Town of Innisfil

Program Evaluation By‐Law Enforcement for the Town of Innisfil

3/21/2016

The purpose of this report is to critically examine the efficiency and effectiveness of by‐lawenforcement within the Town of Innisfil and then recommend an appropriate solution. To aid in the study, 2 surveys were administered to by‐law officers and the residents of the town. Information was collected both the knowledge and perception of by‐laws in Innisfil. After the analysis, the findings show that the residents were ill‐informed about by‐laws and showed a slightly apathetic attitude towards it. This demonstrates that there is much more work to be done regarding by‐law enforcement in that awareness and care of this topic must be increased.

Prepared by:

Annamore Kembo

Brian Chu

Lito Alban

Miten Patel

Maureen Max Kizito

2

Contents Introduction ....................................................................................... p.3

Structure of the Report

Scope

Evaluation Purpose

Stage of Development

Stakeholders

Table 1 Stakeholder Assessment and Engagement Plan pp.5‐6

Logic Model …………............................................................................ p.7

Literature Review ……………..……………………………………………………………. p.8

Methodology ..................................................................................... p.10

Design

Method

Sample …………………………………......................................................... p.12

Target Population / Sampling Frame

Data Collection ……………………….......................................................... p.14

Data Collection Methods

Analysis .............................................................................................. p.15

Methods of Analysis

Table 2 Survey Q.12 p.18

Table 3 Survey Q.10 p.18

Table 3 Survey Q.8 and Q.9 p.19

Anti‐Bias Measures ........................................................................... p.21

Recommendations ............................................................................ p.22

Future Research ................................................................................ p.23

Reference …....................................................................................... p.24

Appendix …........................................................................................ p.25

Survey #1

Survey #2

3

Introduction

This report presents the findings and conclusions from evaluation of the Innisfil’s by‐law enforcement program. The evaluation was conducted between January 7 and March 21 2016.

Structure of the Report: This report contains six sections, including the introduction. Section 2 provides the background of Innisfil’s by‐law enforcement program, describing its structure, resources, services, and the logic behind its activities, Section 3 describes the methodology used in the evaluation; Section 4 summarizes the key findings and response; Section5 presents the conclusions of the report; and Section 6 contains the recommendations and further research needed.

Scope: The Municipal Law Enforcement Department is responsible for the enforcement of by‐laws adopted by Council, various Provincial Statutes and other duties that may be assigned by Council. The Department is also responsible for the administration of some by‐laws. In keeping with Inspiring Innisfil initiatives, the Department’s main objective is to gain compliance with all town by‐laws. As a result, the town created a by‐law enforcement program in 1991, which oversees the enforcement of 33 by‐laws and is implemented by four community standard officers. However, since its initial implementation the program has never been evaluated to measure its effectiveness and efficiency.

Evaluation Purpose:

The purpose of this evaluation was to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of Innisfil’s by‐law enforcement program in meeting/achieving its goals. The evaluation focused on the following two by‐laws:

BY‐LAW NO. 075‐02 – Property Standards

BY‐LAW NO. 092‐06 – Lot Maintenance

With regard to performance, the evaluation considered effectiveness (i.e., the extent to which the by‐law have achieved their objectives) and efficiency and economy (i.e., the degree to which appropriate and efficient means are being employed to achieve the desired outcomes) and the proactive monitoring system.

The findings are to inform program management at the Innisfil Town Hall on measures of success, areas of improvement, and a more favourable proactive model related to enforcing the two by‐laws.

4

The Evaluation addressed the following key Questions:

Are the by‐law enforcements efficient?

Is the program cost –effective? Do the benefits outweigh the costs?

How fast (in units of time) are by‐law violations and complaints responded to?

Are the by‐laws and enforcements achieving its intended goal(s)?

Should the program continue, be downsized or expanded to include proactive monitoring?

Stage of Development: The by‐law enforcement program has been in place since 1991; it oversees enforcement of 33 by‐laws and is implemented by four full time Community Standards Officers. The officers are responsible for the enforcement of by‐laws adopted by Council and various Provincial Statutes. The Community Development Standards Branch manages this program. This branch was created as the new amalgamated Building and Municipal By‐Law Enforcement departments to provide a "One Window" approach to meeting the needs of the residents of Innisfil while the town continues to grow. The department also employs volunteers as part of high‐school coop program and coop students from the Bachelor of Human Services – Police Studies program of the Georgian College.

Stakeholders:

These stakeholders will be involved in various capacities to develop this evaluation plan and

is outlined in Table 1.

The residents of the Town of Innisfil

The Town Council

Community Standards Officers

Management of Community Development Standards Branch

5

Table 1: Stakeholder Assessment and Engagement Plan

Stakeholder

Name

Stakeholder

Category Interest or Perspective

Role in the

Evaluation How and When

to Engage How they

will use the

information

Residents of

Innisfil Primary

Integral part of the

evaluation. Need to

know if the by‐laws are

effective.

Need to be aware of

the by‐laws and

enforcement

procedures.

Primary

input And

Information

provider

1) Target

Group –

Questionnaire

on residents

that made

complaints

2)

Questionnaire

on by‐law

awareness and

feedback on

the program

Become a

beneficiary

of change

arising from

the

(evaluation)

Town Council Secondary

Funder, decision‐

making authority sets

the goals the program

needs to achieve

Make a

decision in

the findings

of the

evaluation.

Provide

input of the

intended

goals of the

program

N/A

Will use the

results to

expand

program to

proactive

monitoring,

to design

new

programs,

introduce

change, or

develop

future

strategies,

etc.

6

Stakeholder

Name

Stakeholder

Category Interest or Perspective

Role in the

Evaluation How and When

to Engage How they

will use the

information

Community

Standards

Officers

Primary

Employees.

Responsible for

program

implementation,

enforcement results

Data and

information

provider

Questionnaire

on

enforcement

process/

procedures

Will use the

results to

validate the

findings and

to support

the

evaluation

Program

Management Secondary

Interested and

committed to the

program. Responsible

for overseeing the

implementation/mana

gement of the program

and identification of

issues/improvement

areas

Data and

Information

Provider.

Make a

(decision

judgment

based) on

the findings

of the

evaluation.

Provide/release

Data on

enforcements

completed for

new and repeat

offenders and

complaints

received

Will use the

results for

planning.

Results of

similar

programs in

comparable

towns (Town

of New

Tecumseh)

Secondary

Stakeholder of interest

for comparison of

similar program(town

with similar population

density as Innisfil)

Data and

information

provider

Collect

data/phone

interview on

the program

(Enforcements

and complaints

received –

same type of

data as Innisfil

to compare)

N/A

7

Logic Model

8

Literature Review

Cole et al (2011) evaluated a municipal by‐law for the Greater Toronto Area to reduce

cosmetic and non‐essential pesticide use on household lawn. This follows the study on how

the use of pesticides on lawns and gardens contributes to environmental contamination and

threatens human health. Similar to our group, they chose to use a logic model and conduct

surveys. However, unlike us they did their surveys through the telephone and conducted pre

and post surveys. Our group had also wanted to the same but due to time and procedural

limitations, we could not. Although the authors used the regression models as anti‐bias

measures, we used the chi square to test the relationship between nominal and ordinal

level variables to reject the hypothesis that the data is independent. However, Cole et al,

found that bylaws implemented through education and enforcement are a viable policy

option for the reduction of cosmetic pesticide use and contamination of groundwater

intended for drinking.

Kennedy (2010) in his evaluation of Woodstock outdoor smoking by‐law like us used

qualitative and quantitative methods to address their research objectives. Quantitative

measures were collected using a pre‐post survey design, interviewing smokers and non‐

smokers in the City of Woodstock, and Ingersroll. Kennedy like Cole et al conducted pre and

post surveys using the telephone followed by a face to face survey using smartphones to

target individuals who were observed smoking. Surveying both samples ensured the beliefs,

attitudes, and behavior of those smokers would be more likely to be affected by the by‐law.

The author also used a longitudinal cohort design, whereby respondents from both Wave 1

surveys were re‐contacted by telephone in approximately one year after the ban was

implemented to measure changes in the key outcome variables. We used a cross sectional

design due to the limitations we encountered during our evaluation. However, the second

wave of surveys was conducted entirely by telephone with no replacement. This qualitative

study sought to identify any specific lessons or findings from the process undertaken that

would be applicable or helpful to other communities. The qualitative study involved 6 key

informant interviews who worked within public health, city staff and an elected official. This

provided insight on the different aspects of the by‐law, from development to enforcement

which differs from our group in that we were independent evaluators. The data collected

from the key informant interviews was analyzed using an inductive qualitative method

called the ‘framework approach’. However, Kennedy failed to use anti‐bias measures in his

study which questions the reliability and validity of his findings.

On the other hand, McWilliams et al (2012) evaluated the planning and management

approaches for limiting residential encroachment impacts within forest edges. They also

chose to use surveys by interviewing twenty‐six informants in six municipalities which

included Cambridge, Guelph, Kitchener, Mississauga, Oakville and Waterloo. However, the

sampling was non‐random through a snowball sampling method. Unlike the other two

9

evaluations, this one used experts selected from different municipal department. They also

used open ended and closed questions to avoid bias. The study unlike other the two used a

control group known as Burlington because it was not participating. They also preserved

anonymity by coding the interviewees. Furthermore, Richardson (2013) evaluated the city of

Hamilton by‐law that prohibits smoking within city parks and recreation properties. This

evaluation is somewhat similar to Kennedy’s (2010) Woodstock outdoor smoking bylaw but

there is a key difference. Hamilton’s study was carried out by a medical health officer whose

main objective might be very different from many other independent evaluators. This is

because the Healthcare department’s objectives might be geared towards a health related

outcome. Therefore, the design and survey questions might be biased towards answering a

particular set of health objectives. Nevertheless, she also used education and enforcement

policies by campaigning through the radio, television and the internet. She then later

examined the surveys, observational studies and cigarettes to evaluate the effective of this

by‐law after the educational campaign. Last but not least, we reviewed the evaluation of by‐

laws in Whitehorse city. The main purpose of this evaluation was to determine whether a

course correction is required in order to make by‐law programs and services more relevant

to its clients and stakeholders, while remaining economically feasible. This is quite similar to

our objective in evaluating the town of Innisfil bylaws. The difference is that the Whitehorse

city evaluation was carried out by city officials whilst ours, Kennedy’s and Cole et al’s was

carried out by independent bodies. Like all the evaluations, they all used both qualitative

and quantitative methods in collecting data. In this study, they used random sampling

through the internet and face to face interviews. However, they cite that the use of

qualitative questionnaires as their anti bias measures. We felt that using qualitative

questionnaires alone cannot address all the biases in a research, therefore they should have

used other measures too to combat biases. In conclusion, we gathered that surveys are

popular in evaluating bylaws and that is the reason why we chose to use our methodology in

the collection of data. In addition, we also deduced that bylaws implemented through

education and enforcement are a viable policy option for effective enforcement of city by‐

laws.

10

Methodology: Evaluation Design

Design:

In designing our methodology of collecting data, we had to remember that the purpose of

the evaluation was to determine the efficiency and effectiveness of the by‐law enforcement

in Innisfil. Given this purpose, we decided to use a descriptive design which meant the

environment of the participants was not changed. This design was chosen because we

wanted to accurately assess the knowledge of the residents of Innisfil on by‐laws without

tampering the information they knew beforehand. Another aspect of the design was that it

the surveys were handed out physically. We chose to collect the data this way because

other descriptive methods such as interviews and online surveys did not appear to be a

viable option. With interviews, we thought that the success rate of participants would have

turned out to be low which would lead to a very small sample size. With online surveys, we

did not have access to the emails of the Innisfil residents nor did we think it would be as

effective. Another characteristic of the design was that it was a cross‐sectional study in

which the participants were chosen quasi randomly. Our group faced a limitation in that we

received the permission of administering our surveys late. This mean we only had one

opportunity to collect data in a library which meant the participants were truly random.

Considering that the by‐laws were created in 1991 and have been ongoing ever since, we

would have also liked to administer a posttest if given the opportunity. This design would

allow analytic comparisons to be made within the target population, i.e. causal effect

between residents who have filed by‐law violations and residents who have not.

Method:

Our method consisted of a mixed method in that we collected data both of qualitative and

quantitative nature. In terms of quantitative data, we collected data using the surveys we

administered on the demographic of the participants living in Innisfil. The data we collected

involved the different regions of where the participant lived as Innisfil are separated into

several areas. We also gathered the age brackets of the participants and the outcomes of

the quantitative data can be examined in the sample section. The purpose of collecting this

was to assess if there may have been any pattern or trends depending on the age of the

individual or where they were from.

As for our qualitative data, that was primarily gathered from our surveys as well that we

sent both to residents but also by‐law enforcers as well. Out of our 9 mandatory questions,

7 of them were created to collect qualitative data in the form of yes and no and scaled

questions. The survey's’ purpose overall was the gauge the overall knowledge and

perception of by‐law enforcement within the area. Our initial plan was to gather around 300

11

participants for the survey, however due to the constraints we faced, we were able to

approach 100 instead. Out of the 100, we had a success rate of 38% in individuals willing to

fill out the survey. The method of choosing was that we would ask everyone we saw over

the age of 18. This meant it was each person was quasi‐randomly chosen in that we chose

each one without bias but within the confined area of a library. As for by‐law officers, we

administered the survey to every one of them which was a total of 3.

12

Sample

Target Population:

The target population we based our sample was from all relevant stakeholders which

includes full time Community Standards Officers dedicated to enforcing the town’s by‐laws,

and residents of the City of Innisfil. All participants were over the age of 18 years old. After

the data was collected, we categorized all survey participants into 3 groups: Community

Standards Officers, complainants & non‐complainants of by‐law infractions. Complainants of

by‐law infractions include individuals who have called in to report a by‐law violation and

have dealt with the enforcement process. Non‐complainants have been included in the

sample to gain a better understanding how individuals who are not a part of the

enforcements process perceive the program. The Community Standards Officers are

included in the sample for the main purpose of analyzing an insider’s perception on the

issue.

Sampling method:

A non‐probability sampling

method was used in this

evaluation because we

targeted a specific group

who were the individuals

who are in charge of

enforcing by‐laws. As for

the residents, a probability

sampling method was used

to survey individuals who

called in to report

violations, and individuals

who have not dealt with

the process. Even though a

non‐probability method

will be used, the selection criteria will be randomized. In total 100 people were approached

with a 38% success rate which meant 38 participants filled out the survey. Of the 38

participants, only 3 people actually reported any violations.

Figure 1

13

Figure 2

14

Data Collection

Data Collection Methods:

To answer the questions for this evaluation, both new data as well as secondary data was

collected. The new data was collected from the various questionnaires that were

distributed to:

1. By‐Law Enforcement Officers

2. Residents who have made complaints

3. Non‐complainant residents

The questionnaire that was given to the By‐Law Enforcement Officers will be to ascertain

what the enforcement of a by‐law actually entails. The data gathered from those who made

the complaints provided information regarding the level of satisfaction of the results of the

enforcement as well as towards the procedure. Finally the answers garnered from the non‐

complainants questionnaires will provide a general look to the awareness and support of

the average citizen of Innisfil toward the program.

Secondary data was also gathered from the records that the Town of Innisfil retains over the

course of the year, refer to figure 3. The information from those records gave us sufficient

statistical data as to the type of calls received as well as resolution time. We had originally

planned to get access to similar records from the Town of New Tecumseh and conduct a

comparison between the two towns, as according to Statistics Canada in 2011, Innisfil has a

population of 33,079 and a population density of 116.4 persons per square kilometer.[1]

New Tecumseh for that same year had a population of 30,234 and a population density of

110.3.[2] As these numbers are fairly similar, they could provide an approximate measuring

standard against each other, however we were unable to gain access to this information.

15

Analysis

Public Awareness:

In general, the majority of participants did not consider themselves well‐informed of the by‐

laws of Innisfil (74%). What’s interesting is that 6 participants admitted to calling in to report

a violation but only 3 of those 6 claimed they were well‐informed of the by‐laws. This could

be the result of some by‐laws being more apparent than others, this is consistent with the

call volumes in 2013, and lot maintenance received 226 calls while property standards

received 51 calls (Refer to Figure 3 for full call volume statistics). If an empty lot is not taken

care of and weeds, poison ivy, etc. begin to grow this becomes a hazard for others, for that

reason it can be argued that certain by‐laws like lot maintenance by‐laws have a lot more

public awareness because these have the potential too impact others.

Figure 3

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2013 2014 2015

Call Volumes

Lot Maintenance Property Standards

16

By‐Law Violations

When participants were asked how many violations they assume there are within their

neighborhoods that are currently unresolved, out of the 38 responses there was a total of

138 estimated violations (Refer to Figure 5 for complete response data). This means each

respondent on average reported between 3 to 4 unresolved violations (actual average is

equal to 3.6, refer to Table 2), however a few respondents reported as many as 7 and one

respondent even reported 9. From these findings it can be concluded that many violations

go unenforced, however this could also be due to the lack of reporting on behalf of the

public.

Figure 4

17

Figure 5

The current enforcement model

Currently, the Town of Innisfil uses a reactive model to enforce by‐law violations, where

violations are followed up on if complaints are received. When participants were asked how

they would rate the effectiveness of this method, an average score of 5.68 (refer to Table 3)

was given, which ultimately can be perceived as just satisfactory. This perception could be a

result the failure of enforcement in past experiences; individuals may have lost faith in the

enforcement system. This theory is consistent with the findings from the By‐Law

Enforcement Officer questionnaire; a possible downside exists with the current method of

enforcement which is that infractions often do not escalate into charges. One officer stated

that non‐compliance with by‐laws are resolved 45% of the time before charges are laid.

While another said roughly between 80‐90% of complaints are resolved before a charge is

laid. The findings from the public questionnaire dictate 9 of the 38 participants have been

directly involved with a by‐law violation (either violated or reported a by‐law violation).

While only 3 participants stated that they had been reported for violating a by‐law, of which

only 1 participant claimed the violation escalated into a charge. Thus, infractions do not

often convert into charges unless every avenue has been used to gain compliance with the

property and its owner.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Number of Violations

Participants (1‐38)

9. Are there many by‐law violations around your area that you are aware of?

18

Table 2 Survey Q.12

12. How likely are you to make a follow up call if the violation is not dealt within

reasonable time?

N Valid 6

N/A 32

Mean 3.667

Median 3.500

In addition, the By‐Law Enforcement Officers also claimed that even if there is an infraction,

fines are usually too small to deter violations. In reality, infractions that are dealt with in

court have greater general and specific deterrent for violating the property standards by‐

law, however court proceedings are often lengthy. Furthermore there is also the issue, of

non‐compliance, a court may make a decision pertaining to a particular property, and the

person whom has been convicted does not follow through with a cleanup of the property.

These examples provided to us by the By‐Law Enforcement Officers backs up why the public

may have lost faith in the system.

Table 3 Survey Q.10

How would you rate the enforcement

service received?

N Valid 6

N/A 32

Mean 4.833

Median 5.500

19

Table 3 Survey Q.8 and Q.9

Are there many

by‐law

violations

around your

area that you

are aware of?

How satisfied are you overall, with the

present by‐law standard?

N Valid 38 38

Missing 0 0

Mean 3.526 5.868

Median 3.500 6.000

Attitudes towards a Proactive Model

The questionnaires which were administered asked both the public and the enforcement

officers if they would like to see a proactive model of by‐law enforcement. The responses

received from the public dictates that a proactive model is desired, as 64% of the responses

opted for enforcement model similar to traffic enforcement. We believe this strong favor for

a proactive model may be due to the failure of the current method to do its job. If

infractions rarely escalate into charges and violations stay unresolved, new charges may

have to issued, and the public feels a proactive model would be the best approach. When it

came to the recommendations made by the enforcement officers, its split 50/50. Two of the

officers were on board with the idea of a proactive model of by‐law enforcement as this

would increase awareness and deter people from violating by‐laws. However the other two

officers claim that the current reactive model of by‐law enforcement is sufficient enough to

meet the needs of the Town of Innisfil.

20

Figure 6

21

Anti‐Bias Measures

During the process of our group collecting data, we made sure we tried our best in

minimizing any form of bias to maintain the purity of the data. One of our primary methods

of data collection was in the form of physical surveys. In an ideal world, we recognize that it

would have been best if each participant of the survey was truly randomized. However, we

were placed with a constraint in that we could only administer our surveys in one location

on one day. This means we had access to a limited amount of participants. To combat the

problem of small sample size, we made the effort approaching every individual over the age

of 18 until we reached 100.

Another potential issue we realized was that the characteristics of individuals who go to a

library may be similar which may skew results. For this issue, the only thing we could have

done was to simply approach everyone we saw in the library without selectively picking

different people. The last anti‐bias measure we did was to ensure that the wording of both

our surveys and how we administered the survey. We were careful with both in that we

never led or encouraged the participant to any particular answer through our phrasing. We

properly explained the scale system in our surveys and gave them adequate time to think of

the response they truly felt.

22

Recommendations

Based on the information garnered from the public surveys we came up with the following

recommendations:

Further education of the public is needed to ensure that they are aware of the various by‐

laws that are pertinent to the Town of Innisfil. The majority of the people that were

surveyed from both the public and the by‐laws officers acknowledged that the public was

largely ignorant of the by‐laws. Although the populace does not necessarily need to be more

than familiar with the definitions and general concepts of property and lot maintenance by‐

laws, they should be cognizant that there are by‐laws that govern those two subjects as well

as many more. The old adage of “lack of knowledge of the law is no defense” is still

applicable and the people of Innisfil will have to still abide by those by‐laws.

Along with the educational recommendation for the townspeople of Innisfil regarding by‐

laws, we recommend that the current fines amounts be reconsidered as they do not appear

to be significant enough to act as a deterrent. A consideration may be instead of simply

increasing the base total, repeated same by‐law violations or repeat offenders would

receive an escalating fine amount much like in other municipalities where enforcement of

particular by‐laws is of utmost importance. I.e. Water conservation during drought seasons.

As the results were slightly in favor of having by‐laws enforcement become a more

proactive activity from the public surveys and split among the officers, further research

must be done in order to determine whether or not to change the current by‐laws

enforcement procedure. Even though public opinion was more in favor for a proactive

model of by‐law enforcement by close to double that of those in favor of a reactive model,

the number of people surveyed was unfortunately not sufficient enough to draw an

appropriate conclusion of this sentiment is shared throughout the Town of Innisfil. To that

end, either surveys must be completed by a significant number of residents from all parts of

the township of even a general referendum among the townspeople must be had to

properly gauge their opinion on how to proceed.

23

Future Research

In order provide a clearer view of the preferences of the populace with by‐law enforcement,

we suggest that further research is performed. This can be performed in any number of

ways: town referendum, having the town council pose questions to the people of their

wards and subsequently reporting to the council or even the same survey being distributed

throughout the entirety of Innisfil rather than a single community center/public library. With

a greater amount of data gleaned from the public, decision makers are able to properly

gauge policy effectiveness and the determination if policy change is required.

Should the decision makers consider the option of changing the existing by‐law

enforcement, possible sources of alternative policies could be the examination of other

municipalities with the same issues or even merely the approximate population size and

demographics? By examining those other regions by‐law enforcement practices and the

effectiveness, policy analysts are able to draw upon existing practices as both as a source of

precedent and inspiration to modify them to be more applicable to the environs that is

Innisfil.

24

References

Heidi McGuire. "Evaluation of By‐law #11‐080 Prohibiting Smoking Within City Parks and Recreation

Properties BOH12004(a) (City Wide)." Web. 21 Mar. 2016.

<http://www2.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/E4939840‐4F3A‐4881‐ABF6‐

421440D18909/0/Nov1871BOH12004a.pdf>

"STAFF REPORT INFORMATION ONLY Interim Evaluation ... ‐ Toronto." Web. 21 Mar. 2016.

<http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2007/hl/bgrd/backgroundfile1671.pdf>.

"SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE FINDINGS REPORT." City of Whitehorse, Apr. 2011. Web. 21 Mar. 2016.

<http://ww3.whitehorse.ca/by‐

law/snowmobile_july_2011/Snowmobile%20Task%20Force%20Report%20Draft%2020110418%2008

36.pdf>

"Environmental Health." Municipal By‐law to Reduce Cosmetic/non‐essential Pesticide Use on

Household Lawns. Web. 21 Mar. 2016. <http://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1476‐

069X‐10‐74>.

25

Appendices APPENDIX A.

Residents of Innisfil Survey

Please help us improve our service by answering some questions about the service or complaint calls you made.

1. What part of Innisfil do you reside in?

Alcona Cookstown Stroud Big Bay Point Lefroy Gilford Other 2. How long have you lived in Innsfil?

0 ‐ 6 Months 1 ‐ 2 Years 7‐ 12 Months 3 + Years 3. Would you consider yourself well‐informed on the by‐laws of Innisfil?

Yes No 4. Have you ever reported a by‐law violation?

Yes No 5. Have you ever been reported for violating a by‐law?

Yes No 6. If you have violated a by‐law, did the violation turn into a charge?

Yes No NA 7. Would you like to see a more proactive style of by‐law enforcement, similar to parking enforcement?

Yes No 8. How satisfied are you overall, with the present by‐law standard? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (Very unsatisfied) (Totally satisfied) 9. How would you rate the number of by‐law violations around your area? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (No violations) (Very many violations) Questions 10 – 12 are directed towards anyone who has either been charged or reported a by‐law violation. If you have not questions 10‐12 do not apply. Thank You 10. How would you rate the enforcement service you received? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (Very poor) (Outstanding) 11. If you reported a by‐law violation how urgent was your call (circle one): NA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (Less urgent but needs attention) (Needs attention right away) 12. How likely are you to make a follow up call if the violation is not dealt within reasonable time? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (Will not call) (Will definitely call)

If You Have Any Comments Please Them on the Back of This Sheet

26

APPENDIX B. Survey Questions for By‐law Officers

1. How would you rate the effectiveness of the enforcement of by‐laws?

Excellent Good Poor Terrible Not Relevant

2. How would you rate the enforcement measures


3. How would you rate the effectiveness of the property standards and lot maintenance by‐laws in as far as keeping up with the environment standards?


4. How would you rate the residents of Innisfil in reporting the violations by‐laws


5. Please explain how often by‐law infractions actually convert into charges?

6. Please state the shortfalls of this program?

7. In your opinion, are the program fines effective in deterring violation of by‐laws? Please explain

Yes No

8. What months, days and times of the day would you receive complaints most?

9. Would you change anything about the current by‐law enforcement procedure? Please explain your answer.

Yes No

Documents

Town of Innisfil