New OPP Billing Model 1

Policing with an Integrated Model 2

Policing Resources 3

Government Commitments Former MCSCS Minister Madeleine Meilleur committed to working with municipalities to address the variations in OPP municipal policing costs at the 2012 and 2013 AMO Conferences, and the 2013 and 2014 Rural Ontario Municipalities Association (ROMA/OGRA) Conferences Auditor General of Ontario Report (2012), Recommendation 7: “…seek ways to simplify, and make more transparent OPP cost recovery methods…and address the issues in its costing and billing methods that result in municipalities paying different rates and consider phasing in cost increases over time rather than when contracts are renewed…” Municipal Consultations -OPP Working Group, established March 2013; -Regional Municipal Engagement Sessions with 48 municipalities, April- May 2013; -Online Survey, June –July AMO Memorandum of Understanding, August 1 and October 3, 2013; -14 Municipal engagement sessions with 229 municipalities, October 29 - November 29, 2013; -Online feedback forum, October 29 - December 13, 2013; -AMO OPP Billing Steering Committee, convened in March 2014 Context for Action 4

Under the old model, all municipalities receive proactive policing services (i.e. patrol and other crime prevention activities), infrastructure, supervision and administration support, even if they have no calls for service. This disadvantages regional hubs that have higher calls for service and therefore pay a disproportionately higher amount of policing costs. For example, Bancroft serves as a hub community for neighbouring municipalities. Under the current model, policing costs for this municipality is disproportionately higher than those of neighbouring municipalities. Under the old model, all municipalities receive proactive policing services (i.e. patrol and other crime prevention activities), infrastructure, supervision and administration support, even if they have no calls for service. This disadvantages regional hubs that have higher calls for service and therefore pay a disproportionately higher amount of policing costs. For example, Bancroft serves as a hub community for neighbouring municipalities. Under the current model, policing costs for this municipality is disproportionately higher than those of neighbouring municipalities. Context for Action: Variation in Municipal Costs 5

Context for Action: AMO OPP Billing Steering Committee Advice Support for using a 60/40 split for base plus calls for services approach Review the allocation approach for the base policing costsPhased implementationMaintain Provincial Services Usage creditEnhance the transparency and communication 6

New Billing Model 7 Total Detachment FTEs less Provincial Detachment members, enhancements, caretakers and Provincial Service Usage resources.

Per Property Count Households, including households classified as managed forests/farmland Commercial and industrial properties (Note: properties with multiple units are considered as one property)  Farmland and Managed Forests with no households attached Pipelines Vacant Land Households in Canadian Force Bases 8

Sample Municipal Bill 9

Phase-in Strategy 10

11 Estimated Municipal Impact Impact of New Billing Model (2014 Current vs. New Billing Model, Full Phase-In) MunicipalitiesProperties Avg Change ($/Property) Max Change ($/Property) Bill Increases ,899$83$207 Bill Decreases ,592($70)($285)

Municipal Impact 12

Next Steps 08/2014 Regional training 09/2014 Regional Information sessions Roll out of the estimates 10/ /2015 Negotiations and Contract signage 13 January 1, 2015 – Implementation of the new OPP billing model

Questions? 14