emergency response teams, tactical units, crisis negotiators, trauma counsellors, media relations, etc.). The Act allows for various means of providing policing, including:

1. Establish own municipal police force.

8

2. Enter into a formal contract for services: • contract with OPP, or • contract with another municipal police force.

3. Combination of one of the above along with private policing for certain areas (i.e. prisoner

monitors, court security, transfer guards).

4. If a municipality does not provide police services by one of the ways identified above, the Ontario Provincial Police shall provide police services to the municipality.

• A municipality that is provided police services by the Ontario Provincial Police shall pay the Minister of Finance for the services, in the amount and the manner provided by the regulations.

ANALYSIS The District Municipality of Muskoka has not entered into a formal contract with the OPP or with another municipality and has therefore avoided the costs, effort and ongoing administrative and service delivery issues identified under the alternative options. Flexibility to respond to local needs has been achieved by the establishment of a close and cooperative working relationship between the local OPP detachments, the District and the local municipalities. The use and provision for additional paid duty hours and the establishment of community policing offices at the local municipalities has allowed the District to respond to seasonal demands and local issues as required. Under the existing arrangements, the local detachments can call upon specialized services, as noted above, from the Province Force as required. The development and maintenance of these specialized services at the local level would be cost prohibited and impractical to maintain at the level required to function appropriately when called upon. Service indicators and satisfaction with the policing services in Muskoka is high and compares favourably with other jurisdictions. See attached excerpt from the 2009 Ontario Municipal Benchmarking Initiative (OMBI). ALTERNATIVES Delivery of policing services is highly legislated and dictated regardless of the delivery agent. Generally, other options are only considered when serious concerns are expressed regarding the costs of policing, community-level service delivery and/or control of police programs and services. Establishing a municipal police force or entering into a formal contract for policing services requires:

• an understanding of civilian governance issues including the rights and responsibilities of Council; and

• establishing a Police Services Board to oversee issues of policing services and delivery, as well as direction of policing operational issues.

Contracted Policing Service Delivery requires:

• undertaking police workload analysis, including a review of calls for service (reactive), seasonal demands as well as proactive/crime prevention measures;

• determining the number of zones, platoons, officers, civilians, and auxiliary; • supervision and administration of personnel; • developing or reviewing community policing initiatives;

9

• addressing organizational and operational issues such as: location of detachment headquarters, sub offices and community policing offices, and other issues such as holding cells, court security, and legislated training.

Establishing Municipal Force (additional considerations):

• Determining required resources (including assessment of needs, ability to acquire on a timely basis, procurement methods, financing methods, etc.)

o buildings/facilities (lease or own) o holding cells o vehicles (cruisers, transport vans, specialty vehicles) o uniforms, personal protective equipment and firearms o equipment (specialized, identification, RIDE, investigative) o telecommunications including: dispatch, radio equipment, communication towers,

phones, etc. o computer systems (hardware and software) o attract and retain sufficient numbers of trained and experienced uniformed

officers and civilians, including senior command o provide ongoing legislated training o obtain additional staff and resources for support services

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS As illustrated in the following graph, the District of Muskoka’s policing costs continue to be cost effective. Muskoka has one of the lowest policing costs per capita in comparison to other municipalities, especially when compared to those who have established their own forces or who have entered into formal agreements with other services.

$‐

$50.00

$100.00

$150.00

$200.00

$250.00

$300.00

$350.00

$400.00

$450.00

2009 ‐ Operating Costs for Police Service per Capita

10

STRATEGIC PRIORITIES The information in this report supports the following strategies identified in The District Municipality of Muskoka’s Strategic Priorities

2.6 Continually investigate means of controlling or reducing expenditures through alternative methods of service delivery. Build strategic alliances with other agencies, the private sector and the Area Municipalities that result in reduced or avoided costs.

8. In collaboration with other agencies and jurisdictions, protect the health and

safety of Muskoka residents and visitors in times of emergency. Respectfully submitted,


11

.'

January 13, 2011

Township of TayAttn: Simone Latham, CAO,450 Park StreetVictoria Harbour, ONLOK2AO

Township of TinyAttn: Doug Luker, CAO,130 Balm Beach RoadPerkinsfield, ONLOL2JO

l~Town ofMile de Penetanguishene

File #

C;;t: ActionChair

~gCAD.Clerk V:}'Finance & Garo serv. tVPublic WOrkS ,.J 0Pla'1ning

" 0Comrnumty Serv --.

0,.legal D 0Compuler D 0Personnel ~.; 0CEM.C. .-,

0\_J

land Ambl.liance CJ 0Committee 0 0Council 0 0Correspondence 0 0Comments;

--- .-District of MuskokaAttn: Jim Green, CAO,70 Pine StreetBracebridge, ONPi L 1N3

Town of MidlandAttn: Ted Walker, CAO,575 Dominion Avenue,Midland, ONL4R 1R2

Dear Colleagues:

Re: Expression of Interest in Participating in a Review of Police Services Options

The Town of Penetanguishene's current agreement for police services with the OntarioProvincial Police will expire on December 31, 2011, The Town has received notificationfrom the OPP requesting to commence renewal discussions in the first quarter of 2011,Given the timing of the renewal and the size of the policing budget relative to the taxsupported budget, it is appropriate for the Town to look into its options,

The Town wants to emphasize that the municipality has been pleased with policeservices under our contract with the Ontario Police and this review in no way suggestsany concerns with the current level of service. This review has also been prompted bythe contract renewal together with the proposed Joint Urban Node for MidlandPenetanguishene,

10 rue Robert St. West/ouest, P.O.lC.P. Box 5009Penetanguishene, ON L9M 202

Tel: 705.549.7453 Fax: 705.549.3743www.penetanguishene.ca

or-.:-(F\\lCf)f\ _._. __ "_. 7 1.-.,

JAN ') 7 201112

At its January 12, 2011 meeting, Penetanguishene Council directed staff to researchviable options for policing services that could be established for 2012, including but notlimited to: .

• the renewal of the O.P.P. contract for the Town of Penetanguishene,

• the expansion of the O,P,P. contract to a larger service area within North Simcoeand/or within the Southern Georgian Bay Detachment service area,

• joint policing within the proposed Urban Node for Midland-Penetanguishene bythe Midland Police Services or the Ontario Provincial Police

• other available policing options (i.e. RCMP)

The first step in the policing options review is to contact the surrounding municipalitiesof North Simcoe and the Southern Georgian Bay Detachment as well as the CentralNorth Correctional Centre to determine the level of interest in participating in a PolicingServices Options Review for 2012. If your municipality is interested in participatingin a joint review with Penetanguishene, please forward your expression ofinterest to the Town Clerk prior to January 31,2011.

If your municipality is planning to conduct its own policing services review,please also let the Town Clerk know in order that we may share information andideas, as deemed appropriate.

Council has also formed an Adhoc Advisory Team to coordinate and/or represent theTown Penetanguishene in the detailed and/or joint reviews. Your municipality mayalso wish to consider possible representatives including: CAO. and/or Town Clerk,Treasurer, Chair of Police Services Board and/or Committee that oversees PolicingServices, members of the public with special knowledge of police services.

Once the Town of Penetanguishene has identified viable policing options for 2012, theproposal is to conduct research and talks with the policing agencies and participatingmunicipalities, focusing on:

Review of current and policing needs for next five years

Review of current and anticipated service levels (number of personnel,community policing office, dispatch, policing of harbour, civilian data entry etc.);

Review of Logistical needs (equipment, vehicles etc.)

The timeline for the completion of the Town of Penetanguishene review is 3-4 months inorder that the June deadline for the OPP contract renewal (and/or notification ofdiscontinuance) may be met.

13

Town ofMile de Penetanguishene

Should you require further information, please contact the undersigned.

Yours truly,

Holly Bryce, CMO, DipI.M.A.Town Clerk

c.c. Southern Georgian Bay OPP,Detachment Commander R. Philbin

Penetanguishene Police Services Board

10 me Robert St. West/ouest, P.O.lC.P. Box 5009Penetanguishene, ON L9M 2G2

Tel: 705.549.7453 Fax: 705.549.3743www.penetanguishene.ca

14

50 2009 PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKING REPORT

Under the Ontario Police Services Act, municipalities are responsible for the provision of adequate and eff ective Police Services to ensure the safety and security of citizens, businesses and visitors. To fulfi ll this mandate, each municipality and police agency creates and implements strategies, policies and business models that meet the specifi c needs and priorities of their local communities.

The key objectives provided by Police Services include:

• crime prevention

• law enforcement

• victims’ assistance

• maintenance of public order

• emergency response services

What should you consider when reviewing these results? Each municipality’s results are infl uenced to varying degrees by a number of factors, including:

• non-residents: daily infl ow and outfl ow of commuters and tourists, attendees at cultural, entertainment and sporting events, or seasonal residents (e.g., post-secondary students) who require police services and are not captured in population-based measures

• specialized facilities: airports, casinos, etc. that can require additional policing

• public support: public’s willingness to report crimes and to provide information that assists police services in the solving of crimes

• demographic trends: social and economic changes in the population

What are the results? Twelve of the municipalities reporting data use a municipal police service. Muskoka contracts services from the OPP; and the Region of Peel uses the OPP to service the Town of Caledon (noted as ‘CAL’ on the graphs), and a municipal police agency serves the remainder of Peel Region.

In , the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics changed the manner in which they report on the three major crime categories those being violent crime, property crime and other criminal code off ences. In order to maintain comparability of crime statistics in this report and to refl ect these changes, the comparative results for and have been restated where applicable.

The crime severity index has also been included in this report for both total crime and violent crime. This index diff ers from traditional crime rates as it takes in to account not only the change in volume of a particular crime, but the relative seriousness of that crime in comparison to other crimes, whereas crime rates are simply a count of all criminal incidents reported to the police in relation to the local population.

NOTE: Barrie data unavailable for .

NOTE: The Crime rates included in this report may diff er from those in Statistics Canada’s publications due to the use of more current population estimates provided by the OMBI municipalities.

13. POLICE SERVICES

OMBI_2009_BchmrkRpt-final-inside.indd 50OMBI_2009_BchmrkRpt-final-inside.indd 50 1/20/11 9:16 AM1/20/11 9:16 AM

15

51 2009 PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKING REPORT 51PARTNERING FOR SERVICE EXCELLENCE

POLICE SERVICES

How many police officers and civilian staff serve the municipality?Fig. . Number of Total Police Staff (Offi cers and Civilians) per , Population

0

60

120

180

240

300

MEDYORKWINDWATTORTBAYSUDPEELOTTNIAGLONHAMHALDURMEDMUSKCAL

2009 116 139 127 195 177 202 220 230 209 214 233 272 284 184 288 185 214

2008 108 141 124 194 175 202 220 215 207 216 231 270 282 182 285 184 215

2007 114 142 128 194 173 198 221 213 203 213 230 273 283 184 285 178 213

OPP Municipal Forces

Source: PLCE (Service Level)

What is the total crime rate?Fig. . Reported Number of Total (Non-Traffi c) Criminal Code Incidents per , Population


0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000


2009 2,362 4,660 3,511 3,966 2,954 5,854 7,980 5,271 4,359 3,105 5,521 9,202 4,552 5,279 6,598 2,647 5,271

2008 2,394 4,773 3,583 4,224 3,245 6,125 8,052 5,596 4,695 3,327 5,477 8,819 4,670 4,901 6,907 2,851 4,901

2007 2,058 4,714 3,386 4,344 3,461 6,284 8,242 5,478 5,219 3,578 5,652 9,023 4,986 4,921 7,989 2,842 5,219

Source: PLCE M (Community Impact)

Figure . includes violent crime, property crime and other non- traffi c Criminal Code off ences, but excludes Criminal Code driving off ences, such as impaired driving or criminal negligence causing death.

Crime rates are used to determine if there have been changes in criminal activity over time. Changes to the law, standards or law enforcement practices can all have an impact on changes in crime rates in any given year.


16


POLICE SERVICES

What is the total crime severity index?Fig. . Total Crime Severity Index


0

50

100

150


2009 26 64 45 60 37 86 98 76 68 57 81 113 79 73 92 44 76

2008 35 64 49 66 41 89 95 80 70 59 74 109 82 68 98 45 74

2007 31 65 48 68 44 97 99 80 77 61 79 112 87 71 105 47 79

Source: PLCE (Community Impact)

Figure . identifi es the crime severity index which takes into account not only the change in volume of a particular crime but the relative seriousness of that crime in comparison to other crimes.

What is the violent crime rate?Fig. . Reported Number of Violent – Criminal Code Incidents per , Population


0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500


2009 332 779 556 824 517 1,301 1,130 937 648 612 1,172 1,823 1,271 928 1,308 596 937

2008 408 768 588 838 551 1,400 1,137 1,065 759 676 1,123 1,864 1,306 853 1,274 610 1,065

2007 382 926 654 951 632 1,413 1,148 955 848 717 1,173 2,009 1,363 804 1,334 632 955

Source: PLCE M (Community Impact)

Figure . shows the violent crime rate. This category has been expanded to also include criminal harassment, sexual off ences against children, forcible confi nement or kidnapping, extortion, uttering threats, threatening or harassing phone calls. These crimes were previously reported as Other Criminal Code off ences.


17

53 2009 PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKING REPORT 53PARTNERING FOR SERVICE EXCELLENCE

POLICE SERVICES

What is the violent crime severity index?Fig. . Violent Crime Severity Index


0

50

100

150


2009 19 33 26 73 28 104 81 64 80 77 98 139 137 65 101 44 80

2008 36 37 36 73 32 107 73 68 75 79 75 119 139 61 105 42 75

2007 29 43 36 90 35 119 77 65 77 76 92 137 147 67 89 49 77

Source: PLCE (Community Impact)

What percentage of violent crime is solved?Fig. . Clearance Rate - Violent Crime


50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


2009 98% 89% 94% 76% 80% 63% 75% 65% 66% 73% 77% 75% 59% 71% 76% 76% 75%

2008 88% 85% 86% 80% 82% 61% 73% 63% 66% 72% 82% 76% 59% 77% 75% 76% 75%

2007 83% 88% 86% 75% 81% 61% 70% 59% 60% 73% 81% 79% 59% 79% 78% 76% 75%

Source PLCE (Customer Service)

Figure . shows the results for the number of violent crimes cleared in a specifi c calendar year, regardless of when the crimes occurred. A violent criminal incident is considered cleared when a charge is laid, recommended or cleared by other methods.


18


POLICE SERVICES

How many criminal code incidents (non-traffic) does each police officer handle?Fig. . Number of Criminal Code Incidents (Non-Traffi c) per Police Offi cer


0

10

20

30

40

50

60


2009 21 36 29 28 24 39 50 36 29 21 34 48 23 40 31 20 31

2008 24 38 31 31 27 43 50 43 32 23 35 46 23 36 27 21 32

2007 19 36 27 31 28 43 51 38 37 24 35 47 24 34 33 22 34

Source: PLCE (Effi ciency)

Figure . refl ects the number of reported Criminal Code (non-traffi c) incidents there were in each municipality per police offi cer.

This provides an indication of an offi cer’s workload but it is important to note that it does not capture all of the reactive aspects of policing, such as traffi c and drug enforcement, nor does it incorporate proactive policing activities such as crime prevention initiatives or the provision of assistance to victims of crime.

A number of factors can aff ect these results, including the existence of specialized units or the use of diff erent models to organize offi cers in a community. For example, some jurisdictions have a collective agreement requirement that results in a minimum of two offi cers per patrol cars during certain time periods. In these cases, there could be two offi cers responding to a criminal incident whereas in another jurisdiction only one offi cer might respond.


19


Corporate and Emergency Services Committee FROM: Stephen Cairns, Commissioner of Finance and Corporate Services DATE: February 25, 2011 SUBJECT: Community Policing Offices REPORT NO: CES-3-2011-6 _________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION THAT the annual flat rate contribution to the Area Municipalities be amended in 2011 to reflect the lesser of $4,600 per equivalent community policing office or the actual cost of maintaining those offices; AND THAT the Bracebridge Business Improvement Area video recorder initiative be eligible for an annual contribution in lieu of and equivalent to a community policing office. ORIGIN The District Municipality of Muskoka’s flat rate contribution to the Area Municipalities for community policing began in 1993. At that time, it was recognized that the District had no obligation to contribute funds toward these offices. The report stated that community policing committees and the provision of community policing offices were organized through the responsibility of the Area Municipalities. The last report to the Corporate and Emergency Services Committee on community policing offices was in October 2009 which increased the rate from $4,157 to $4,500, or 8% per office effective 2010. Prior to that date, there had been no increase in the flat rate contribution since 1997. A number of the Area Municipalities have requested that the contribution levels be reviewed. ANALYSIS

Location Number of Community

Policing Offices

2009Expenditures Reported by

Area Municipalities


Area Municipalities

2010 District

Contribution

% of 2010Expenditures Covered by

District Contribution

Gravenhurst – Bay Street 2 $8,531 $8,979 $8,700 97%

Gravenhurst – Ambulance Station 1 $4,800 $4,800 $4,800 100%

Gravenhurst Total 3 $13,331 $13,779 $13,500 98%

20

Location Number of Community

Policing Offices


Area Municipalities


Area Municipalities

2010 District

Contribution

% of 2010Expenditures Covered by

District Contribution

Huntsville Total 1 $7,340 $5,512 $4,500 82%

Muskoka Lakes – Port Carling $1,719 $1,258 $0 0%

Port Carling Ambulance Station 1 $4,800 $4,800 $4,500 94%

Muskoka Lakes Total 1 $6,519 $6,058 $4,500 74%

Georgian Bay – MacTier 1 $6,256 $9,436 $6,828 72%

Georgian Bay – Port Severn 1 $5,055 $2,172 $2,172 100%

Georgian Bay Total 2 $8,655 $11,608 $9,000 78%

Lake of Bays – Dwight 1 $4,688 $5,384 $5,384 100%

Lake of Bays – Baysville 1 $4,042 $3,285 $3,285 100%

Lake of Bays Total 2 $8,730 $8,669 $8,669 100%

Total 9 $44,575 $45,626 $40,169 88% In 1993, the Town of Gravenhurst requested that rather than establish another community policing office in another part of the town, that a single large office be established in the urban area and be compensated as if it were two offices. This was approved in part because of the fact that Gravenhurst had no detachment offices within its municipality. In 2008, the new Gravenhurst Ambulance Station provided for a policing office for its marine and snowmobile units. The District is assuming 100% of those costs. In 2009, the community policing office for the Township of Muskoka Lakes relocated from the existing Port Carling Ambulance Station to the new ambulance station. The Township of Muskoka Lakes was being charged $400 per month or $4,800 per year. This cost is included in the expenditures for the Township of Muskoka Lakes in the above table. For comparison purposes, a similar in-kind contribution was included under the Town of Gravenhurst to recognize the community policing office located at the new ambulance station. The Town of Bracebridge does not have a community policing office; however, the downtown Business Improvement Area (BIA) did install web cameras along Manitoba Street. In 2010, the BIA, working with the local OPP Detachment, intended to install a video recorder at the OPP Bracebridge Detachment office on Cedar Lane. The purpose of the video camera was to act as a deterrent to crime and as an investigative tool after the fact. This initiative was not pursued due to a shortfall of the required funds to finance the one-time cost of $1,800 and the annual operating costs of $3,000. The BIA has requested financial assistance in the form of an annual operating grant from the District to finance the cost of the program. (See attached letter from the Bracebridge BIA). Community policing offices generally fall under the larger umbrella of community policing. Community policing is based on the philosophy that community interaction and support can help control crime and reduce fear, with community members helping to identify suspects and to bring problems to the attention of police. Key components of this strategy is to promote organizational

21

strategies that support the systematic use of partnerships and problem-solving techniques, which proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise to public safety issues such as crime, social disorder, and fear of crime while increasing trust in police. Community policing offices have a practical application in that they are a place officers can go to conduct their regular duties and community business, interact with community members and volunteers, take complaints and handle minor problems. The question for Committee and Council at the risk of extending the funding mandate is: Is the financial support for community policing offices a means to support the larger concept of community policing or is it an end onto itself? If it is in support of community policing, then the Bracebridge BIA’s initiative can be supported in lieu of a community office or other community policing initiatives. An increase of 2.4% gives recognition for inflationary increases over 2010 but does not place the District in a position of having to audit or impinge on local decisions as to office size, operations or location in an attempt to control costs. In 2011, the flat rate contribution per office, if approved, would increase from the current rate of $4,500 to $4,600. The financial impact of the increase is reflected in the following table.

Municipality 2010

Cash/In-kind Contribution

% of Expenditures

2011 Proposed Maximum

Cash/In-kind Contribution

% of Expenditures

Gravenhurst $13,779 98% $13,779 100% Huntsville $5,512 82% $4,600 84% Muskoka Lakes $6,058 74% $4,600 76% Georgian Bay $11,608 78% $9,200 ***80% Lake of Bays $8,669 100% $9,200 100% Bracebridge BIA n/a n/a n/a n/a Total $45,626 88% $41,379 91%

Note: *** The Township of Georgian Bay has made significant changes to its Port Severn Community Policing Office and as a result, the proposed 2011 operating budget has been increased to $13,801. The proposed 2011 budget for the two offices is $23,584 and as a result, the District’s funding level will decrease from 78% in 2010 to 39% in 2011. The Town of Gravenhurst has also relocated their community offices but at the time of writing this report, the projected budget for 2011 was not available.

The District’s cost share in the operation of the community policing offices as shown in the above table increases from 88% to 91%. ALTERNATIVES The alternatives would be to continue to freeze the contribution rates for the community policing offices, to reduce the contribution rates, or to increase the rates at a level other than what is recommended in the report. The other alternative is to decline the funding request from the Bracebridge BIA or to propose a different funding formula for the video recording initiative from what is recommended in the report.

22

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS The 2010 Tax Supported Operating Budget has a general provision of $45,000 to finance contributions to the Area Municipalities for Community Policing offices. The recommended flat rate of $4,600 per office can be accommodated within the approved budgetary guidelines for 2011. STRATEGIC PRIORITIES The information in this report supports the following strategy identified in The District Municipality of Muskoka’s Strategic Priorities

8.2 Deliver police services to ensure public safety through the Ontario Provincial Police with active participation from the various communities through Community Policing Committees, the Area Councils and District Council.



23

Braeebridge Business Improvement AreaP. O. Box 845, 35A Manitoba Street Bracebridge Ontario P1L!VlTel: (705) 646-5590 Fax: (705) 646-5591 Email: bracebrfdgebtaeavianet.ca

January 17,2010

Town of Bracebridge1000 Taylor COUltBraccbridge, ON

Dear Sir or Madame:

Since July 2007 Bracebridge Business Improvement Area ("BIA") has been workingtowards installing web cameras along Manitoba Street. We have completed two (2)phases of the project and have 2 web cameras installed along Manitoba Street. In mid2010 we began work on the 3rd phase of the project, which was to install a video recorderat the Ontario Provincial Police Bracebridge Detachment ("O.P.P.") office on CedarLane.

The goal of the project was to provide "eye on the street" security cameras in thedowntown core for the safety and security of the visitors, building owners and residents.The BIA purchased a video recorder that would link the cameras to the BracebridgeO.P.P. and worked with the Town of Bracebridge to set out policies and procedures forthe collection of the data. Unfortunately the BIA has not been able to complete theproject due to the monthly costs associated with video recorder.

A quote from our webcam host company, Lakeland Energy, dated September 2010, statesthe cost to host the recording of the two webcam-feeds is $250.00 per month. In additionto the monthly fees Lakeland Energy has indicated that it would cost approximately$1800.00 to install the video recorder.

The Bracebridge O.P.P. Detachment Commander, Inspector Ed Medved is in full supportof using Closed Circuit Television ("CCTV") for community policing. This wasindicated in a letter sent to the BIA in January 2008, "CCTV is an effective tool from botha crime prevention perspective as well as an investigative tool after the fact".

We are hoping that the Town of Bracebridge will consider our web cameras a goodexample of community policing and assist us in finding other avenues that would allowus to continue with the project.

Sincerely,

~~{~Tracy LarkmanBIA Administrative Coordinator

Incl: Letter from O.P.P., Quote from Lakeland Energy

24

, ,

BRACEBRIDGETlw t-tentt 01' 1'-1118":oka

The Corporation of the Town of Bracebridge

January 25, 2011

Stephen CairnsDistrict Municipality of Muskoka70 Pine StreetBracebridge, ONP1L 1N3

Dear Mr. Cairns,

This letter is to confirm the Town of Bracebridge's support for the third phase of the BracebridgeBIA 's Webcam project. The BIA is respectfully seeking funding assistance from the District'sCommunity Policing Program to assist them with this important initiative. .

Phase three of the project calls for the installation of a video recorder at the local OntarioProvinciai Police detachment with feeds from the 2 previously Installed webcams that are alreadyoperational in the downtown. The recording of webcam images through the use of Closed CircuitTelevision has been used by many communities not only as a crime deterrent but also aneffective evidentiary tool in instances where crime has already occurred. Acts of vandalism,graffiti and other unlawful behaviours often occur with the boundaries of the BIA. It is anticipatedthat by having access to recorded web images, apprehension of guilty parties will be facilitatedthus maximizing the effective use of O.P.P resources.

Should they be available, the BIA plans to use District funds to cover installation costs for theaforementioned recorder, as well as monthly hosting costs associated with the 2 webcam feeds.

Please find attached a letter from the Bracebrldge BIA outlining their request, as well as letterfrom Inspector Ed Medved of the Bracebridge O.P.P. Detachment in support of the collection ofClosed Circuit Television (CCTV) images. .

If more information is required for this request, please feel free to contact Cheryl Kelley In ourEconomic Development Department at (705) 645-5264 extension 253.

Sincerely,

e~~Chief Administrative OfficerTown of Bracebridge

cc. Mayor Graydon SmithMembers of CouncilBracebridge BIA

25

OnlarioProvincIalPolice

Policeprovlnolalede l'Onlario

January 23, 2008

Administration & FInance Committee,Town 01 Bracebridgel000raylorCourtBracebridge, ONP1L lR6

Councillor-Barry Young (CommitteeChalr),Mayor-Don Coates.Councillor. Lori-LynnGiaschi~Pacini. CouncillorGraydon Smith.Councillor-Patti Thompson, Councillor-Scott Young, ChiefAdministrative Offlcer-John Sisson,Treasurer-Andy Nelan,crerk-LortMcDonald, ChiefBy-lawOfficer-S. Slakiw,Aosislenl10 Municipal Clerk-MattGower

Atteolioo Admlnlslfaliva& FinanceCommlttes Membars,

On January22, 2008 I hadthe opportunity to meetv.ith repreaentanves fromlhe Townof Bracebri<lge and IheBracebridgEI Business Improvement AreaeBIA") to discussthe BIA'splansfor theInstallation of ClosedCircuitTelevision rCCTV} within the downtown area. Basedon the detailsprovided at this meeting I would like to Indicatethat tho Bracebri<lge Delachment of the OntarioProvincial Police('OPPj Is Infull supportthis proposal.

Thereare manywaysthai communities cancombatcrimeand I feel that the useof CClV is an effectivetool fromboth a crime- prevention perspective as well as an investigative tool after the fact. Severalcommuniti96 withinOntariohavestarted to US" CCTV.nd they hOv." foundIt 10be extremelyuseful in th.t veryway. StatlsUcally. crinleprevention initiativeshave alwaysbeen difficult to measure in terms of outcomes:however,basedOnmy experience,CCTVhas become a helpfUl resource in pro.ldlng evidence whencrimesoccur, reducing vsndallsm, graffitiand otherunlawful behaviorwhichDCCtJIS mgularty wllhln the BIAboundaries. It canalso glV. communities an increasedfeering of safetyand security whIchIs knowto be a very important issueto both residence and visitol'B alike.

This proposal would also .1I0w for mom efficient and effective deployment of exilingpoliceresources. CCTVsystems in otherjurisdictIons haveallowed forquickerresoluUon of IssueswhIchultimately PUIS Officers backon theeireet sooner then 1hey would be otherwise be to engage In otherproactive activities. this would be a positiveoutcomefor other mattersneeding atlenuon withinc-ommunjfy of Bracebrldgeandthe rest of thejurisdicUon that wepolice.

Thereare manyways that thecommunity can aeelet the Policein Ihe prevention and detection of crime. Thisinitiative is certainlyone of manythat the OPPwouldendorse and supportas a viableoptionfor the Townofat"""bridge.

Sincerely,

~~Inspector Ed MedvedCommanderBracebtidge Dolachmant

26


Corporate and Emergency Services FROM: Terri Burton Director, Emergency Services DATE: February 25, 2011 SUBJECT: Appointment of Community Emergency Management Coordinator REPORT NO: CES-3-2011-5 _________________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION THAT Mr. Steven Baxter be appointed as the Community Emergency Management Coordinator (CEMC) for The District Municipality of Muskoka. ORIGIN The Emergency Management Act R.S.O. 1990 E.O. requires that each Municipality in Ontario designate a Community Emergency Management Coordinator to coordinate the development, implementation and maintenance of the Community Emergency Municipal Program. Each community can formally appoint up to two (2) alternate CEMCs. The District’s alternate CEMCs are Terri Burton, Director of Emergency Services and Stephen Cairns, Commissioner of Finance and Corporate Services. ANALYSIS The role of CEMC was previously held by Mr. Donald P. Currie. The District Municipality of Muskoka wishes to thank Mr. Currie for his contributions to the Emergency Planning Program and wish him well in his retirement. Mr. Baxter has been working with Mr. Currie for the past 18 months. STRATEGIC PRIORITIES The information in this report supports the following strategies identified in The District Municipality of Muskoka’s Strategic Priorities: 8.1 Meet or exceed all Provincial requirements for emergency planning and preparedness.

Participate with the Area Municipalities in emergency planning and response based on the Muskoka Emergency Plan.

Respectfully submitted, with the concurrence of,

Terri Burton Stephen Cairns Director, Emergency Services Commissioner of Finance and Corporate Services

27

CES-3-2011-9

1

February 7, 2011Power Outage at70 Pine Street, Bracebridge

Presentation No. CES-3-2011-9

2

What Happened?The District Administration building received a very

large power surge which extensively damaged the

main transfer switch in one of the lower level utility

rooms.

Damage was also sustained at the pumping station

on Taylor Road, where the generator for 70 Pine

Street resides.

This damage prevented the use of commercial or

auxiliary power throughout the building until a ‘work-

around’ was constructed. 3

The monitoring station received the fire alarm at

6:55 a.m.

The fire department was then dispatched.

Dry chemical was applied to the switch which

limited any further damage.

Some smoke & odors infiltrated

particularly the lower level of the building.

4

28

CES-3-2011-9

2

Air scrubbers were employed throughout the building

to remove the odors & TCR Disaster Recovery

assisted in cleaning the areas directly affected by the

smoke damage.

In addition, as a precautionary measure, Pinchin

Environmental conducted air quality testing

throughout 70 Pine Street to ensure that the air

quality was completely safe for return to work the

next day.

5

EffectsService Affected Group

Primary Work Location District Staff

Public Services All District services impacted. Water & wastewater remained operational.

Email District, Gravenhurst

Phone Outage 70 Pines St., The Pines, Social Services Community Offices

Internet Outage 70 Pine St., Social Services Community Offices, The Pines, Gravenhurst, Bracebridge

Fi i l Di t i t B b id G h t L k f Financials District, Bracebridge, Gravenhurst, Lake of Bays, Muskoka Lakes

File Server Access District, Bracebridge, Gravenhurst, Lake of Bays, Muskoka Lakes

Medical File Access The Pines

Payroll The Pines

Book Catalog All Libraries

Credit Card Processing District, Gravenhurst

Human Resources Systems District, Gravenhurst 6

70 Pine St. Basement

Electrical Room

LunchLunch RoomPine RoomPrint

Shop

Oak Room

Archives

7 8

29

CES-3-2011-9

3

Dawson's Electric was called immediately & arrived on

scene about 9:00 a.m.

By 5:00 p.m. power was restored.

Further work is still required on the switch & panel in

h i k bili b kthe coming weeks to restore our ability to use backup

power.

It will take approximately 20 weeks to install a new

transfer switch.

9

Time Event

6:50 • Power Surge

6:50 • 1st employee arrives to open building for the day

6:54 • Trouble Alarm

6:55 • Fire Alarm

6:56 • Fire Department Dispatched

7:04 • Terri Burton notified by EMS of dispatch to 70 Pine St.

7:05-7:10 • Terri called Stephen Cairns, Don Currie & Steven Baxter

7:50 • Steve Baxter calls Moose FM (re: services & staffing)

8:00 • Area Municipalities notified (status reports continued throughout the day)• Rack mounted UPS fails – Servers experienced a hard power off• Disaster Recovery site put on notice

8:02 • First Broadcast on Moose FM

9:00 • Dawson’s Electric arrives on scene• Disaster Recovery site in place to activate system backup

10:30 • Basic Internet restored to The Pines for access to medical & payroll records

16:30 – 22:00 • Air quality testing conducted

17:00 • Commercial power restored

17:15 • Phones operational

19:00 • IT services restored10

11

Further system testing continued the next day to ensure system integrity.

The network cables with the worst performance were located in the two pipes closest to the wall, where we suspect they were directly above the most intense heat.

All conduits had at least one failed cable.

All or most of the other cables, although functional, are experiencing about a 40% failed testing rate in data transmission resulting in performance degradation & reduced service life.

12

30

CES-3-2011-9

4

13

Preliminary Estimatesfor Insurance Claim

District Staffing - Over-Time $5,000Meals for Responding Staff $306Generator Rental $1,000Auxiliary Lighting $300Generator Fuel $300Electricians - Day of Incident $4,000Electricians - Replacement of ATS $15,000New Transfer Switch $50,000New Transfer Switch $50,000Pinchin Environmental $2,500IT Network Integrity Testing $1,000IT Network Replacement $30,000TCR Disaster Cleanup $15,000Electrical Safety Authority $500Damages to Booster Station $50,000

Total $174,906

Excludes power backup measures for 70 Pine Street of $30,000 - $50,000& productivity loss at both the District & affected Area Municipalities

14

Next StepsComplete Business Impact Assessments• Identify essential services, critical systems & recovery time

objectives

Update Business Continuity Plans• Incident response procedures • Alternate Service Delivery / Work locations (ASDL’s)• Service redirecting procedures• Departmental “Crash Kits” with essential documents & supplies

Exercise Business Continuity Plans• Ensure staff knowledge & comfort with plans

Institute Staff Alerting System• For updates on reporting to work

Quantify Budget Impact of Mitigation Measures• Backup power supply• IT server room• Communication / cabling 15

IT Services

• Phone System

o Preferably VOIP to better enable functionality at Alternate Service Delivery Locations

• During a primary site disruption, calls to normal office lines would be automatically redirected to alternate sites / mobile phones

• Ability to isolate parts of the phone system for continuity– Social Services Community Offices & The Pines

o Review & test existing independent 911 lines at all office sites

o Pre-established emergency office closure auto attendant message

o Develop risk parameters to activate IT Disaster Recovery site• supported by a business continuity risk assessment

16

31

CES-3-2011-9

5

IT Services Cont’d

• Independent generator for IT Systems

o Powering server racks, LAN ports, Wireless, PBX (phones)

• Redundant internet connection for medical systems at The Pines

• Isolate cable from electrical room & other identified hazards

• Remove wet sprinkler system from IT server room & install C02

systemsystem

• Install independent, self contained environmental control system

for IT server room

• Global address book to reside on Blackberries

o With push updates

o Entries to include email, office phone, mobile phone, PIN,

home phone (access secured)

17

Questions?

18

32

TO:

FROM:

THE DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKACORPORATE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES DEPARTMENT

70 PINE STREET, BRACEBRIDGE, ONTARIO P1 L 1N3Telephone (705) 645-2231 Fax (705) 645-5319 1-800-461-4210 (705 area code)

www.muskoka.on.ca

Chair and MembersCorporate and Emergency Services Committee

Jim GreenChief Administrative Officer

Jeff YeoManager, Facilities Services

DATE:

SUBJECT:

February 25, 2011

Earth Hour 2011

REPORT NO: CES-3-2011-8

RECOMMENDATION

THAT The District Municipality of Muskoka endorse and participate in Earth Hour 2011.

ORIGIN

Muskoka's Strategic Priorities document.

ANALYSIS

Inpreparation for the Earth Hour 2011 event on March ze"; District staff will be asked to reflect onthe successes of their actions taken during Earth Hour 2010 to reduce Muskoka's corporatecarbon footprint and to share any ideas they may have to expand on these successes for thisyear's event.

Below is a brief list of some of the actions and processes that have been undertaken since EarthHour 2010:

• The construction of the 80 unit senior's affordable housing apartment building, located at 102Pine Street, includes energy efficient features which make the overall facility 32% moreefficient than buildings constructed to the Model National Energy Code for Buildings. Thisefficiency represents a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions of 109 tonnes of C02 per year.

• Staff have continued to actively participate in green-based events throughout the year like the10,000 Acts of Green Challenge and continue to submit new green ideas through theEvergreen mailbox supported by the Green Initiatives Committee.

• Three solar thermal technology projects were commissioned at three separate housingfacilities before the end of 2010. These projects use solar energy to pre-heat the domestic hotwater supply and reduce the energy required to provide hot water. The combined annualoperating savings from these projects is approximately $11,800 per year.

Managing Our Legacy Togetner

33

• Two 10 kW solar photovoltaic systems have been approved for installation at two separatehousing properties under the "microFIT" program through the Ontario Power Authority and willbe installed and commissioned in the spring of 2011. These projects are estimated to generate$19,200 of revenue combined and will directly offset the operational costs of the two housingproperties where they are installed.

Some of the steps that staff will be encouraged to promote, prepare for and participate in both atwork and at home in recognition of this event are outlined below.

• District staff will be asked to review their workspace and ensure all unnecessary equipment,lights and appliances have been turned off and that office temperature seltings are reducedfor this event, and to consider the impact of these actions in their normal daily work routinebefore leaving the office on March 26th

•

• Staff will be encouraged to show their support for Earth Hour and to learn more about whatthey can do to help reduce their own carbon footprint by Visiting the Earth Hour website atwww.earthhour.org.

• Tenants in the District's Social Housing units will be notified of the event and advised ofactions they can take to show their participation and help reduce their carbon footprint.

• All lighting, interior and exterior, unnecessary for the safety and security of any corporatefacility will be turned off. On a daily basis, staff will review office lighting levels and reducelighting levels With available light switching where feasible and practical.

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

This event will continue to promote energy awareness amongst the staff and is expected togenerate long-term savings by reducing corporate energy consumption.

STRAEGIC PRIORITIES

The District Municipality of Muskoka's participation in the Earth Hour 2011 event supports thefollowing goal as outlined in Muskoka's Strategic Priorities document:

5. Reduce the corporate carbon footprint by developing implementation plansand targets to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissionscaused directly and indirectly by Muskoka operations.

Respectfully SUbmitted,

Ji Greenhief Administrative Officer

Jeff YeoManager, Facilities Services

With the concurrence of,

Stephen CairnsCommissioner of Finance andCorporate Services

34

1

Renewable Energy Renewable Energy Projects in Muskoka

Solar Thermal TechnologyMuskoka has installed and commissioned three solar thermal projects at 3 separate housing properties. Solar thermal technology preheats the water to the domestic hot water system thereby reducing the energy required to produce domestic hot water.

These projects are a result of the Eco Energy rebates through Natural Resources Canada and Renewable Energy Initiative funding through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

845 Bethune Drive in Gravenhurst33 Unit adult building constructed in 19723 - 120 gallon electric hot water heaters15 Glazed evacuated tube collectorsSystem Cost: $67,500NRCAN Rebates: $43,000MMAH Funding: $24,500Net cost to Muskoka: $0Estimated annual operating savings: $3,680

2

Solar Thermal Continued114 Brunel Road in Huntsville

40 Unit adult building constructed in 19723 - 120 gallon electric hot water heaters21 Glazed evacuated tube collectorsSystem Cost: $94,500NRCAN Rebates: $60,500MMAH Funding: $34,000Net cost to Muskoka: $0Estimated annual operating savings: $5,100

MacTier and District Community Housing20 Unit adult building constructed in 19922 - 120 gallon propane hot water heaters12 Glazed evacuated tube collectorsSystem Cost: $54,000NRCAN Rebates: $34,500MMAH Funding: $19,500Net cost to MDCH: $0Estimated annual operating savings: $2,994

3

Solar Photovoltaic

124 Alice Street in Bracebridge30 Unit adult building constructed in 1972System Description: 10 kW Solar PV SystemSystem Cost: $73,000OPA Microfit Program: $802/ MWh MMAH F di $73 000

Muskoka has secured funding through the Renewable Energy Initiative to install 2 solar photovoltaic systems at two separate housing properties. These systems will be directly connected to the local electrical grid to produce electricity and sell it back to the utility under the “microFIT” program through the Ontario Power Authority.

MMAH Funding: $73,000Net cost to Muskoka: $0Estimated annual operating revenue: $10,800

Huntsville Legion Seniors Manor – 22 Walter Street40 Unit adult building constructed in 1990System Description: 10 kW Solar PV SystemSystem Cost: $73,000OPA Microfit Program: $802/ MWh MMAH Funding: $73,000Net cost to HLSM: $0Estimated annual operating revenue: $10,800

4

35

2

Seniors Affordable Housing ProjectPROJECT ENERGY KEYPOINTS:

80 Units, Gross floor area of 6,877m²The overall building design is 32.3% more efficient than the Model National Energy Code for BuildingsGHG Savings of 109.4 tonnes of CO2/yrBuilding envelope has a high insulation value due primarily to the use of ICF ConstructionUnits are individually conditioned for heating and coolingDomestic hot water and hot water space heating is provided by tank-less hot water heatersUnits are individually metered for hydro and natural gasLow flow water fixtures including low flow dual flush toiletsEnergy Star rated appliances, windows and HVAC equipmentDrain waste heat recovery units

5

Drain Waste Heat Recovery UnitsMuskoka has partnered with Union Gas to install 120 drain waste heat recovery units in several housing properties. Currently Union Gas is providing the DWHRU’s at no charge and Muskoka covers the cost of installation.

Installation costs average $280.00 per unit.

60 of the Units are being installed in new Senior’s Affordable Housing Project under the new construction program.

60 units are being installed in existing housing facilities under a retrofit program.

Average annual savings in hot water heating is $80/unit but varies depending on use and fuel type.

For more information about the program including information on the energy savings calculator you can go to the website at: http://www.uniongas.com/business/gastechnology/segments/builders/residential/drainwaterheatrecovery/

6

36


Corporate and Emergency Services Committee FROM: Stephen Cairns, Commissioner of Finance and Corporate Services DATE: February 25, 2011 SUBJECT: Annual Review and Update of The District Municipality of Muskoka’s User Fees REPORT NO: CES-3-2011-2 _________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION THAT By-law 2010-14 being a by-law to update certain fees and charges and establish others be updated in accordance with Schedule “A” as attached to Report No. CES-3-2011-2 Annual Review of The District Municipality of Muskoka’s User Fees. ORIGIN Staff on an annual basis conducts a review of the current user fees charged by The District Municipality of Muskoka in preparation for the annual budget deliberations for the respective services. The purpose of the review is to provide a consolidated list of all user fees and related authorizing by-laws for reference by staff, Council and the public. Policies and procedures supporting the administration of these services and fees reference the appropriate by-law. Part of this annual process includes evaluating the appropriateness of the charge, the quantum of the fee and, where necessary, makes recommendations to Council on proposed changes. Where prior approval by Council was obtained for indexing and/or annual adjustments, the underlying authority for those amendments are noted on the attached schedules. ANALYSIS Schedule A and B contain a consolidated list of user fees and charges imposed by The District Municipality of Muskoka for services provided to the public. Internal charges and recoveries have not been included. Schedule C has been included for information purposes only. This schedule provides a list of user fees that are approved through separate user fee by-laws due to the unique nature of the services provided and/or to maintain adherence to legislative requirements.

37

EXISTING POLICY A number of existing policies still need to be amended in order that the fees noted in the various policies are removed and are instead referenced to a specific user fee by-law or to a general consolidated user fee by-law. Similarly, a number of existing by-laws need to be amended to reflect any recommended changes to the existing fee structures. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS Annual reviews of existing user fees will ensure that they remain up-to-date and are reflective of the cost to provide those services. STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

2.0 Build financial strength and demonstrate fiscal responsibility and accountability through the annual budget process, public reporting of budget results, the corporate credit rating and debt reduction.

2.7 Financial reports should be presented in clear and concise language that can be

understood by as many people as possible. The public should continue to be invited to participate in the annual budget preparation. Financial reports prepared internally or by the auditor should be posted on the website.



38

SCHEDULE "A" TO BY-LAW 2010-14 - Annual Update - February 2011

GST/HST

EXTRA

SUPPORTING

BY-LAW /

AUTHORIZATION

ANNUAL INDEX IF

APPLICABLE

COMMUNITY SERVICES

1.1

1.1.1 $18.50/hour No $18.98 MOHLTC sets rate each July 1st

1.2

1.2.1 $1.00 per load No $1.00 per load 2010-141,2,2 $1.00 per load No $1.00 per load 2010-141.2.3 $15.00 per lost key No $15.00 per lost key actual cost

FINANCIAL

2.1

2.1.1 $25.00 No $25.00 2010-142.1.1 $20.00 No $20.00

Provincial Legislation2.2

2.2.1 $30.00 No $35.00 2010-14GENERAL DOCUMENTS

3.1

3.1.1 $55.00 No $55.00 2010-143.1.2 $25.00 No $25.00 2010-14

3.2

3.2.1Black and White $5.00 No $5.00 2010-14Colour $10.00 No $10.00 2010-14

3.2.2 $4.00 No $4.00 2010-143.2.3

Custom Maps Cost of staff time plus

printing charges as noted herein

NoCost of staff time plus

printing charges as noted herein

2010-14

Printing - black and white $4.00 / 0.56 m2 No $4.00 / 0.56 m2 2010-14Printed Maps - colour - up to 11" by 17" $2.00 per sheet No $2.00 per sheet 2010-14

Printed Maps - colour - greater than 11" by 17" up to 36" by 48" $10.00 No $10.00 2010-14

3.2.4Black and White Air Photo Copy $5.00 No $5.00 2010-14Digital Colour Air Photo Clip with Buffer < 500m $25.00 No $25.00 2010-14Digital Colour Air Photo Clip with Buffer > 500m $50.00 No $50.00 2010-14

3.2.5Printed Maps (up to 11" by 17") with Air Photos $10.00 No $10.00 2010-14Plotted Maps (up to 36" by 48") with Air Photos $50.00 No $50.00 2010-14

3.2.6 $5.00 per map No $5.00 per map 2010-143.3 $4.00 per sheet No $4.00 per sheet 2010-143.4

3.4.1

$10.00 each for currently available publications.

For specialty CDs - cost of staff time plus charges

as noted herein

No

$10.00 each for currently available publications. For

specialty CDs - cost of staff time plus charges

as noted herein

2010-14

3.4.2 $0.20 per page No $0.20 per page 2010-14

3.4.3 $0.50 per page No $0.50 per page 2010-143.4.4 $0.25 per image Yes $0.25 per image 2010-14

3.5

3.5.1 $10.00 Yes $10.00 2010-143.5.2 $15.00 Yes $15.00 2010-143.5.3 $25.00 Yes $25.00 2010-143.5.4 $35.00 Yes $35.00 2010-143.5.5 Actual Cost Yes Actual Cost 2010-14

3.6Applicable charges herein plus $10.00 Yes Applicable charges

herein plus $10.002010-14

3.7

Printing charges as noted herein plus applicable

map chargesYes

Printing charges as noted herein plus applicable map

charges

2010-14

3.8 $0.05 per page Yes $0.05 per page 2010-14

3.9 Free of charge Free of charge 2010-143.10 C.O.D. or Actual CostHAULED FROM LAGOONS

4.1

4.1.1 $73.00 per 4.55 m3 No $93.00 per 4.55 m3

2010-14 & Resolution 10/2008 $53/1,000 gallons for 2009 & increase of $20/1,000 gallons to a target of 50% recovery

4.1.2 $10.00 No $10.00 2010-144.1.3 $50.00 No $50.00 2010-14

5.1

5.1.1 Free of charge Yes Free of charge 2010-145.1.2 Free of charge Yes Free of charge 2010-145.1.3 $5.00 Yes $5.00 2010-145.1.4 $6.00 Yes $6.00 2010-145.1.5 $7.00 Yes $7.00 2010-145.1.6 $8.00 Yes $8.00 2010-145.1.7 $9.00 Yes $9.00 2010-14

5.2

5.2.1 $40.00 Yes $40.00 2010-145.2.2 $60.00 Yes $60.00 2010-145.2.3 $20.00 Yes $20.00 2010-14

Courier Services

Piston Engine Aircraft

Printing, Copying and Print Shop Services

Report between 25 and 50 pages

Aircraft Weight 20,000 kgs - 44,999 kgs

Bound Reports / Publications - Black and White (majority of the pages are

standard 8.5" by11")

Aircraft Weight less than 3,000 kgs

Printing/Photocopying - Coloursupplies are in addition)


Printing/Photocopying (Costs include paper, binding, covers or other

3.2.5.1

2010 APPLICABLE FEES AND CHARGES

Folding/Stuffing Envelopes (Costs do not include envelopes or paper)

3.2.3.3

Ontario Base MapsOther Maps

Air Photos

CD's - with electronic publications on them

3.2.4.1

3.2.3.2

3.2.4.23.2.4.3

District of Muskoka Maps

3.2.1.2

3.2.3.4

3.2.3.1

Reports greater than 200 pages

Scanning to an electronic record (pdf)

Reports between 100 and 200 pages

Reports less than 25 pages

continuance of care)

Bound Reports / Publications - with specialty maps larger than legal size

Dishonoured Cheques/Not Sufficient Funds (NSF)Finance

Tender Documents without Plans

3.2.1.1

ACTIVITY OR SERVICE

The Pines

Social Housing

Transportation and Escort Services (to accompany resident for

Bound Reports / Publications - Colour (majority of the pages are standard

8.5" by11")

Reports between 50 and 100 pages

Laundry Wash FeeLaundry Dry FeeKey Fees

Miscellaneous Plans

Aircraft Weight 45,000 kg or greater

Aircraft Weight less than 5,000 kgs if based at Muskoka AirportAircraft Weight 3,000 kgs - 4, 999 kgs if not based at Muskoka Airport

Minimum Fees per landing

Turboprops / Rotary Wing


Jet Aircraft

3.2.5.2

Hauled Sewage Fees

Hauled Sewage Disposal Fees per thousand gallons of sewage disposed

Issuance of an additional access cardReplacement of access card

Legal Services

Tenders

Tender Documents with Plans

MUSKOKA AIRPORT

Landing Fees Charge per 1,000 kgs

On-line Publications (if user downloads to own media)

Digital maps (pdf)

Maps and Air Photos

Maps with Air Photos

Dishonoured Cheques/Not Sufficient Funds (NSF) - Social HousingLeasehold Agreement

Compliance Inquiries

2011 PROPOSED FEES AND CHARGES

39

http://muskoka.fileprosite.com/Documents/DocumentDisplay.aspx?ID=8111













































GST/HST

EXTRA

SUPPORTING

BY-LAW /

AUTHORIZATION

ANNUAL INDEX IF

APPLICABLE2010 APPLICABLE FEES AND CHARGESACTIVITY OR SERVICE 2011 PROPOSED FEES AND CHARGES

5.3

5.3.1 $8.00 Daily Yes $8.00 Daily 2010-14$100.00 Monthly $100.00 Monthly

$300.00 Semi-Annual $300.00 Semi-Annual5.3.2 $10.00 Daily Yes $10.00 Daily 2010-14

$150.00 Monthly $150.00 Monthly$500.00 Semi-Annual $500.00 Semi-Annual

5.3.3 $1,000.00 annually (one Yes $1,000.00 annually (one

2010-14aircraft) + monthly rate aircraft) + monthly rate

of $85.00 (payable of $85.00 (payableannually for each annually for each

additional aircraft stored) additional aircraft stored)5.3.4 $15.00 Daily Yes $15.00 Daily 2010-14

$225.00 Monthly $225.00 Monthly

5.3.5 $25.00 Daily Yes $25.00 Daily 2010-14


5.3.6 $40.00 Daily Yes $40.00 Daily 2010-14


5.3.7 $80.00 Daily Yes $80.00 Daily 2010-14$1,600.00 Monthly $1,600.00 Monthly

5.3.8 $160.00 Daily Yes $160.00 Daily 2010-14$3,200.00 Monthly $3,200.00 Monthly

5.3.9 $30.00 Daily Yes $30.00 Daily 2010-145.4 $10.00 per 24 hour Yes $10.00 per 24 hour 2010-14

period period5.5

5.5.1 $100.00 Yes $100.00 2010-145.5.2 $35.00 per hour Yes $35.00 per hour 2010-14

5.6

5.6.1 $100.00 Yes $100.00 2010-145.6.2 $100.00 + $2.00 per Yes $100.00 + $2.00 per 2010-14

minute minute5.7 $2.00 per minute Yes $2.00 per minute 2010-145.8

6.7.1 $40.00 per connection Yes $40.00 per connection 2010-146.7.2 $10.00 Yes $10.00 2010-14

5.9 $0.204 per litre tank Yes $0.204 per litre tank 2010-14capacity capacity

5.10 $0.80 per square Yes $0.80 per square 2010-14 amended bymetre per year metre per year 2010-33

5.11 $0.87 per square Yes $0.89 per square 2010-33 December year-over-metre per year metre per year Schedule "B" to add year All Items

to 2010-14 Consumer Price Index CES-2-2011-10 -Approved Review every 5 years

5.12 $22.38 per square Yes $22.92 per square 2010-33 December year-over-metre per month metre per month Schedule "B" to add year All Items

to 2010-14 Consumer Price Index CES-2-2011-10 -Approved Review every 5 years

POLICE SERVICES

6.1

No 2010-14

PORT CARLING LOCKS

7.1

7.1.1 One-way Passage

Yearly Rate Per Vessel (normal operating hours

only)

One-way Passage


only)One recreational boat capable of using small locks whether small or large locks are used $6.00 $85.00 No $6.00 $85.00 2010-14

Two-way passage for vessels described in 7.1.1.1 (Return Trip Passage Fee) $10.00 N/A No $10.00 N/A 2010-14

One package of 10 one-way passages for recreational boats capable of using small locks whether small or large locks used $45.00 No $45.00 2010-14

Small commercial boats (barges, etc.) capable of using small locks whether small locks or large locks are used $25.00 $300.00 No $25.00 $300.00 2010-14

7.1.2 One-way Passage


only)

No One-way Passage


only)Large commercial/recreational boats (without lift bridge) - normal operating hours $95.00 $900.00 No $95.00 $900.00 2010-14

Large commercial/recreational boats (without lift bridge) - outside normal operating hours $145.00 N/A No $145.00 N/A 2010-14

Large commercial/recreational boats (with lift bridge) - normal operating hours $120.00 $1,250.00 No $120.00 $1,250.00 2010-14

Large commercial/recreational boats (with lift bridge) - outside normal operating hours $170.00 N/A No $170.00 N/A 2010-14

Where operation of the large locks is requested by Yearly Pass holders outside of normal operating hours $75.00 N/A No $75.00 N/A 2010-14

7.1.3Dock facilities: Berthage fees for pleasure craft or commercial vessels of any kind are either of:

Per day or part thereof after 3 hours: $3.00 per

$85.00 per metre of length No Per day or part thereof

after 3 hours: $3.00 per$85.00 per metre

of length2010-14

metre per month metre per month

Overnight Berthage fees for tour boats $100.00 per night No $100.00 per night 2010-14

Fee payable by operator of the R.M.S. Segwun, Wenonah II and Wanda III for all use during their scheduled operating season $7,000.00 No $7,000.00 2010-14

7.2

7.2.1 $100.00 per opening No $100.00 per opening 2010-14

$250.00 per response

7.1.2.5

Port Sandfield Swing Bridge

properties owned, leased

Airport Base Land lease rate

Silent Hours Call Out Rates

First 3 hours regardless of actual time required

Airport Maintenance Charge for land use permits and/or

Connection Fee (includes first 30 minutes of rental fee)Rental Fee each 30 minutes or part thereof after first

Annual Private Fuel Tanks

Loading & Unloading equipment greater than one hour

Snow Removal and Other Equipment

Ground Power Unit Rental

Hydro Usage Charges

7.1.2.2

7.1.2.4

Port Carling Locks and Related Bridge (vessel registration number required to qualify for "Yearly Rate")

Cargo Loading and Unloading

After first 3 hours

7.1.1.2

Large Lock Fees (except vessels described in 7.1.1.1)

7.1.1.3

Loading & Unloading equipment rental one hour or less

Parking Charges

Tie downs on Grass ( May through October only)

Tie downs on Pavement Edge

Covered Tie down spaces

Aircraft Weight 5,000 kgs - 9,999 kgs on Apron


Police

6.1.1 False Alarms (for more than 2 in a year) $250.00 per response


Aircraft Weight 45,000 kgs or greater on Apron

Minimum Fee Jet Aircraft

Aircraft Weight less than 5,000 kgs on Apron

Small Lock Fees

7.1.1.1

7.1.2.1

Airport Office lease rate

7.1.2.3

Where operation of swing bridge is requested

Miscellaneous

7.1.3.1

7.1.3.2

7.1.3.3

7.1.1.4

40



















http://muskoka.fileprosite.com/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=8111



















GST/HST

EXTRA

SUPPORTING

BY-LAW /

AUTHORIZATION

ANNUAL INDEX IF

APPLICABLE2010 APPLICABLE FEES AND CHARGESACTIVITY OR SERVICE 2011 PROPOSED FEES AND CHARGES

ROADS

8.1 $100.00 No $100.00 2010-14

8.2 $90.00 No $90.00 2010-14

8.3 $40.00 No $40.00 2010-14

8.4

8.4.1 $300.00 No $300.00 2010-148.4.2 $200.00 No $200.00 2010-148.4.3

Vehicles, loads, objects or structures that are only oversize $50.00 No $50.00 2010-14Oversize and/or overweight up to 120,000 kg total weight) where $100.00 No $100.00 2010-14trip is 50 km or lessOversize and/or overweight (up to 120,000 kg total weight) and $150.00 No $150.00 2010-14length of trip is between 50.01 and 100 kmOversize and/or overweight (up to 120,000 kg total weight) and $200.00 No $200.00 2010-14trip is over 100 km

8.4.4 $25.00 No $25.00 2010-148.4.5 $25.00 No $25.00 2010-14

8.5

8.5.1 $27.00 Yes $27.00 2010-148.5.2

Roadway Signs $35.00 Yes $35.00 2010-14Personal Direction Signs $35.00 Yes $35.00 2010-14Commercial Resort Signs $35.00 Yes $35.00 2010-14Resort Assembly Signs $48.00 Yes $48.00 2010-14

8.5.3Roadway (2 fingerboard signs) $250.00 Yes $250.00 2010-14Personal Direction (one double sided fingerboard sign) $200.00 Yes $200.00 2010-14Commercial Resort (one double sided fingerboard sign) $200.00 Yes $200.00 2010-14

WATER AND WASTEWATER

9.1

9.1.1 $5,140.00 per service No $5,220 per service 2010-14, AD:20, AD:22, Reed Construction 9.1.2 $10,910.00 per service No $11,075 per service Resolution R10/2009 Index - detailed9.1.3 $7,240.00 per service No $7,350 per service CES-1-2011-9 every 2nd year

TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES ON CERTAIN MUSKOKA PROPERTIES AND FACILITIES

10.1

10.1.1 $1,300.00 $1,340.00 2010-5110.12 $400.00 $413.00 2010-5110.13 $50.00 $52.00 2010-5110.14 $12.50 $13.00 2010-51

10.2

10.21 $250.00 $258.00 2010-5110.22 $250.00 $258.00 2010-5110.23 $100.00 $103.00 2010-5110.24 $25.00 $26.00 2010-51

10.3

10.31 $50.00 $52.00 2010-5110.32 $50.00 $52.00 2010-5110.33 $50.00 $52.00 2010-5110.34 $12.50 $13.00 2010-51

10.4

10.41 $3,000.00 $3,100.00 2010-5110.42 $3,000.00 $3,100.00 2010-5110.43 $3,000.00 $3,100.00 2010-5110.44 $3,000.00 $3,100.00 2010-51

10.5

10.51 $2,000.00 $2,066.00 2010-5110.52 $2,000.00 $2,066.00 2010-5110.53 $2,000.00 $2,066.00 2010-5110.54 $2,000.00 $2,066.00 2010-51

10.6

10.61 actual costs actual costs 2010-5110.62 actual costs actual costs 2010-5110.63 actual costs actual costs 2010-5110.64 actual costs actual costs 2010-51

8.5.2.2

Application Fee

Replacement Permits

Ontario All Items Consumer Price Index





8.4.3.2

8.4.3.3

Annual Permit

Licence of Occupation or Encroachment Permit

Transfer of Existing Licence of Occupation

8.4.3.1

8.5.3.2

Overweight or Oversize Permits

Project Permit

Sign Permits

Annual User and Maintenance Fees

Single Trip Permit

8.5.2.4

8.5.3.1Supply and Installation Charges

8.5.2.1

Low Pressure Wastewater Service

Local Improvement Charges (Standard Residential Services)

8.4.3.4

Mobile Radio NetworkWireless Broadband Data Network (Prime Location)

Amendment to Existing Valid Permit

8.5.3.3

8.5.2.3

Wireless Broadband Data Network (Secondary Location)

Water ServiceGravity Wastewater Service

Entrance Permit

Monthly Fee per Location

Cellular Communications

Monthly Fee per Mast with each mast supporting up to

2 antenna

Cellular CommunicationsMobile Radio NetworkWireless Broadband Data Network (Prime Location)Wireless Broadband Data Network (Secondary Location)

Monthly Fee per Mast with each mast supporting each

additional antenna over two (2)


Application for temporary access permit per location

Application fee for new installations per location



Application to Transfer Equipment - Fee per location


41










































SCHEDULE "B"

Special rules applicable to Muskoka Airportland and office lease rates

A) Land Lease Rates and Rents

1) The base land lease rate for vacant lands at the Muskoka Airport first leased in 2010and subsequent years be set at $0.87 per square metre of land per year, subject tothe following adjustments and conditions:

a) the above noted base rate shall be increased on January 1st each year from2011 to 2015 by the annual change in the December year over year all itemsConsumer Price Index as published by Statistics Canada;

b) once a lease has been entered into, the rents shall be increased on January1st of each and every year of the lease by the annual change in theDecember year over year all items Consumer Price Index as published byStatistics Canada; and

c) for leases greater than five (5) years duration, a new base rent shall be setat the beginning of each five year period thereafter.

2) Where a five-year rent review occurs between the years 2010 and 2015 with respectto a lease existing as of May 3, 2010) the new rents for the next five year timelineshall be established as follows:

a) a new base rent shall be established in accordance with section A(1) hereinas it applies to the year in which the new five year term commences; and

b) the rents within the new five year period shall be increased on eachanniversary date, as set out in the lease, by the annual change in theDecember year over year all items Consumer Price Index as published byStatistics Canada.

B) Office Space Rates and Rents

1) The base lease rate for office space at the Muskoka Airport Terminal Building firstleased in 2010 and subsequent years be set at $22.38 per square metre of officespace per month, subject to the following adjustments and conditions:

a) the above noted base rate shall be increased on January 1st each year from2011 to 2015 by the annual change in the December year over year all itemsConsumer Price Index as published by Statistics Canada: and

b) once a lease has been entered into, the rents shall be increased on January1st each and every year of the lease by the annual change in the Decemberyear over year all items Consumer Price Index as published by StatisticsCanada.

2) Where a lease for office space existing as of May 3, 2010 is renewed between 2010and 2015:

a) the new base rate shall be established in accordance with section B (1)herein as it applies to the year in which the new term is commenced; and

b) the rents for each year of the renewed lease shall be increased on January1st of each year of the lease by the annual change in the December yearover year all items Consumer Price Index as published by Statistics Canada.

C) Administration

1) The event that a change in the Consumer Price Index is negative, the above notedbase rates and rents shall remain the same as the previous year.

2) The base rates for vacant land and office space shall be subject to a comprehensivereview in 2015.

42

SCHEDULE C - Annual Update - February 2011

SUPPORTING BY-LAW /

AUTHORIZATION

SECTION 1: WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICES

1.1. 2010-8

1.2. Fees set by MOE

1.3. Fees set by MOE

SECTION 2: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

2.1. Solid Waste Management Fees 2010-9SECTION 3: DEVELOPMENT CHARGES

3.1. 2009-44by-law expires July 14, 2012

SECTION 4: ADMINISTRATION

4.1.

General Records Requestsa) Applicationb) Search and Preparation Time Provincialc) Photocopying Legislationd) CourierPersonal Information Records Requestsa) Application Provincialb) Photocopying Legislationc) Courier

SECTION 5: COMMUNITY SERVICES

5.1.

5.1.1.

Basic Room

Preferred AccommodationSemi-Private - Not Applicable

Preferred AccommodationPrivate

5.2.

5.2.1. Social Housing Reform Act 2000

5.2.2. Residential Tenancies Act, 2006

5.2.3. Set by the Attorney General

SECTION 6: PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

6.1.

6.1.1. 2009-17

6.1.2. 2009-176.1.3. 2009-176.1.4. 2009-17

ACTIVITY OR SERVICE

Water and Wastewater User Rates

Certificates of Approval for Waterworks

Certificates of Approval for Wastewater works

Part C - Official PlansPart D - Deposits Required for Cost Acknowledgement

Social Housing

Rent- Social Housing Units

Development Charges

Municipal Freedom of Information & Protection of Privacy

4.1.1.

4.1.2.

The Pines

Long Term Care Accommodation Co-Payment Rates **

Landlord & Tenant Board Fees-application

Sheriff Fees

Application Fees

Part A - Plans of Subdivision Common Element & Vacant Land Condominium Description

** New rate set by

MOHLTC (Ministry of

Health and Long Term

Care) each July 1st

5.1.1.1.

5.1.1.2.

5.1.1.3.

Part B - Standard and Phased Condominium

43



http://muskoka.fileprosite.com/contentengine/Link.aspx?ID=9225&Direct=1






Corporate and Emergency Services Committee FROM: Stephen Cairns Commissioner of Finance and Corporate Services DATE: February 25, 2011 SUBJECT: Request for Waiver of Landfill Tipping Fees – Muskoka Salvation Army Branches REPORT NO: CES-3-2011-7 _________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION THAT the request from the Salvation Army branches in Gravenhurst, Huntsville and Bracebridge for a waiver of tipping fees at Muskoka landfill sites be denied, as it does not meet The District Municipality of Muskoka’s Grant Policy AD:28. ORIGIN

At the January 14, 2011 Corporate and Emergency Services Committee, delegations from the Gravenhurst Salvation Army and Huntsville Salvation Army requested the waiver of landfill tipping fees from Muskoka landfill sites. A number of issues or concerns were raised during the meeting and staff was directed to meet with representatives from the three Salvation Army branches within the District of Muskoka and report back to Committee. ANALYSIS On January 27, 2011, members of senior management met with Salvation Army representatives from Gravenhurst, Bracebridge and Huntsville to further discuss their request. The findings from that meeting confirmed that the three branches had different methods of disposing of their waste and were treated differently from a billing perspective.

Branch

Method of Disposal

Estimated Annual

Tipping Fee

Billing Treatment

Bracebridge • Garbage is transported to the Rosewarne landfill site in the branch’s cube-van.

• Recyclable material is disposed of through private sector service agreements.

$15,000

The branch does not pay for tipping fees but the value of the waived fees are charged to the solid waste levy for Bracebridge under a grandfathering arrangement with the Town of Bracebridge.

44

Branch

Method of Disposal

Estimated Annual

Tipping Fee

Billing Treatment

Huntsville • Garbage is deposited in an on-site container and disposed of through a private service contract.

• Larger volumes of recyclable material (i.e. clothing, cardboard) is disposed of through a private sector service agreement.

• Some garbage is disposed of by the branch’s cube-van.

$300 direct disposal at

site.

$4,100 estimated

cost built into service

contract.

Branch pays for tipping fees as part of the private sector service contract or directly at site.

Gravenhurst • Garbage and recyclable material is transported to Beiers Road landfill site by the branch’s cube-van.

$2,000

Branch pays for tipping fees at site. Recyclable materials are exempt from tipping fees as per the solid waste user fee by-law.

Other notes: At the meeting, concern was raised that recyclable materials were being charged a tipping fee. A process was agreed upon by staff and branch representatives to ensure this does not occur. Instructions were subsequently relayed to the scale attendants at the landfill sites as to the agreed upon process. The waiving of tipping fees was discussed. It was noted that there was no provision within the current by-law for staff to waive fees. In addition, administratively the varied approaches to the disposal of garbage and recyclable materials and the use of third party contracts makes it impractical to identify the source and the amount of garbage being disposed of by the respective branches. From a policy perspective, the waiving of fees discourages the incentive to recycle, reuse or otherwise divert recyclable material from being deposited in landfill sites. The absence of fees provides no financial incentive for the organization to take preventative measures to prevent the disposal of “garbage” at the branch donation centres and may lead to greater abuse by a certain segment of the public to continue to dispose of their “garbage” at those locations. A carte blanche waiving of the fees does not cap the financial contribution of the general taxpayer and could result in greater financial contributions to these organizations than was initially envisioned. A compromise solution was to investigate a contribution through an annual grant that could be used to offset operating costs and would recognize the organization’s work in the community and in their contribution to the goal of recycling, reusing and/or diverting items from being deposited in our landfill sites. Staff reviewed the information provided by the Salvation Army representatives to determine if their request met the criteria as outlined in the District’s Grants Policy AD:28. The fundamental problem is that the grants policy does not envision an ongoing operating grant but is limited to assistance for a one-time only start-up or restructuring initiatives. Despite the fundamental conflict of the request with the policy, the criteria outlined in the policy have been used to measure the merits of a proposed annual operating grant. Those being:

45

Organization Criteria Met Not Met Non-profit organization Non-profit registered charity Provides a service under one or more four function areas: Economic development Protections to persons and

property Human services Health services

Provides humanitarian assistance to those in need

Service and benefit directly or indirectly all of Muskoka

The organization as a whole services all of Muskoka with each of the branches concentrating their services to their immediate area

Demonstrated that such funds are essential to establish a significant event or facility

Without these funds programs may be impacted upon but the essential services will continue to be delivered

Organization has exhausted all available alternative sources of revenue

No documentation received to determine if condition has been met or not

A business case showing the ongoing viability

Organization has a proven track record

Demonstrated return for the people of Muskoka

Programs run by Salvation Army branches have demonstrated benefits to the community and to the goal of encouraging recycling and reuse initiatives within the community

Based on the above analysis, the Salvation Army branches would not meet the required conditions for approval under the existing Grants Policy. ALTERNATIVES The alternative, given the special circumstances of the organizations and the inconsistent treatment of the tipping fee billing resulting from the grandfathering arrangement between the Town of Bracebridge and the Bracebridge branch of the Salvation Army, would be to provide an ongoing operating grant with the following conditions.

THAT operating grants be awarded to the Bracebridge, Huntsville and Gravenhurst Salvation Army branches in the amounts of $15,000, $4,400 and $2,000, respectively; AND THAT the annual operating grants would come into effect beginning in 2011; AND THAT all branches would be required to pay the tipping fees at the rates established through the Solid Waste Management user fee by-law commencing January 1, 2011;

46

AND THAT the cost of the grant(s) be financed from the annual solid waste levy for the respective municipality in which the branch resides.

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS There is no provision in the 2011 Draft Rate Supported Operating Budget to fund such a contribution. Respectfully submitted,


47

TO: Chair and Members Corporate and Emergency Services Committee FROM: Mike Durnan Director of Finance DATE: February 25, 2011 SUBJECT: 2011 Debenture Issue REPORT NO: CES-3-2011-1 ________________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION THAT the Commissioner of Finance and Corporate Services be authorized to sell debentures and/or apply for loans for up to $17,500,000. ANALYSIS The District Municipality of Muskoka has been requested by the Town of Gravenhurst to issue debentures on their behalf for up to 40 years, by the Township of Lake of Bays to issue debentures on their behalf for up to 10 years, and the District needs to finance a wastewater project.

Debentures to be issued Municipality By-law # $ Town of Gravenhurst 2010-27 1,000,000 2010-28 1,900,000 2010-29 6,400,000

TOTAL 9,300,000 Township of Lake of Bays 10-95 500,000

TOTAL 9,800,000

District Wastewater Projects District Project # By-law # Project Description 412-001 (410-759) 2007-14, 2009-43 Bracebridge Wastewater Plant 7,700,000

TOTAL 17,500,000 The planned debenture issue is based on the forecast for wastewater financing as presented in the 2010 and/or 2011 capital budgets and the resulting repayments will be factored into the 2011 operating budget for wastewater services. Respectfully submitted, With the concurrence of,

Mike Durnan Stephen Cairns Director of Finance Commissioner of Finance and

Corporate Services

48


Engineering and Public Works Committee Corporate and Emergency Services Committee

FROM: Stephen Cairns, Commissioner of Finance and Corporate Services

A. J. White, Commissioner of Engineering and Public Works DATE: February 17, 2011 SUBJECT: Solid Waste Collection Services For Residential

Condominiums And Other Multiple Unit Residential Buildings REPORT NO: PW-3-2011-4 __________________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION THAT, subject to the conditions listed in Appendix “A” attached, residential condominiums and other multiple unit residential buildings be provided with solid waste collection services; AND THAT effective January 1, 2012, the owners of residential condominiums and other multiple unit residential buildings that do not receive waste collection services be given relief from that portion of the property tax bill applicable to the collection services; AND FURTHER THAT the owners of residential condominiums and other multiple unit residential buildings that receive or that are eligible to receive solid waste collection service may not opt out of receiving the service. ORIGIN During a joint meeting of the Engineering & Public Works and the Corporate & Emergency Services Committees (PW-13-2009 and CES-15-2009) held on December 9, 2009, to discuss the 2010 Rate Supported Budget, staff were asked to report back on current practices and policy alternatives respecting the collection of solid waste from residential condominiums. Possible changes in the way that waste collection services are financed were presented to two meetings of the Solid Waste Financial Review Committee (SW-1-2010 and SW-2-2010) held on May 3 and August 16, 2010, respectively. The changes included tax relief for the owners of condominiums that do not receive waste collection service despite the fact that the condominiums are located within the collection service area.

BACKGROUND Municipal obligations pertaining to the management of solid waste extend only to wastes generated by residential properties. Municipalities are not responsible for the management of wastes from non-residential properties, although they may choose to provide such services. In some cases, such as in older downtown areas, residential and commercial uses occupy the same buildings and it is difficult to

.../2 Managing Our Legacy Together 49

- 2 -

service one sector without servicing the other. Although municipalities don’t generally provide collection services to the broader commercial and industrial sectors, they often allow wastes from all sectors to be delivered to municipal disposal and diversion facilities. This is the case in Muskoka. Muskoka assumed responsibility for solid waste management from the area municipalities on January 1, 1996. Muskoka’s principal by-law governing waste collection (By-law 98-59) started out as an amalgam of rules and regulations found in the superseded by-laws of the area municipalities. Over time, the rules were homogenized across Muskoka and although service levels can and do vary, the policies pertaining to the delivery of any particular service are consistent throughout all municipalities. In general, the owner of every property on a curbside collection route may set out wastes for collection up to the limits prescribed for a single family dwelling. This is true regardless of the property’s zoning or development status. This policy permits the collection of waste from the smaller businesses that are typically located in the downtown areas. Larger enterprises that generate quantities of waste that exceed the limits for a single family dwelling must make private arrangements for collection. Prior to 1996, with some exceptions (e.g. row housing abutting a public road) condominiums were not provided with curbside collection services. Muskoka continued this policy and, in recent years, municipal agreements registered on the title of condominium properties have included provisions making it clear that collection services will not be provided. Other properties used for higher density residential purposes such as apartment buildings (which were often zoned commercial) were also not provided with curbside collection services. Muskoka’s current by-law does permit the provision of service to medium density multiple unit residential properties with up to four accommodation units. Sometimes, buildings with more than four units are serviced, but only up to the limits applicable to a four unit building. ANALYSIS Recent Developments In recent years, more and more multiple unit residential properties have been developed as condominiums. Also, different types of condominiums such has vacant-land condominiums have started to become popular. In some cases, it is difficult to differentiate the private common elements serving these developments (e.g. roads) from their public sector equivalents. Indeed, from all outward appearances, vacant land condominiums are often indistinguishable from standard residential subdivisions. As the number of condominiums has increased, so have the complaints about taxation for solid waste collection services. The complaints come primarily from the occupants of traditional condominium buildings which tend to be multi-storey blocks that are ill-suited to curbside collection of wastes. These properties are usually equipped with large communal containers that are serviced by private contractors under the supervision of building superintendents. Because of their density and configuration, like all multi-storey residential buildings, multi-storey condominiums would be unable to adhere to standard curbside waste collection procedures even if the collection services were made available. Historically, medium density, low rise, multiple unit residential properties such as semi-detached homes and row townhouses abutting collection routes have been provided with solid waste collection services regardless of the form of tenure. They can be individual freehold properties, units within a condominium, or apartments under a single ownership, but their outward appearance is essentially the same. They have frontage on the collection routes and they often have garages and driveways that can be readily associated with the wastes set out for collection. It is worthwhile to note that these kinds of developments have the lowest unit costs for curbside collection service. For obvious reasons, the lower the density of development, the higher the unit costs. Medium density, low rise development represents the optimal condition for curbside collection. However, there are limits to the proportional relationship between density and efficiency because, as noted above, curbside collection is not suited to high density multi-storey developments.

.../3

50

- 3 -

Understandably perhaps, the owners of condominium units that do not receive collection services resent having to pay a private contractor to collect their wastes while paying taxes to support the services enjoyed by others. Although some similar complaints have been received from the owners of apartment buildings, these complaints are far fewer and less frequent. This is likely because apartment buildings (especially large ones) are usually run as commercial enterprises and the costs are passed on to tenants. Also, it is widely accepted that taxes generated by commercial and other non-residential properties will support programs that may be of no direct benefit to the owners of these properties. The policy of treating residential condominiums the same way as commercial apartment buildings almost certainly arose as a result of the physical similarity between the two built forms. However, unlike apartment dwellers, condominium owners are directly responsible for payment of property taxes. Therefore, they might be expected to be more sensitive to taxation issues. If the complaints of condominium owners are deemed to have merit, then the occupants of apartment buildings could reasonably assert that they also have legitimate complaints, even though they may be obscured by the relationship between landlord and tenant. In short, whether considered fair or unfair, in the past, Muskoka’s policy has been applied uniformly to all multiple unit residential buildings including apartments and condominiums. It is recommended that whatever future policy might be adopted, that it too should apply to all multiple unit residential buildings, regardless of their form of tenure. Recommended Policy In the presentations to the Solid Waste Financial Review Committee meetings mentioned above, several options were presented for changes in the way that solid waste collection services are financed. It is not the intention of this report to reopen the broader debate on the method of distributing the costs of solid waste management in general. Rather, the intention is to re-examine only those elements of the presentations that pertain to the taxation of condominiums. A typical tax bill in Muskoka identifies the portion of the bill that is earmarked for the financing of solid waste management services. The tax rates attributable to solid waste management services vary from municipality to municipality; but in all cases they can be divided into two general components – collection services and disposal services. The term “disposal services” is in fact a catch-all description for all services other than collection. As might be expected, this includes the net costs of landfill disposal, but it also includes costs associated with the Municipal Hazardous or Special Waste program, composting, processing and marketing of recyclable materials, etc. In the presentations to the Solid Waste Financial Review Committee, it was suggested that if a property is determined to have curbside pickup service available, then the property should attract both the collection service and the disposal service components of the tax rate. Conversely, it was also suggested that if a property does not have curbside pickup service available, then the property should be exempt from the collection service component of the tax rate. These suggestions were made in the context of several different classes of properties, but in this report they are considered only with reference to condominiums and other multiple unit residential buildings. It is recommended that collection services should continue to be made available to residential condominiums and other multiple unit residential buildings that currently receive the services. Typically, these consist of row townhouses and small apartment buildings with four or fewer dwelling units. Subject to certain conditions, consideration could be given to the provision of services to condominiums where the built form lends itself to curbside collection – e.g. vacant land condominiums. It is further recommended that commencing in 2012, the collection service component of the solid waste management tax rate should not be applied to residential condominiums and other multiple unit residential buildings that do not receive collection services. If the above recommendation is accepted, one of the criticisms that may come from property owners who receive relief from the collection service component of the tax rate may be that the measure doesn’t go far enough. The rationale for this criticism is that property owners who are obliged to make their own

.../4

51

- 4 -

arrangements for waste collection also pay for disposal. This is because a tipping fee is paid by the private waste management contractors who, in turn, pass it on to the property owners in their service charges. This criticism is not valid for two reasons. Firstly, the tipping fee does not offset the entire cost of the disposal services component of the tax rate. Secondly, the collection services component of the tax rate paid by those who receive the services also includes a tipping fee. ALTERNATIVES The obvious alternative to the recommended course of action is to do nothing. It is clear that the current policy, which has been in place for decades, places the owners and occupants of residential condominiums and other multiple unit residential buildings at a disadvantage. However, in the case of apartment buildings this might be considered a justifiable consequence of running a commercial enterprise based on the provision of shelter. In the case of residential condominiums, the justification may be that the current policy has always been abundantly clear in Muskoka’s by-laws and, more recently, in the development agreements registered against the title of the properties. That being said, the popularity of residential condominium developments is not expected to wane and, consequently, the pressure for change will only grow more intense with time. Therefore, the “do nothing” option is not recommended. A quick survey of a few other municipalities has revealed that some have policies similar to Muskoka’s current policy and some have policies similar to that recommended above. Others have policies based on a refund process. In one case, all property owners pay the full amount of property tax associated with the prevailing rate, with no exceptions, and the owners of properties that do not receive collection services are refunded a fixed amount per residential unit, regardless of assessed value or taxes paid. The advantage of this system is that it is easy to understand and to administer. However, an obvious criticism is that properties with low assessed values may be overcompensated and those with higher assessed values may be undercompensated. Again, this alternative is not recommended. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS The consequence of implementing the recommended policy is that a portion of the tax revenue currently received from residential condominiums and other multiple unit residential buildings will no longer be available and will have to be offset by a corresponding increase in the amount received from all other properties. An analysis of the affected properties shows that of the roughly $20B in assessment available to finance the solid waste management service, approximately $300M could be affected by the change in policy. The consequences of implementing the policy will vary from municipality to municipality and, not surprisingly, those with a greater concentration of residential condominiums and multiple unit residential buildings can expect to see the more significant changes. Based on a home assessed at $200,000 the impacts in the affected municipalities may be summarized as follows: Municipality Current Tax Paid For Solid Waste Proposed Tax Paid For Solid Waste Huntsville 141.42 144.84 Bracebridge 135.14 137.20 Gravenhurst 143.08 145.64

The impact of exempting the residential condominiums and the multiple unit residential buildings for the collection portion of the solid waste management levy, based on the 2010 operating budget and the 2010 levy, on a typical residential tax bill ranges between $2.06 and $3.42, as noted in the above table.

.../5

52

- 5 -


A.J. White, P. Eng.Commissioner of Engineeringand Public Works

Stephen Cairns,Commissioner of Financeand Corporate Services

AJW:I 1report\2condosl .doc

53

Appendix “A”

Conditions For The Provision Of Solid Waste Collection Services To Residential Condominiums And Other Multiple Unit Residential Buildings

1) The buildings must abut a designated collection route on a publicly owned road that is maintained all

year round. 2) Despite item 1) above, service may be provided to low to medium density dwelling units on private

roads and on seasonally maintained public roads during the summer season* provided that each of the units abuts the roads, and that the roads are deemed to be safe for passage by standard waste collection vehicles.

3) Despite item 1) and in addition to item 2) above, service may be provided to low to medium density

dwelling units on private roads during the winter season* provided that each of the units abuts the roads; and that the winter maintenance standard for the private roads is at least equal to the standard applicable to municipal roads, and that the private roads are deemed to be safe for passage by standard waste collection vehicles.

4) Wastes must be set out at the curb or edge of roadway on the designated collection route as

prescribed in Muskoka’s by-laws. 5) Low to medium density dwelling units (e.g. individual homes, semi-detached homes, row

townhouses) must lie along and parallel to the collection route, and the maximum quantity of waste that may be set out for collection by each unit shall not exceed the limits prescribed for a single family dwelling.

6) Subject to item 5) above, the maximum quantity of waste that may be set out for collection from a

multiple unit residential building shall not exceed the limits prescribed for four single family dwellings and, in the case of recyclable materials, no more than a total of sixteen Blue Boxes or their equivalent.

* As defined in Muskoka’s By-law 98-59, as amended from time to time.

54