The Corporation of the Municipality of St.-Charles AGENDA

The Corporation of the Municipality of St.-Charles

AGENDA

Committee of the Whole Meeting

October 2, 2019 at 6:00 PM

Council Chambers (Municipal Office)

1. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL

1.1 Resolution to open the meeting BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Committee of the Whole meeting of October 2, 2019 be opened at 6:00 p.m.

2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA

2.1 Resolution to adopt the agenda BE IT RESOLVED THAT the agenda for the Committee of the Whole meeting of Council held October 2, 2019 be adopted as presented.

3. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST

4. PRESENTATIONS AND DELEGATIONS

5. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND INQUIRIES BY COUNCIL AND MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC

6. NOTICE OF MOTIONS

7. CLOSED SESSION

7.1 Resolution to enter into closed session BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council for the Corporation of the Municipality of St.-Charles hereby opens a closed session at ________ p.m. this 2nd day

Page 1 of 48

of October, 2019 to discuss:

____ personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees, as authorized under Section 239 (2) (b) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended;

____ labour relations or employee negotiations, as authorized under Section 239 (2) (d) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended;

Topic: Treasury Department (Probation Period Review & Salary Negotiations)

7.2 Resolution to reconvene to open session BE IT RESOLVED THAT having dealt with all matters pertaining to the closed session, we hereby reconvene to the Committee of the Whole meeting at _______ p.m.

8. COMMITTEES:

8.1. Environmental Services Committee: Chair Councillor Paul Branconnier / Co-Chair Councillor Jackie Lafleur

8.1.1 Email from Karen Commandant, dated September 23, 2019, regarding Blue Green Algae

8.2. Finance Committee: Chair Councillor Jackie Lafleur / Council

8.2.1 Quarter Report to Council 8.2.2 Report to Council - Tax Module

8.3. General Government Committee: Chair Councillor Paul Branconnier / Council

8.4. Health Services Committee: Chair Councillor Monica Loftus / Co-Chair Councillor Richard Lemieux

8.4.1 Report to Council - Community Transportation Grant 8.4.2 Letter from Carolyn Thain, dated September 26, 2019, regarding resignation

from Age-Friendly Advisory Committee.

8.5. Parks & Recreation Services Committee: Chair Councillor Richard Lemieux / Co-Chair Mayor Paul Schoppmann

8.5.1 Report to Council - Beautification Committee

8.6. Planning & Development Committee: Chair Councillor Jackie Lafleur / Co-Chair Councillor Paul Branconnier

8.6.1 Quarter Report to Council - Building Department

Page 2 of 48

8.6.2 Report to Council - Pharmacy Expansion

8.7. Protection to Persons & Property Committee: Chair Councillor Richard Lemieux / Co-Chair Mayor Paul Schoppmann

8.7.1 Letter from Ontario Provincial Police - Municipal Policing Bureau, dated September 23, 2019, regarding 2020 Annual Billing Statement package.

8.8. Social & Family Services Committee: Chair Councillor Monica Loftus / Co-Chair Councillor Richard Lemieux

8.9. Transportation Services Committee: Chair Councillor Paul Branconnier / Co-Chair Councillor Jackie Lafleur

8.9.1 Report to Council - Road Extension Proposition

9. Manitoulin-Sudbury District Services Board (MSDSB): Councillor Monica Loftus

10. St.-Charles Public Library Board (SCPLB): Councillor Monica Loftus

11. Sudbury East Planning Board (SEPB): Councillor Jackie Lafleur / Councillor Paul Branconnier

12. Sudbury East Municipal Association (SEMA): Mayor Paul Schoppmann / Councillor Richard Lemieux

13. ADJOURNMENT

13.1 Resolution to adjourn the meeting BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Committee of the Whole meeting of October 2, 2019 be adjourned at _______ p.m.

Page 3 of 48

Tammy Godden

From: Denis Turcot

Sent:

To:

Monday, September 23, 2019 2:05 PM

Karen Commandant

Cc:

Subject:

Tammy Godden; Paul Schoppmann

RE: Blue Green Algae

Hi Karen,

Please resend pictures, they did not seem to be attached.

I will inquire with members of council on past efforts and forward your letter to council.

Denis

-----Original Message-----

From: Karen Commandant

Sent: September 23, 2019 1:58 PM

To: Denis Turcot <[email protected]>

Subject: Blue Green Algae

FYI a report has been made to MOE and Sudbury Public Health Unit regarding a new bloom found at the south side of

Musky Island on the 20th which grew worse over the weekend. Pictures will follow by separate emails.

I would like to hear back from the municipality as to what is being done to protect this water. Is there a water

management plan in place? Are there by laws for enforcement?

We are new to the St Charles West Arm location as cottagers in 2018. We found the water quality has been poor last

summer and this but the past weekend it was disgusting. We couldn't open the windows of the cottage it stunk so badly.

We can't swim, bathe, do dishes, drink the water or allow pets to go near the lake. This is not only cosmetically

displeasing to us, it is a serious health concern that we need to know is being addressed.

I have attached pictures for you to review. I would appreciate if you would immediately place this issue on the Council

agenda for action and for the record in your public meeting minutes. I am aware that many taxpayers and business

people in the St Charles municipality as well as the French River rely on the beautiful lakes for their livelihood and I find

it beyond reason that this has not been adequately addressed to protect this resource.

Please respond and provide any update on any work being done that you may be aware of or the municipality has

initiated. I did address this issue with candidates before the last municipal election who seemed to share this concern. I

do hope this is the case.

Karen Commandant

Sent from my iPhone

1

Page 4 of 48

Page 5 of 48

Page 6 of 48

I r Page 7 of 48

Page 8 of 48

Report to Municipal Council Meeting Date: October 02, 2019

Report Date: September 27, 2019

Decision Requested: Information

Priority: Quarterly Report

Direction Only: yes

Type of Meeting: Regular

Report Title: Director of Finance Update

Background: Update/Progress Report request for Council.

Summary of October 2019 Quarterly Report:

I have been maintaining high levels of communications with the CAO, Staff, Collins

Barrow‐Bookkeeper, and ICity for the Finance Department for the Municipality of St.

Charles.

Payroll Module

Payroll Module ICity software is set‐up accordingly:

Remittances have been monitored for 2019 and is in order.

Payroll procedures and check list draft is completed, requires review and

procedures to be created by an HR Firm ‐In progress.

Recommended is to provide a least once a year workshop/training for

Payroll Clerk.

Purchase Order Module

Purchase Order Module ICity Software is set‐up accordingly and was implemented as of

Jan.2019. Pending are:

Change the Payable Policy. Bring down the up‐to $1000 down to $0.00

purchase tolerance. Ensuring record of the committed value in our books.

Amending recommended. Still Pending Requires an HR Firm‐In Progress.

Page 9 of 48

- 2 -

Management have Credit Cards if emergency purchases is required after

hours. Emergency to be determined and limit purchases to be

determined. Zero tolerance for personal purchases regardless of

personal emergency reason.

o The Credit Card statements are available monthly, therefore will

be informed of that expense within that month.

o As for the purchases with no PO for all under $1,000 we might not

know the amounts till months later; and expenditure can easily go

over the budget.

o Waiting for directions from CAO.

Prior to amending Policy need Councils input; will require to send a letter

to all current vendors to notify of the update.

Committee of the Whole Meeting required.

Waiting for directions from CAO.

Accounts Payable Module

Account Payable Module with ICity software was not used at full capacity. Director of

Finance ensuring that the step‐by‐step procedure is being followed verbally as written

procedures is being developed in the process. Required is a HR Firm assisting with

developing Procedures from scratch.

Retrait system payments/withdrawals‐cheques are kept in my office.

Retrait system payment will be terminated; and ICity software will be

implemented. –Attempted to implement although: Caisse Alliance not

compatible with system. Discussion required for services.

Monitoring/Training employee with AP Module: ensuring reading of

invoice; ensuring allocation in proper month or period expenses; ensuring

accurate HST calculations, ensuring no late payments.

Accounts Payable (AP) procedures and check list verbally only,

supervision step‐by‐step is provided to AP Clerk. Ongoing progress for the

written procedures and check list. Priority High.

There are 4 types of payments:

o Retrait Files: Files uploaded at the Bank Level includes OMERS,

Page 10 of 48

- 3 -

Union, and all staff expenses reimbursements. Once a month or

when required.

o PAP: Pre‐Authorised Payments automatic payments coming out of

the Municipality Bank Accounts: Hydro, Bell, Printer Contract

Services, Bank Charges, Loans, Great Westlife. Recorded after

Bank Statement is available.

o Online Banking: Going into Bank Account to pay bills online:

Rogers and MasterCard, Remittances. Recorded once a month

towards the end of the month

o Biweekly Cheques: every two weeks cheques payment are

processed for all other vendors.

Property Tax Module

Discrepancies with payments received and not recorded and/or recorded

payments not received.

Tax Module has been in balance for 2019 as of January 2019.

School Board owing/ due was reconciled and completed this month:

From 2018 Year end up to September 30.2019. Payment and report was

completed.

2018 Financial Audit

Based on findings discrepancies are repetitive.

Action Discussion required to hire HR firm to create, implement Procedures and Roles.

Discussion for reserves. Equity not matching with Bank Account Balances. Discussion of Credit Card and PO limits.

Prepared by: Rosa Roussel Approved by:

Page 11 of 48


Report Date: September 27, 2019

Decision Requested: Yes

Priority: High

Direction Only: Yes

Type of Meeting: COW

Report Title: Tax Module

Recommendation: Recommend that council set an upset limit to enable staff to retain a consultant and that prior to awarding any contract that comparison quotes be researched if available for comparison. Background : Attached is a proposal from consultant to remedy the ongoing issues in the tax module. Below are clarifications to the proposal.

Note: There are no time frames for each project and no per hour for services to be rendered. What are the time frames per project? What is the hourly rate for services?

As previously mentioned, we have different rates for different Team Members: Accountant Oversight $125 Treasurer $75 Finance Support $25

Page 12 of 48

- 2 -

Note: Proposal does not include the travel cost: meals‐km‐lodging and no anticipated days of travel cost. What are the anticipated days for travel requirements? And what are your costs for meals‐km‐lodging?

o The above time considerations include travel time o Rate per km is $0.555 per kilometer o Lodging, if necessary, would be charged at cost of lodging (we do not anticipate

this to be necessary) o Where possible, travel will be combined with other work in the same area, thus

splitting travel costs (which is why we do not include travel costs) o The number of days is unknown until we have further information but is not

anticipated to be in excess of 5 days.

Note: Proposal is expected to be completed remote‐verification, therefore requiring providing of documents and coordinating work will be required by staff? Please confirm if correct, as it was discussed that it would require your presence at the office?

o The majority of work would be completed remotely but attendance in St Charles

would initially be required to discuss the issue and meet with officials from St Charles and potentially, the auditing firm. Our overall goal would be to minimize impact on staff workload. We have allocated time in our proposal to be onsite for perusal of original documents and the collection/copying of documents we may require. We have not included any “follow up” i.e. posting of Journal Entries which will be negotiated separately at the time if necessary.

Prepared by: Denis Turcot

Page 13 of 48

PROPOSAL TO

THE MUNICIPALITY OF ST. CHARLES

FOR

MUNICIPAL SUPPORT SERVICES RE:

TAXES RECEIVABLE AUDIT /

VADIM SOFTWARE REVIEW

Prepared By:

Peggy Young-Lovelace

E4m Consultant

Page 14 of 48

Expertise for Municipalities

Sudbury, Ontario

September 20, 2019 Corporation of the Municipality of St. Charles 2 King St E, PO Box 70 St.-Charles, ON P0M 2W0 Via Email – [email protected] Attention: Mr. Denis Turcot, Chief Administrative Officer Dear Denis:

RE: Taxes Receivable Audit / Vadim Software Review Thank you for the opportunity for Expertise for Municipalities (E4m) to provide you with this proposal. We trust it is sufficient for your current needs. For questions related to our submission please contact Peggy Young-Lovelace by phone at 705-863-3306 or by email at [email protected]. Warm Regards,

Peggy Young-Lovelace Director/Independent Consultant

Page 15 of 48

mailto:[email protected]




About Us

A group of like-minded thinkers recognized that the municipal sector in Rural and Rural

Northern Ontario is underserviced with respect to training and municipally related

services. The group also recognized that this same part of the sector, at times, lacks the

capacity (human and financial) to execute practices necessary to comply with legislation

and good governance. To that end, there was a desire to make a difference by giving

back to the sector. To accomplish this, they incorporated Expertise for Municipalities

(E4m) as a not-for-profit association (July 2017) to empower excellence in small

municipalities.

E4m believes in the following core principles:

a) That by providing “on the ground” support services to small municipalities, in all

aspects of the municipal operation, we can help municipalities with limited budgets

and few staff succeed in delivering mandatory services;

b) That by holding relevant conferences, meetings, or training sessions this segment

of the municipal sector will be strengthened through the professional development

of its elected officials, employees and volunteers;

c) That by assisting small municipalities with preparing presentations to government

and/or the private sector we can help them to deliver on and advocate for the

municipal mandate;

d) That by sharing information collected resulting from research carried out by E4m,

municipalities can be better equipped to address issues and solve problems;

e) That by promoting the principles of good municipal governance we can encourage

municipalities to achieve strength and sustainability through sound governmental

practices and public engagement; and

f) That we can give back to the municipal sector by transferring knowledge and

assisting to build capacity.

E4m is a network of municipal professionals with a wide array of competencies and

experiences who have a passion and commitment to providing small municipalities with

affordable professional services.

Page 16 of 48


Sudbury, Ontario

Our Understanding of the Requirements We understand that the Municipality of St. Charles, its Mayor and Council have concerns with respect to the financial system of the Municipality. It is also our understanding that the municipal auditor, Collins Barrow could not offer an Unqualified Audit Opinion as at December 31, 2107. As a result, Collins Barrow submitted a Qualified Audit Opinion based on apparent anomalies with Taxes Receivable. The basis for the Qualified Opinion was presented and has been published as:

The Corporation of the Municipality of St.- Charles' taxes receivable is carried at $226,550 on the consolidated statement of financial position as at December 31, 2017. We were unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence about the amount of these taxes’ receivable as at December 31, 2017 because of significant discrepancies in comparison to the tax’s arrears listing. Consequently, we were unable to determine whether any adjustments might be necessary to taxes receivable, excess of revenues over expenditures, assets and accumulated surplus.

It would appear that the basis for the issues around the Taxes Receivable may be related to the VADIM accounting system. Our experience with VADIM and with other systems is that unreconcilable Taxes Receivable are rare due to the nature of the systems. We finally understand that the Municipality of St. Charles requires the following:

a) Reconciliation of the Taxes Receivable as at December 31, 2017 b) Reconciliation of the Taxes Receivable as at December 31, 2018 c) Reconciliation of the Taxes Receivable for each month in 2019. d) An assurance that the individual tax accounts are accurate e) An assurance that the controls are in place to avoid a similar

situation from occurring in the future f) An assurance that the VADIM accounting system was set-up as it

was intended.

Page 17 of 48


Sudbury, Ontario

Audit Opinions While the Mayor, Council and Municipality Staff may have discussed the difference between a Qualified Audit Opinion and an Unqualified Audit Opinion, it is worth repeating here. An Unqualified Opinion – its Importance Professional auditing standards establish when it is appropriate for any auditor to express an “unqualified opinion” commonly referred to as a clean opinion. In an unqualified audit report, the auditors conclude that the financial statements of the

Municipality present fairly its affairs in all material aspects. Such a report implies that any

changes in the accounting policies, their application and effects, are adequately

determined and divulged. This opinion embodies the assumptions that a municipality

observed compliance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and statutory

requirements.

This communicates to financial statement users that they may have reasonable assurance that the financial statements are free of any material misstatement. This is the most common outcome and has some distinct advantages. It is important to keep in mind that the users of your financial statements include:

1. Municipal Council 2. The Province of Ontario and Canada 3. Your taxpayers 4. Banking Institution 5. Miscellaneous Market Lenders (i.e. the Ontario Infrastructure and Lands

Corporation) 6. Suppliers 7. Leaseholders 8. School Boards

An unqualified audit opinion will give these users and others all the confidence in the world to continue their relationship with you unabated.

Page 18 of 48


Sudbury, Ontario

A Qualified Audit Opinion – Proceed with caution Professional standards also establish when a “qualified opinion” or in other words, a reservation is warranted for inclusion in the opinion. In the auditing profession, a qualified audit opinion is a rare occurrence in the public sector. It indicates to the users of the financial statements that some of the information is misleading or not auditable. When auditors issue a qualified opinion, they are communicating they have a major concern with the availability of sufficient and appropriate evidence or, The entity’s compliance with accounting standards (GAAP) or statutory requirements. An auditor may issue a qualified audit opinion when parts (but not all) of the financial statements are inaccurate or lack support (i.e. Taxes Receivable). The larger question then becomes, how does the Qualified Opinion affect the relationship with the list of users noted above? The quick and easy answer is; negatively. Qualified opinions can alter favourable terms from creditors, suppliers, your banking institution and other lenders. It sends the wrong message to the Province of Ontario, the Federal Government and School and can affect applications for grants from these organizations. Most importantly, a qualified opinion may bring serious questions from your ratepayers about the finances of the Municipality, their own tax accounts and a lack of required oversight by Council. A qualified opinion brings into question the credibility of the numbers. In the opinion of the auditor, this means that readers of the financial statements, such as the aforementioned public, elected officials and credit rating or lending agencies, cannot fully assess the fiscal situation using the Municipality’s financial statements for the year end of December 31, 2017. It is quite possible that the following may happen:

1. Your banking institution, who is provided a copy of your annual audited financial statements, will request a full explanation on why the audit was qualified.

2. Lenders or creditors may shy away from the Municipality if it is required to borrow funds for a major capital project, for example. This has been known to happen with the Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corporation (OILC) who offer loans to municipalities at better than market rates.

3. Other creditors, such as your day to day vendors may require immediate payment of invoices as opposed to on a 30 or 60-day basis.

4. Should the media, both local and regional, decide that the qualification of your audit and the safety of the finances of the Municipality are a good story, you may find

Page 19 of 48


Sudbury, Ontario

yourself in the “news” for the wrong reason. In today’s world of social media, that is a story that will never go away.

5. Lastly, your taxpayers will most assuredly want answers. They have entrusted you to run the community in their best interest and a problem with municipal finances will no doubt spurn local gossip and create an exponential number of questions. This could then take up valuable resources to address thus detracting for any progress you may have hoped for. In the end, taxpayers will want answers that are quick, simple and encouraging.

Importance of Transparency and Accountability The Municipality of St. Charles, for the purposes of this situation may want to take of notice of the requirements of the Municipal Act as follows: Section 224 says in part that it is the role of Council

(a) to represent the public and to consider the well-being and interests of the municipality

(d.1) to ensure the accountability and transparency of the operations of the municipality, including the activities of the senior management of the municipality

(e) to maintain the financial integrity of the municipality The Municipal Act also goes to talk about the adoption of required policies. Section 270 says in part that a municipality shall adopt and maintain policies with respect to:

(5) The manner in which the municipality will try to ensure that it is accountable to the public for its actions, and the manner in which the municipality will try to ensure that its actions are transparent to the public.

The public may see Accountability as a general principle that the Municipality is answerable to the public and responsible for their actions, decisions and policies. The Public may also see Transparency as a general principle that Municipality will operate in an accessible and visible manner and that their activities and decision making are open and clear to the public. It is part of the role of Council is to ensure the accountability and transparency of municipal operations. A municipality must adopt and maintain a policy that ensures these tenets.

Page 20 of 48


Sudbury, Ontario

Balancing Transparency and Confidentiality It would be in the best interest of the Municipality of St. Charles to consider openness and transparency in the current situation. Of course, there may reasons that some information should be kept confidential such as; names or other identifying information. In this particular situation, Council will want to maintain confidentiality at all times, but also be in a position to discuss the situation in manner that is open and transparent – at the appropriate time. Our Proposed Workplan E4m understands that the concerns of the Municipality of St. Charles must be managed in the best interest of the Municipality itself, and the parties who have a stake in the outcome. Every project starts with a plan. Once the project starts to unfold, that plan will likely be tested in multiple ways - through unexpected questions and problems. The Goals Goal 1 To provide a measure of confidence to the Municipality of St Charles that its financial system is trustworthy and that the Taxes Receivable are accurate. In the course of this project we will want to fully reconcile the Taxes Receivable with a goal of avoiding another Qualified Audit and as follows:

• Reconciliation of the Taxes Receivable as at December 31, 2017

• Reconciliation of the Taxes Receivable as at December 31, 2018

• Reconciliation of the Taxes Receivable for each month in 2019 (if necessary). Goal 2 To provide assuredness to the Municipality that each individual sub-ledger or tax account reflects its true value. Goal 3 To ensure that the issue of the Qualified audit does not result in a complaint to either the Municipality’s Integrity Commissioner or the Provincial Ombudsman. Such complaints will only delay any measure of confidence in the accounting system.

Page 21 of 48


Sudbury, Ontario

Goal 4 To ensure that any disruption to your staff and day-to-day operation is minimal if not eliminated. E4m specializes in working with small municipalities. Our work in this area and the experience of our municipal professionals has taught us that small municipalities have limited resources and that these resources are usually overextended. Thus, there is no capacity to deal with anomalies of any kind when they occur. Goal 5 An assurance that the controls are in place to avoid a similar situation from occurring in the future Goal 6 An assurance that the VADIM accounting system was set-up and is operating as it was intended. Steps In order to achieve the above noted Goal for the Municipality, E4m will execute the following steps:

a) Meeting with Municipality staff to discuss with them, their understanding of the problem and to obtain copies of any relevant working papers for Taxes Receivable. This will likely not just include 2017 but may also include 2016 and 2018.

b) E4m will then examine all documents provided and make an initial determination of the further work required.

c) We anticipate that we will require remote access to your accounting system in order to work through the working papers and unreconciled Taxes Receivable. Such access would be on a “read only” basis with our assigned logon being disabled form making any changes to the data or system.

d) We also anticipate that we will need to analyze general ledger accounts, batch postings (and their detail), general journals, tax system entries and any changes made to your system in the period of study.

e) We would review the original setup of the structure of the Vadim System. This may assist us in understanding how the problem occurred.

Page 22 of 48


Sudbury, Ontario

Assistance During the Process Should it be necessary, E4m can assist the Municipality of St. Charles in managing any questions from ratepayers or any other interested party in messaging related to the audit Qualification or to the attempts by the Municipality to correct this situation. Final Report E4m will provide a final report to the Municipality of St. Charles that will detail:

a) Our examination of the system, b) The results of our examination

i. How the six (6) Goals of the project have been met: ii. A Reconciliation of the Taxes Receivable iii. Comment on whether or not the individual tax accounts can

be relied upon as being accurate. c) Any adjusting entries required

E4m will also assist the Municipality in managing any final messaging once the project is complete. Our Team E4m has a team of experienced professionals that have extensive experience in the

municipal sector, most notable in the area of municipal finance. More importantly, the

experience includes the setup and operation of the Vadim system and already established

relationships with VADIM Software and CentralSquare, the company that owns VADIM

Software.

E4m also includes and has access to professionals who have extensive experience in the

overall management of municipalities. This experience can prove invaluable as we move

through this process together,

Our Experience Our experience in the municipal sector is extensive. E4m acts as Integrity Commissioner

for fifty-four (54) municipalities across the Province of Ontario making us the largest

Integrity Commissioner in the Province. We also act as the Election Compliance Audit

Committee for over twenty-five (25) communities and as Closed Meeting Investigator for

several.

More importantly, E4m has been engaged in a host of municipal roles including

mentorship, general advice, temporary staff replacement (Treasurer, CAO, Clerk), policy

writing and report writing.

Page 23 of 48


Sudbury, Ontario

Pricing

It is important to us to obtain the right outcome for the Municipality of St. Charles. In order

to do that we will want to ensure that we provide you with a price that is fair and reflects

our goal of helping municipalities across the Province.

We will want to ensure that while the vast majority of our work will be remote there will be

times when we need to attend in the Municipality of St. Charles. Our pricing should reflect

that. Twenty percent (20%) of all fees stay within E4m to support the municipal sector in

various ways.

In order to satisfy your needs, get you the result you need and provide E4m with the time

required, we can execute this project for:

$33,825 plus HST1

This price includes our time only including travel time. If required, meals, accommodation

and mileage would be extra but detailed on each invoice.

We would propose that billing would occur over the course of the project as follows:

$11,913.00 plus HST at the award of the project

$10,000.00 plus HST at the half-way stage of the project

$11,912.50 plus HST at the conclusion of the project

E4m is genuinely concerned about the situation as described. We look forward to working

with you to achieve the goals stated above.

It is our hope that with our assistance, the Municipality of St. Charles will continue to

deliver great services to the residents of your community.

1 Should circumstances be discovered that would warrant a larger project, we reserve the right to discuss possible further pricing.

Page 24 of 48


Report Date: September 26th, 2019


Priority: Med

Direction Only: No


Report Title: Community Transportation Grant

Recommendation: That the executive committee be comprised of:

- 1 elected voting member from each representative municipality. - 1 non-voting advisory member from each municipality - I would recommend that Senior support and Centre de Santé Representative be a

permanent (non-voting) Advisory Member And that the following clause be added to the agreement which deals with variation of budget, major capital purchases and contract non-compliance “That at any time where the following issues are known:

- Issues that have impact on the project finances and sufficiency of grant funding, - Items that involve capital acquisitions or disposals, or - Involve the compliance with the contract terms between St.-Charles and the

Province of Ontario/MTO, that they be immediately be forwarded to the Municipality of St.-Charles for review and approval.”


Page 25 of 48

for

September 26, 2019

To Council for the Municipality of St Charles:

This letter is notice of my resignation as a member of the St. Charles Age—friendlyAdvisory Committee.

I've enjoyed working with this dedicated team of volunteers on the Committeewho are committed to the best services for St Charles’ aging population. I amimmensely proud of our Age Friendly Community Action Plan approved byCouncil in March 2017, and our acceptance by the World Health Organization’sGlobal Network of Age-Friendly Cities and Communities.

I encourage Council to view and address local opportunities through an agefriendly lens and to implement the Plan’s recommended actions and principles.

To the Committee co—chairsand members: Thank you for your dedication andinsight. it has been a pleasure working with you and I wish you success in yourpursuit of our age-friendly vision to make the municipality a better place to live forresidents of all ages.

Thank you the opportunity to contribute.

Carolyn Thain

CcSCAACCo Chair Gisele Henderson

RECEIVEDSEP

Page 26 of 48




Priority: Med

Direction Only: No


Report Title: Beautification Committee

Update: The Beautification committee is preparing for November 11th ‐ Remembrance Day. A full report of their 2019 activities will be brought for year end. The purpose of this report is to provide notification to council of the intention to buy a dedicated sound system for this event and that the funds be taken from the Cenotaph reserve account. The reserve account is the result of excess private donations when the cenotaph was built. Prepared by: Denis Turcot

Page 27 of 48

Municipality of St.-Charles Building Controls and Bylaw Department For Consideration by Council RE: CBO Department 3rd Quarter Report 2019

OBJECTIVE:

To update Council on the initiatives and activities of the Building Control and Bylaw Department

BACKGROUND: The quarterly ‘activity’ report was developed to provide interim updates on activities as an ongoing effort to be able to communicate the activities, initiatives and impact of the Building Controls and Bylaw Services to Council and ratepayers. ANALYSIS: The Building Controls Department is responsible for administering and enforcing the Ontario Building Code Act and its Regulations and the Planning Act. This is done through plans examination, issuing the appropriate building permits and conducting site visits at various stages of construction. The Bylaw Service Department upholds the bylaws governing our municipality. Highlights of activities are included within the report. LINKS TO STRATEGIC PLANS:

Ensure Community Safety Ensure timely knowledge of policies, By-Laws, and Building Controls Provide personalized and efficient customer service

Respectfully Submitted by: Andrea Tarini – Chief Building Inspector

Page 28 of 48

BUILDING CONTROLS STATISTICS

Item Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2019 Total

to date

2018 Total

2017 Total

Applications 1 16 13 - 30 41 33

Permits Issued 0 16 11 - 27 41 33

House Permit - Average working days to issue

0 4 5 - 4.5 3.0 4.5

Actual House Building Permits issued

0 15 10 - 25 39 33

Small Building - Average working days to issue

0 0 0 - 0 3.5 0

Actual Small Building Permits issued

0 0 0 - 0 2 0

Large Building - Average working days to issue

0 3 3 - 3 4.5 0

Actual Large Building Permits issued

0 1 1 - 2 3 0

Complex Building Average working days to issue

0 0 0 - 0 8 0

Actual Complex Building Permits issued

0 0 0 - 0 1 0

Total Inspections 10 22 32 - 64 87 NA

- Inspections include, but not limited to, preconstruction site inspection, footings, foundation, drainage/weeping tile, concrete slab, plumbing rough-in, framing, insulation, vapor/air barrier, heating, occupancy, fire protection, final inspection.

- Average working days to issue a building permit are a measure of the service level of the building department. The Ontario Building Code prescribes the maximum time allowable to issue a building permit once the application is complete. House permits are to be issued in 10 business days, Small and Large Buildings are to be issued in 15 business days Complex buildings are to be issued in 30 business days.

Page 29 of 48

St.‐Charles

Building Permits Issued by Quarter (2019)

Residential Construction

Types of Permits 1st Quarter Permit Information 2nd Quarter Permit Information

Permits Issued Construction Value Permits Issued Construction Value

Addition 0 $0.00 2 $191,000.00

Demolish 0 $0.00 0 $0.00

Install/Erect/Replace 0 $0.00 2 $23,500.00

New Accessory Structure 0 $0.00 5 $222,830.00

New Building Construction 0 $0.00 2 $53,760.00

Renovation/Alter/Repair 0 $0.00 4 $68,420.00

Total 0 $0.00 15 $559,510.00

Types of Permits 3rd Quarter Permit Information 4th Quarter Permit Information


Addition 0 $0.00 0 $0.00

Demolish 1 $1,000.00 0 $0.00

Install/Erect/Replace 2 $12,850.00 0 $0.00

New Accessory Structure 3 $30,480.00 0 $0.00

New Building Construction 1 $233,790.00 0 $0.00

Renovation/Alter/Repair 3 $14,500.00 0 $0.00

Total 10 $292,620.00 0 $0.00

St.‐Charles

Building Permits Issued by Quarter (2019)

Other Construction

Types of Permits 1st Quarter Permit Information 2nd Quarter Permit Information


Commercial 0 $0.00 0 $0.00

Industrial 0 $0.00 0 $0.00

Government/Institutional 0 $0.00 1 $0.00

Total 0 $0.00 1 $124,000.00

Types of Permits 3rd Quarter Permit Information 4th Quarter Permit Information


Commercial 1 $2,000.00 0 $0.00

Industrial 0 $0.00 0 $0.00

Government/Institutional 0 $0.00 0 $0.00

Total 1 $2,000.00 0 $0.00

Page 30 of 48

St.‐Charles

Building Permits Issued YTD Comparison (Jan 1 ‐ Sep 30)

Residential Construction

Types of Permits 2019 Permit Information 2018 Permit Information 2017 Permit Information

Permits Issued

Construction Value

Permits Issued

Construction Value

Permits Issued

Construction Value

Addition 2 $191,000.00 4 $342,415.00 1 $8,000.00

Demolish 1 $1,000.00 4 $4,000.00 3 $3,000.00

Install/Erect/Replace 4 $36,350.00 1 $12,000.00 3 $17,400.00

New Accessory Structure 8 $253,310.00 13 $273,240.00 9 $230,160.00

New Building Construction 3 $287,550.00 5 $955,191.00 2 $545,778.00

Renovation/Alter/Repair 7 $82,920.00 8 $152,820.00 11 $106,520.00

Total 25 $852,130.00 35 $1,739,666.00 29 $910,858.00

Other Construction

Types of Permits 2019 Permit Information 2018 Permit Information 2017 Permit Information

Permits Issued

Construction Value

Permits Issued

Construction Value

Permits Issued

Construction Value

Commercial 1 $2,000.00 2 $151,550.00 0 $0.00

Industrial 0 $0.00 3 $105,000.00 0 $0.00

Government/Institutional 1 $124,000.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00

Total 1 $126,000.00 5 $256,550.00 0 $0.00

Totals Title 2019 Permit Information 2018 Permit Information 2017 Permit Information

Total Construction $978,130.00 $1,360,596.00 $910,858.00

Total Building Permit Fees $12,396.30 $14,916.71 $9,482.10

Page 31 of 48

Shared Service Reporting This table reports the number of permits that have been issued in each member municipality and the number of building inspections that have occurred.

Permits and Inspections per Municipalities (Jan 1 ‐ Sept 30)

French River

Killarney St.

Charles Markstay‐Warren

Total

Permits Issued to Date January 1 ‐ September 30

87 38 27 64 216

Permit Percentage 40.3% 17.6% 12.5% 29.6% 100.0%

Inspections to Date January 1 ‐ September 30

187 50 64 117 418

Inspection Percentage 44.8% 11.9% 15.3% 28.0% 100.0%

MUNICIPAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER REPORT Training/Conferences/Certification

- Bylaw officer will attend Property Standards training in 2020 COMPLAINTS BY CATEGORY:

Complaints *Only formal complaints are tracked*

Drainage 1 Noise Control 0 Property Standards 3

Roads 1

Snow Removal 2

Zoning 3

GRAND TOTAL 10

Page 32 of 48




Priority: Med

Direction Only: No


Report Title: Pharmacy expansion

Recommendation: That council agrees to the request with the following condition:

‐ That any leasehold improvement that are undertaken be approved by the Chief Building official and all cost be borne by the proponent.

‐ That upon lease termination that the renter be responsible to restore premises to its original condition.

‐ Rent be $17,001.43 increasing yearly at the rate of 2% for a term of 20 years

Background:

Request from St Charles Pharmacy: “So, we are looking to acquire the whole space for the pharmacy and massage room along with the shared space combined (1003.5 sq ft.) and would be responsible for the total space rent that is 17001.43 annual with the 0.02% annual increment to lease it for 20 years. We will be looking to do changes in the area as follows:

‐ In order to provide a more space for front shop items Like over the counter medications and patient self‐selection products, we will be need for an open space. So, Whatever walls that are not weight bearing will be removed.

‐ Water and sewage connections will be closed but kept in place. ‐ I will have the contractor (Mr. Bruce Steffan) to arrange with your representative

before starting to work. ‐ If you have any comments or notes I'm very open to suggestions or requirements.

Thank you regards, Hazem” Prepared by: Denis Turcot

Page 33 of 48

Page 34 of 48

OPP 2020 Annual Billing StatementSt. Charles MEstimated costs for the period January 1 to December 31, 2020Please refer to www.opp.ca for 2020 Municipal Policing Billing General Information summary for further details.

Cost per

Property Total Cost

$ $

Base Service Property Counts

Household 995

Commercial and Industrial 29

Total Properties 1,024 183.23 187,629

Calls for Service (see summaries)

Total all municipalities 162,805,510

Municipal portion 0.0504% 80.21 82,134

Overtime (see notes) 6.23 6,379

Prisoner Transportation (per property cost) 1.99 2,038

Accommodation/Cleaning Services (per property cost) 4.78 4,895

Total 2020 Estimated Cost 276.44 283,074

2018 Year-End Adjustment (see summary) 2,361

Grand Total Billing for 2020 285,435

2020 Monthly Billing Amount 23,786

OPP 2020 Annual Billing Statement 1 of 12

Page 35 of 48

OPP 2020 Annual Billing StatementSt. Charles MEstimated costs for the period January 1 to December 31, 2020

Notes to Annual Billing Statement

1) Municipal Base Services and Calls for Service Costs - The costs allocated to municipalities are determined based on the

costs assigned to detachment staff performing municipal policing activities across the province. A statistical analysis of

activity in detachments is used to determine the municipal policing workload allocation of all detachment-based staff as

well as the allocation of the municipal workload between base services and calls for service activity. For 2020 billing

purposes the allocation of the municipal workload in detachments has been calculated to be 54.5 % Base Services and

45.5 % Calls for Service. The total 2020 Base Services and Calls for Service cost calculation is detailed on the Base

Services and Calls for Service Cost Summary included in the municipal billing package.

2) Base Services - The cost to each municipality is determined by the number of properties in the municipality and the

standard province-wide average cost per property of $183.23 estimated for 2020. The number of municipal properties is

determined based on MPAC data. The calculation of the standard province-wide base cost per property is detailed on

Base Services and Calls for Service Cost Summary included in the municipal billing package.

3) Calls for Service - The municipality’s Calls for Service cost is a proportionate share of the total cost of municipal calls for

service costs calculated for the province. A municipality’s proportionate share of the costs is based on weighted time

standards applied to the historical calls for service. The municipality’s total weighted time is calculated as a percentage

of the total of all municipalities.

4) Overtime - Municipalities are billed for overtime resulting from occurrences in their geographic area and a portion of

overtime that is not linked specifically to a municipality, such as training. Municipalities are not charged for overtime

identified as a provincial responsibility. The overtime activity for the calendar years 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 has been

analyzed and averaged to estimate the 2020 costs. The costs incorporate the 2020 salary rates and a discount to reflect

overtime paid as time in lieu. The overtime costs incurred in servicing detachments for shift shortages have been

allocated on a per property basis based on straight time. Please be advised that these costs will be reconciled to actual

2020 hours and salary rates and included in the 2022 Annual Billing Statement.

5) Court Security and Prisoner Transportation (CSPT) - Municipalities with court security responsibilities in local

courthouses are billed court security costs based on the cost of the staff required to provide designated court security

activities. 2020 costs have been based on 2018 security activity. Prisoner transportation costs are charged to all

municipalities based on the standard province-wide per property cost. These costs will be reconciled to the actual cost

of service required in 2020.

There was no information available about the status of 2020 Court Security Prisoner Transportation Grant Program at the

time of the Annual Billing Statement preparation.

6) Year-end Adjustment - The 2018 adjustment accounts for the difference between the amount billed based on the

estimated cost in the Annual Billing Statement and the reconciled cost in the Year-end Summary . The most significant

year-end adjustments are resulting from the cost of actual versus estimated municipal requirements for overtime,

contract enhancements and court security.

OPP 2020 Annual Billing Statement 2 of 12

Page 36 of 48

OPP 2020 Estimated Base Services and Calls for Service Cost SummaryFor the period January 1 to December 31, 2020

Total Base Services Base Calls for

Salaries and Benefits Positions Base and Calls for Service Services Service

FTE % $/FTE $ $ $

Uniform Members (Note 1)

Inspector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.44 100.0 161,356 4,104,898 4,104,898 -

Staff Sergeant-Detachment Commander. . . . . . . . . . .11.13 100.0 144,775 1,611,343 1,611,343 -

Staff Sergeant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.18 100.0 135,199 4,350,718 4,350,718 -

Sergeant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .218.06 54.5 121,017 26,388,924 14,393,739 11,995,186

Constable. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1,741.76 54.5 103,094 179,565,117 97,945,546 81,619,570

Part-Time Constable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.48 54.5 82,108 449,952 245,503 204,449

Total Uniform Salaries 2,034.05 216,470,953 122,651,748 93,819,205

Statutory Holiday Payout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,841 7,791,215 4,369,805 3,421,410

Shift Premiums . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,037 2,037,562 1,111,406 926,156

Uniform Benefits - Inspector. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.68% 1,054,138 1,054,138 -

Uniform Benefits - Full-Time Salaries. . . . . . . . . . . . 29.25% 61,985,460 34,603,144 27,382,316

Uniform Benefits - Part-Time Salaries. . . . . . . . . . . 14.87% 66,908 36,506 30,402

Total Uniform Salaries & Benefits 289,406,236 163,826,746 125,579,489

Detachment Civilian Members (Note 1)

Detachment Administrative Clerk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .172.24 54.5 65,281 11,244,026 6,133,164.20 5,110,861

Detachment Operations Clerk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.04 54.5 63,058 128,639 69,995 58,644

Detachment Clerk - Typist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.33 54.5 56,100 18,513 10,098 8,415

Court Officer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.99 54.5 66,104 1,057,006 576,429 480,577

Crimestoppers Co-ordinator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.79 54.5 60,603 47,876 26,059 21,817

Total Detachment Civilian Salaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191.39 12,496,060 6,815,745 5,680,315

Civilian Benefits - Full-Time Salaries . . . . . . . . . . . 27.08% 3,383,933 1,845,704 1,538,229

Total Detachment Civilian Salaries & Benefits 15,879,992 8,661,448 7,218,544

Support Costs - Salaries and Benefits (Note 2)

Communication Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,635 13,495,922 7,568,810 5,927,112

Prisoner Guards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,764 3,588,064 2,012,265 1,575,799

Operational Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,037 10,245,510 5,745,907 4,499,602

RHQ Municipal Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,488 5,060,716 2,838,161 2,222,555

Telephone Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 244,086 136,889 107,197

Office Automation Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 644 1,309,928 734,637 575,292

Mobile and Portable Radio Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 407,906 228,746 179,160

Total Support Staff Salaries and Benefits Costs 34,352,132 19,265,415 15,086,717

Total Salaries & Benefits 339,638,360 191,753,610 147,884,751

Other Direct Operating Expenses (Note 2)

Communication Centre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 339,686 190,504 149,183

Operational Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 830 1,688,262 946,814 741,447

RHQ Municipal Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 506,478 284,044 222,434

Telephone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,462 2,973,781 1,667,762 1,306,019

Mobile Radio Equipment Repairs & Maintenance . . . 102 208,032 116,660 91,372

Office Automation - Uniform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,390 4,861,380 2,726,369 2,135,011

Office Automation - Civilian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,812 346,799 189,155 157,644

Vehicle Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,805 17,909,810 10,044,216 7,865,595

Detachment Supplies & Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 534 1,086,183 609,155 477,028

Uniform & Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,974 4,026,032 2,257,723 1,768,309

Uniform & Equipment - Court Officer . . . . . . . . . . . . 924 14,775 8,057 6,717

Total Other Direct Operating Expenses 33,961,218 19,040,459 14,920,759

Total 2020 Municipal Base Services and Calls for Service Cost 373,599,578$ $ 210,794,068 $ 162,805,510

Total OPP-Policed Municipal Properties 1,150,426

Base Services Cost per Property $ 183.23

OPP 2020 Estimated Base Calls for Service Cost Summary 3 of 12

Page 37 of 48

OPP 2020 Estimated Base Services and Calls for Service Cost SummaryFor the period January 1 to December 31, 2020

Notes:

1)

2) Support Staff Costs and Other Direct Operating Expenses for uniform FTEs are calculated on a per FTE basis as per rates set in

the 2019 Municipal Policing Cost-Recovery Formula.

Total Base Services and Call for Service Costs are based on the cost of salary, benefit, support and other direct operating

expenses for staff providing policing services to municipalities. Staff is measured in full-time equivalent (FTE) units and the costs

per FTE are described in the notes below.

Full-time equivalents (FTEs) are based on average municipal detachment staffing levels for the years 2015 through 2018.

Contract enhancements, court security, prisoner transportation and cleaning staff are excluded.

The equivalent of 89.21 FTEs with a cost of $14,864,601 has been excluded from municipal costs to reflect the average municipal

detachment FTEs required for provincially-mandated responsibilities eligible for Provincial Service Usage credit.

Salary rates are based on weighted average rates for municipal detachment staff by rank, level and classification. The 2020

salaries incorporate the January 1, 2020 general salary rate increases set in the 2019 to 2022 OPPA Uniform and Civilian

Collective Agreements, (2.15% for uniform staff and 1.25% for civilian staff). The benefit rates are based on the most recent

rates set by the Treasury Board Secretariat, (2019-20). Statutory Holiday Payouts, Shift Premiums, and Benefit costs are subject

to reconciliation.

FTEs have been apportioned between Base Services and Calls for Service costs based on the current ratio, 54.5% Base Services :

45.5% Calls for Service.

OPP 2020 Estimated Base Calls for Service Cost Summary 4 of 12

Page 38 of 48

OPP 2020 Calls for Service Billing SummarySt. Charles MEstimated costs for the period January 1 to December 31, 2020

A B C = A * B

(Note 1) (Note 2) (Note 3)

Drug Possession 3 3 2 1 2 6.3 14 0.0009% 1,418

Drugs - - 1 1 1 39.2 20 0.0012% 1,961

Operational 66 83 57 55 65 3.6 235 0.0144% 23,506

Operational 2 42 29 56 61 47 1.3 61 0.0038% 6,114

Other Criminal Code Violations 6 5 - 6 4 7.8 33 0.0020% 3,317

Property Crime Violations 35 37 25 25 31 6.7 204 0.0126% 20,449

Statutes & Acts 7 17 12 8 11 3.4 37 0.0023% 3,742

Traffic 1 7 7 8 6 3.5 20 0.0012% 2,014

Violent Criminal Code 12 16 7 14 12 16.0 196 0.0120% 19,613

Total 172 197 167 179 179 821 0.0504% $82,134

Provincial Totals (Note 4) 363,779 364,615 368,194 390,369 371,739 1,626,979 100.0% $162,805,510

Notes to Calls for Service Billing Summary

1)

2)

3)

4)

Four Year

Average

Displayed without decimal places, exact numbers used in calculations

Displayed to four decimal places, nine decimal places used in calculations

Costs rounded to zero decimals

Provincial Totals exclude data for both municipal dissolutions and amalgamations

Calls for Service Billing

Workgroups

Calls for Service Count 2020

Average

Time

Standard

Total

Weighted

Time

% of Total

Provincial

Weighted

Time

2020

Estimated

Calls for

Service Cost

2015 2016 2017 2018

OPP 2020 Annual Calls for Service Summary 5 of 12

Page 39 of 48

This page intentionally left blank

Page 40 of 48

OPP 2020 Calls for Service DetailsSt. Charles MFor the calendar years 2015 to 2018

Four Year

2015 2016 2017 2018 Average

Grand Total 172 197 167 179 178.75 Drug Possession 3 3 2 1 2.25

Drug Related Occurrence 0 1 1 1 0.75

Possession - Cannabis 3 1 1 0 1.25

Possession - Other Controlled Drugs and Substances Act 0 1 0 0 0.25

Drugs 0 0 1 1 0.50

Drug Operation - Residential Grow Outdoor 0 0 0 1 0.25

Trafficking - Other Controlled Drugs and Substances Act 0 0 1 0 0.25

Operational 66 83 57 55 65.25

Alarm - Others 0 1 3 1 1.25

Animal - Bear Complaint 1 0 0 1 0.50

Animal - Dog Owners Liability Act 1 0 1 0 0.50

Animal - Other 1 2 2 1 1.50

Animal Bite 1 1 0 1 0.75

Animal Injured 2 0 1 0 0.75

Animal Stray 0 0 1 2 0.75

Assist Fire Department 0 2 0 1 0.75

Assist Public 10 22 11 14 14.25

Domestic Disturbance 9 9 9 4 7.75

Family Dispute 5 5 1 6 4.25

Fire - Building 0 0 0 1 0.25

Fire - Vehicle 1 0 0 0 0.25

Found - Bicycles 1 0 0 0 0.25

Found - Computer, parts & accessories 0 1 0 0 0.25

Found - Others 2 0 0 0 0.50

Found - Personal Accessories 1 0 0 0 0.25

Found Property - Master Code 1 0 0 0 0.25

Lost - Household Property 0 1 0 0 0.25

Lost - License Plate 2 0 0 0 0.50

Lost - Personal Accessories 0 0 1 0 0.25

Lost - Vehicle Accessories 0 0 0 1 0.25

Missing Person 12 & older 0 0 0 1 0.25

Missing Person Located 12 & older 0 2 1 2 1.25

Neighbour Dispute 5 11 3 10 7.25

Noise Complaint - Business 0 1 0 0 0.25

Noise Complaint - Others 2 1 2 0 1.25

Noise Complaint - Residence 4 5 4 1 3.50

Phone - Master Code 0 0 0 1 0.25

Phone - Nuisance - No Charges Laid 5 3 1 0 2.25

Phone - Obscene - No Charges Laid 0 1 0 0 0.25

Phone - Other - No Charges Laid 0 3 1 1 1.25

Phone - Threatening - No Charges Laid 0 1 0 0 0.25

Sudden Death - Natural Causes 4 3 7 0 3.50

Sudden Death - Others 0 0 1 0 0.25

Suspicious Person 3 3 1 0 1.75

Calls for Service Billing WorkgroupsCalls for Service Count

OPP 2020 Calls for Service Details 7 of 12

Page 41 of 48


Four Year

2015 2016 2017 2018 AverageCalls for Service Billing Workgroups

Calls for Service Count

Suspicious vehicle 3 2 4 3 3.00

Trouble with Youth 1 1 0 1 0.75

Unwanted Persons 1 2 2 2 1.75

Operational 2 42 29 56 61 47.00

911 call - Dropped Cell 0 0 1 3 1.00

911 call / 911 hang up 17 15 36 38 26.50

911 hang up - Pocket Dial 0 1 1 5 1.75

False Alarm - Accidental Trip 5 0 4 4 3.25

False Alarm - Cancelled 7 5 4 6 5.50

False Alarm - Malfunction 5 4 2 4 3.75

False Alarm - Others 3 0 3 0 1.50

Keep the Peace 5 4 5 1 3.75

Other Criminal Code Violations 6 5 0 6 4.25

Animals - Cruelty 1 1 0 0 0.50

Bail Violations - Fail To Comply 1 0 0 4 1.25

Bail Violations - Recognizance 1 0 0 1 0.50

Breach of Probation 0 0 0 1 0.25

Child Pornography - Possess child pornography 0 1 0 0 0.25

Fail to Attend Court 1 0 0 0 0.25

Offensive Weapons - Careless use of firearms 0 1 0 0 0.25

Offensive Weapons - Other Weapons Offences 0 1 0 0 0.25

Offensive Weapons - Possession of Weapons 0 1 0 0 0.25

Offensive Weapons - Prohibited 1 0 0 0 0.25

Trespass at Night 1 0 0 0 0.25

Property Crime Violations 35 37 25 25 30.50

Break & Enter 10 7 12 5 8.50

Break & Enter - Firearms 0 0 0 1 0.25

Fraud - Fraud through mails 0 0 0 1 0.25

Fraud - Master Code 0 0 1 0 0.25

Fraud - Money/property/security Over $5,000 1 1 2 1 1.25

Fraud - Money/property/security Under $5,000 0 1 3 2 1.50

Fraud - Other 0 1 1 1 0.75

Fraud - Steal/Forge/Poss./Use Credit Card 0 2 0 0 0.50

Fraud - Welfare benefits 0 1 0 0 0.25

Interfere with lawful use, enjoyment of property 1 0 0 0 0.25

Mischief - Master Code 8 10 1 6 6.25

Mischief Graffiti - Non-Gang Related 0 1 0 0 0.25

Possession of Stolen Goods under $5,000 1 0 1 1 0.75

Property Damage 0 1 0 0 0.25

Theft from Motor Vehicles Under $5,000 1 1 0 0 0.50

Theft of - All Terrain Vehicles 1 0 1 0 0.50

Theft of - Snow Vehicles 1 1 0 0 0.50

Theft of - Trucks 0 0 0 1 0.25

Theft of Motor Vehicle 0 2 0 1 0.75

Theft Over $5,000 - Farm Equipment 0 0 0 1 0.25


Page 42 of 48


Four Year

2015 2016 2017 2018 AverageCalls for Service Billing Workgroups

Calls for Service Count

Theft Over $5,000 - Other Theft 0 1 0 0 0.25

Theft Over $5,000 - Trailers 0 1 0 0 0.25

Theft Under $5,000 - Bicycles 0 0 0 1 0.25

Theft Under $5,000 - Boat (Vessel) 1 0 0 0 0.25

Theft Under $5,000 - Boat Motor 1 0 0 0 0.25

Theft Under $5,000 - Building 0 1 0 0 0.25

Theft Under $5,000 - Gasoline Drive-off 0 0 1 0 0.25

Theft Under $5,000 - Master Code 1 0 0 0 0.25

Theft Under $5,000 - Other Theft 8 3 2 2 3.75

Theft Under $5,000 - Persons 0 1 0 1 0.50

Theft Under $5,000 - Trailers 0 1 0 0 0.25

Statutes & Acts 7 17 12 8 11.00

Landlord / Tenant 3 5 4 3 3.75

Mental Health Act 4 3 1 0 2.00

Mental Health Act - Placed on Form 0 0 1 1 0.50

Mental Health Act - Threat of Suicide 0 4 0 2 1.50

Mental Health Act - Voluntary Transport 0 1 2 0 0.75

Trespass To Property Act 0 4 4 2 2.50

Traffic 1 7 7 8 5.75

MVC - Personal Injury (Motor Vehicle Collision) 0 1 1 1 0.75

MVC - Prop. Dam. Failed to Remain (Motor Vehicle Collision) 0 1 0 1 0.50

MVC - Prop. Dam. Non Reportable 1 1 2 0 1.00

MVC - Prop. Dam. Reportable (Motor Vehicle Collision) 0 4 4 6 3.50

Violent Criminal Code 12 16 7 14 12.25

Assault - Level 1 4 3 2 10 4.75

Assault With Weapon or Causing Bodily Harm - Level 2 2 2 0 0 1.00

Criminal Harassment 3 2 1 3 2.25

Criminal Harassment - Offender Unknown 0 1 0 0 0.25

Forcible confinement 1 0 0 0 0.25

Sexual Assault 1 3 1 1 1.50

Sexual Interference 0 1 1 0 0.50

Utter Threats to Person 1 4 2 0 1.75


Page 43 of 48


Page 44 of 48

OPP 2018 Reconciled Year-End SummarySt. Charles MReconciled cost for the period January 1 to December 31, 2018

Cost per

Property Total Cost

$ $

Base Service Property Counts

Household 991

Commercial and Industrial 31

Total Properties 1,022 193.02 197,262

Calls for Service

Total all municipalities 151,961,589

Municipal portion 0.0593% 88.14 90,076

Overtime 6.79 6,942

Prisoner Transportation (per property cost) 1.87 1,911

Accommodation/Cleaning Services (per property cost) 4.80 4,906

Total 2018 Reconciled Cost 294.61 301,096

Year Over Year Variance (reconciled cost for the year is not subject to phase-in adjustment)

2017 Reconciled Cost per Property 291.77

2018 Reconciled Cost per Property (see above) 294.61

Cost per Property Variance (Increase) 2.84

2018 Billed Amount (298,735)

2018 Year-End-Adjustment 2,361

Note

The Year-End Adjustment above will be included as an adjustment on the 2020 Billing Statement.

This amount will be incorporated into the monthly invoice amount for 2020.

OPP 2018 Reconciled Year-End Summary 11 of 12

Page 45 of 48


Page 46 of 48




Priority: Med

Direction Only: No


Report Title: Road extension proposition

Recommendation: That council agrees to a road extension with the condition listed below and conditional that the Director of Public Work also gives his approval I do not recommend pursuing an exchange of a lot of land for water access due to the cost of

building a new road. I continue to encourage council to pursue a land use permit or similar to

build an access point to Nepewassi Lake (Boat Launch).

Background:

The owner wishes to build to build a new residence on his property in 2020 and wants to build a

new driveway rather than use a shared drive. Council did consider an exchange of property, but

after the DPW’s review of estimate prepared by staff, the cost would have been greater than

$80,000 to build he road.

Municipal road extension request.

This is often seen in plans of subdivision where the proponent is required to build roads to an established standard and then the municipality takes over maintenance, normally the economic benefit is great enough to justify it.

Council most often take the position that, if they do consider assuming a road as a municipality‐maintained road, that the following conditions are met or considered:

o That the road is brought up to an acceptable standard that will consider width & thickness of materials on the road e.g. Granular “A” & “B” & proper ditching. Further details would be provided by our Director of Public Work. As he is away this week, I can’t estimate or give specs.

o That the land (below the road, normally 66’) is conveyed to the municipality at no cost. In this case this does involve two other private properties that the proponent would have to negotiate with.

o The need for seasonal or year‐round maintenance and the cost associated with this maintenance. In this case we would assume a year‐round maintenance for an additional +/‐ 250 meters of roadway.

Page 47 of 48

- 2 -

Due to other groups that may request such road expansion, council must be fair and equitable to all taxpayers. Some road expansions can be very costly to maintain and others require very little additional maintenance. Please note that the municipality is not obligated to expand its road system.

Any municipality will normally not assume roads that will generally increase the burden to the tax payers.


Page 48 of 48

Documents

The Corporation of the Municipality of St.-Charles AGENDA