Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
120625 Council MIN
Town of Tillson burg Minutes of Council Meeting Date: Monday June 25, 2012 6:00PM Council Chambers Chair: John Lessif j I' lr II MINUTES: Meeting for the Committee "Open Council" Review Access: e Public 0 Private Orders of the Day: CALL TO ORDER MINUTES Town of Tillsonburg Open Council Meeting on 06/25/2012 06:00PM Council Chambers Chair: John Lessif The meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM ATTENDANCE: Mayor John Lessif Deputy Mayor Mark Renaud Councillor Chris Rosehart Councillor Brian Stephenson Councillor Dave Beres Councillor Marty Klein Staff: Kelley Coulter, CAO David Samis, Director of Development & Communication Services Steve Lund, Director of Operations Darrell Eddington, Director of Finance Janet McCurdy, Acting Director of Parks & Recreation Services Donna Wilson, Clerk REGRETS: Councillor Mel Getty ADOPTION OF AGENDA Resolution No. 1: Moved By: Councillor Rosehart Seconded By: Councillor Klein AND RESOLVE THAT the Agenda as prepared for the Open Session of the Council Meeting of June 25, 2012, be adopted, as amended. "Carried" CLOSED MEETING SESSION 14 Page 1 MINUTES: Meeting for the Committee "Open Council" Resolution No. 2: Moved By: Councillor Rosehart Seconded By: Councillor Klein AND RESOLVE THAT Town Council move into Closed Session, to consider matters relating to: Matters pertaining to the security of the property of the municipality or local board; Matters pertaining to a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board; Matters pertaining to litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board; Matters pertaining to an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees. "Carried DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST OR THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF No disclosures of pecuniary interest were declared. MINUTES & BUSINESS ARISING OUT OF THE MINUTES Minutes of the Meeting of June 11, 2012 13 Resolution No. 3: Moved By: Councillor Stephenson Seconded By: Councillor Beres AND RESOLVE THAT the Minutes of the Open Council Meeting of June 11, 2012, be approved. "Carried" DELEGATIONS 1. Tillsonburg Public Library Summer Reading Program CJ Presented By: Kristina Overbeek, Children's Summer Programme Coordinator Terry Pope, Library CEO Terry Pope, Library CEO introduced Kristina Overbeek the Children's Summer Programme Coordinator for the Tillsonburg Library. Kristina gave an overview of the Tillson burg Public Library summer reading program and the various prizes and contests that will continue throughout the summer .. INFORMATION ITEMS 2. Source Water Protection Program [) 3. The Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal Program CJ This item will be in the next issue of Focus on Tillson burg as well as the front page of our Town website. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER Page2 MINUTES: Meeting for the Committee "Open Council" 4. DCS 12-41 Committee/Staff Liaison Policy CJ Presented By: CAO Resolution No. 4 Moved By: Councillor Beres Seconded By: Councillor Stephenson AND RESOLVED THAT Council receive Report DCS 12-41 Committee/Staff Liaison Policy; FURTHER RESOLVE THAT a by-law to endorse the Committee/Staff Liaison Policy, be brought forward for Council consideration. "Carried" 5. Delegations for AMO August 19 -22. 2012 C'l Staff are seeking direction on which Ministries Council wish to request Delegations with for the 2012 AMO Conference August 19-21, 2012. Council to forward suggestions to the CAO. FINANCE 6. Insurance Review Feasibility Study CJ Information item -asking for municipalities to make comment on this report. Council are invited to submit comments, questions and attend a presentation by KPMG Consultant or submit comments or questions to the Director of Finance prior to the County Council meeting of July 11th, 2012. at 10:00 AM. COMMITTEE MINUTES & REPORTS 7. Committees of Council Minutes [) 8. Long Point Region Conservation Authority Minutes of May 2, 2012 CJ NOTICE OF MOTION RESOLUTIONS 9. Business Tax Capping Reform [) Resolution No. 5: Moved By: Deputy Mayor Renaud Seconded By: Councillor Klein AND Whereas the Province of Ontario first introduced mandatory "business tax capping" for the commercial, industrial and multi-residential property classes as a temporary reform mitigation program for the 1998, 1999 and 2000 taxation years; And whereas this "temporary" and "transitional" measure was succeeded by a permanent Page 3 MINUTES: Meeting for the Committee "Open Council" business tax capping program for the 2001 and subsequent taxation years; And whereas the 2012 taxation year will represent the fifteenth taxation cycle for which mandatory business tax capping has applied; And whereas the overall business tax capping scheme was introduced as a means of assisting taxpayers manage tax shifts related to Provincial Assessment and Property Tax reforms introduced for the 1998 taxation year; And whereas it has become evident over time that the protection provided under this program has been less related to the original impacts of reform and more so due to the ongoing impacts of subsequent assessment base updates; And whereas this program must now be seen as a redundant measure in light of the Province's successful four-year assessment phase-in program, which more effectively and equitably addresses assessment increases for all properties; And whereas this program now has only a marginal impact on a very limited number of taxpayers due to the County's careful and deliberate application of optional parameter and exclusion tools, and yet it remains a significant burden on the financial and administrative resources of both the County and local municipalities; Therefore be it resolved that the Town of Tillsonburg calls on the Government of the Province of Ontario to Amend Part IX of the Municipal Act, 2001 and supporting regulatory provisions so as to make the entirety of that Part (Business Tax Capping) optional at the discretion of each upper and single tier jurisdiction; and That the Town of Tillson burg calls on the Government of the Province of Ontario to make these changes and amendments effective for the 2013 taxation year to coincide with the pending reassessment and related four-year assessment cycle; and That the discussion paper "Allowing Municipalities to Opt Out of Business Tax Capping" prepared by Municipal Tax Equity (MTE) Consulting Inc., which speaks directly to this subject matter, and which addresses many of this Council's concerns, interests and preferences, shall be attached to, and shall form a part of this motion; and That copies of this motion, along with the above mentioned attachment, are to be sent to: Premier Dalton McGuinty; The Honourable Dwight Duncan, Minister of Finance; Honourable Kathleen O'Wynne, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing; Ernie Hardeman, MPP Oxford; Gary McNamara, President, Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO); Allan Doheny, Assistant Deputy Minister-Provincial Local Finance Division (Acting); Janet Mason, Assistant Deputy Minister-Local Government and Planning Policy Division, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The County of Oxford Western and Eastern Warden groups and all Municipalities in the province of Ontario. "Carried" BY-LAWS Page4 MINUTES: Meeting for the Committee "Open Council" 10. By-Law 3625 To Adopt the Committee/Staff Liaison Policy C) Resolution No. 6: Moved By: Councillor Klein Seconded By: Councillor Beres AND RESOLVED THAT By-Law 3625, To Adopt the Committee/Staff Liaison Policy, be read for a first and second time and this constitutes the first and second reading thereof. "Carried" 11. By-Law 3626, To Authorize an Agreement with J. Kauenhofen. In Trust [:J Resolution No. 7: Moved By: Councillor Klein Seconded By: Councillor Beres AND RESOLVE THAT By-Law 3626, To Authorize an Agreement with J. Kauenhofen, In Trust, be read for a first and second time and this constitutes the first and second reading thereof. FURTHER RESOLVE THAT By-Law 3626, be given third and final reading and the Mayor and Clerk be and are hereby authorized to sign the same, and place the Corporate Seal thereunto. "Carried" 12. By-Law 3627. To Authorize an Agreement with Rick's Carpet for the sale of 60 Cedar Street rHJ l,l ~-~ By-law 3627 Sale of Land to Ricks Carpet -60 Cedar St.pdf By-Law 3627 Schedule A.pdf Resolution No. 8: Moved By: Councillor Klein Seconded By: Councillor Beres AND RESOLVE THAT By-Law 3627, To Authorize an Agreement with Rick's Carpet Limited for the sale of 60 Cedar Street, be read for a first and second time and this constitutes the first and second reading thereof. "Carried" 13. By-Law 3624 To Confirm the Proceedings of the Council Meeting of June 25, 2012 [) Resolution No. 9: Moved By: Councillor Klein Seconded By: Councillor Beres AND RESOLVE THAT By-Law 3624, To Confirm the Proceedings of the Council Meeting of June 25, 2012, be read for a first and second time and this constitutes the first and second reading thereof; FURTHER RESOLVE THAT By-Law 3624, be given third and final reading and the Mayor and Clerk be and are hereby authorized to sign the same, and place the Page 5 MINUTES: Meeting for the Committee "Open Council" Corporate Seal thereunto. "Carried" ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST ADJOURNMENT Moved By: Councillor Klein AND RESOLVED THAT the meeting be adjourned at 6:48PM "Carried" Approval Received: (1 of 1) Donna Wilson!Tillsonburg (Tuesday June 26, 2012 10:31 AM) Town of Tillson burg Page 6 MINUTES: Meeting for the Committee "Open Council" Review Access: e Public 0 Private MINUTES Town of Tillson burg Meeting for the Committee "Open Council" on Monday June 11 , 2012 06:00 PM Council Chambers Chair: John Lessif Orders of the Day: CALL TO ORDER The Meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM ATTENDANCE: Mayor John Lessif Deputy Mayor Mark Renaud Councillor Chris Rosehart Councillor Brian Stephenson Councillor Dave Beres Councillor Marty Klein Councillor Mel Getty Staff: Kelley Coulter, CAO David Samis, Director of Development & Communication Services Steve Lund, Director of Operations Darrell Eddington, Director of Finance Janet McCurdy, Acting Director of Parks & Recreation Services Donna Wilson, Clerk ADOPTION OF AGENDA Resolution No. 1: Moved By: Councillor Rosehart Seconded By: Councillor Getty AND RESOLVE THAT the Agenda as prepared for the Open Session of the Council Meeting of June 11, 2012, be adopted. "Carried" CLOSED MEETING SESSION Resolution No. 2: 11 Page 1 MINUTES: Meeting for the Committee "Open Council" Moved By: Councillor Rosehart Seconded By: Councillor Getty AND RESOLVE THAT Town Council move into Closed Session, to consider matters relating to: Matters pertaining to the security of the property of the municipality; Matters related to labour relations or employee negotiations. "Carried" DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST OR THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF Councillor Stephenson declared a pecuniary interest in Item No. 11, CAO 12-11 Library Service Delivery Model Councillor Rosehart declared a pecuniary interest in Item No. 1 ,5 Special Occasion Designation Request. No other disclosure's of pecuniary interest were declared. MINUTES & BUSINESS ARISING OUT OF THE MINUTES Minutes of the Meeting of May 28, 2012 [3 Resolution No. 3: Moved By: Councillor Getty Seconded By: Councillor Rosehart AND RESOLVE THAT the Minutes of the Open Council Meeting of May 28, 2012, be approved. "Carried" DELEGATIONS 1. Playworks Committee -Youth Friendly Community Recognition Program Presented By: Susie Wray, Emily Turrill, Hailey MeAra and Jodi Aspden Emily Turrill and Hailey MeAra gave a presentation on the Playworks Committee initiatives and the process for the application. The program is for ages 13 to 19 and the mandate is to bring play back into the community. The deadline for the application submission is December 1, 2012. Council requests that the committee return to council in the fall to report on the progress of the initiative. PUBLIC MEETINGS 2. Committee of Adjustment Application A 04/12 [3 Presented By: Development Planner Mr. Eric Gilbert, Development Planner, County of Oxford, appeared before Council and commented with respect to County Report 2012-144. The Applicant, Dan Andries, was in attendance but did not speak to the matter. Opportunity was given for comments and questions. No persons appeared in support of, or in opposition to, the subject application. The following resolution was passed. Page 2 MINUTES: Meeting for the Committee "Open Council" Resolution No. 4: Moved By: Councillor Getty Seconded By: Councillor Rosehart AND RESOLVE THAT the Town of Tillsonburg Committee of Adjustment approve Application File A 04/12 subject to the following conditions: i) A building permit for the proposed covered porch addition and carport extension shall be issued within one year of the date of the Committee's decision. ii) Minor Variance approval is granted only for a covered porch addition and carport extension that are substantially and proportionally in compliance with the applicant's sketch shown as Plate 3 in Oxford County Planning Report No. 2012-144. "Carried" 3. Zone Change Application ZN 7-12-03, Victoria Wood (Tillsonburg) GP Inc. [J Presented By: Development Planner Mr. Eric Gilbert, Development Planner, County of Oxford, appeared before Council and commented with respect to County Report 2012-141. The Applicant Gerald Armstrong was in attendance and .spoke to the matter. He thanked Council for their consideration. Opportunity was given for comments and questions. No persons appeared in support of, or in opposition to, the subject application. The following resolution was passed. Resolution No. 5: Moved By: Deputy Mayor Renaud Seconded By: Councillor Klein AND RESOLVE THAT Council approve the attached zoning by-law amendment for an application submitted by Victoria Wood (Tillsonburg) GP Inc. whereby lands consisting of Parts 1-8 of Reference Plan 41 R-8761, Block 42, Plan 41 M-241, located on the west side of Trailview Drive, in the Town of Tillson burg are to be rezoned to provide for reduced lot frontage for the end unit of a street-fronting townhouse in an Special Low-Density Residential Type 3 (R3-2) to facilitate the construction of street-fronting townhouses; FURTHER RESOLVE THAT By-Law 3622, being a by-law to amend By-Law 3295, as amended, be brought forward for council consideration. "Carried" INFORMATION ITEMS 4. County of Oxford Development Planner Report 2012-136 [3 Applications for Consent B12-19-7. A12-05-7, B12-20-7 & A12-06-7. 5. Alzheimer Society Letter ~ 6. TESL Ontario Letter [3 Page 3 MINUTES: Meeting for the Committee "Open Council" 7. Responses to the April 23rd Council Resolution-Provincial Payment-in-lieu of Taxes [) 8. Oxford Master Aging Plan Launch June 15th. 2012 CJ COMMUNITY SERVICES 9. PRS 12-13 Master Plan Priorities CJ Presented By: Acting Director of Parks & Recreation Resolution No. 6: Moved By: Deputy Mayor Renaud Seconded By: Councillor Klein AND RESOLVE THAT Council receive the Parks and Recreation priorities as presented; FURTHER RESOLVE THAT the priorities and goals identified therein shall be addressed within the 2013 Parks and Recreation Department Business Plan. "Carried" CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 10. Playworks Committee [;I Presented By: CAO Resolution No. 7: Moved By: Councillor Klein Seconded By: Councillor Beres AND RESOLVE THAT Council endorse the creation of the Parks & Recreation Committee Sub Committee "Piayworks Committee" until December 31, 2013; FURTHER RESOLVE THAT the committee members shall consist of: Don Baxter, Rayburn Lansdell, Deb Beard, Hailey MeAra, Catherine Burke, Sue Sandham, Nancy Chesterman, Kelly Vanderhoeven, Stacey Culbert, Emily Turrill and Abbie Boesterd. "Carried" 11. CAO 12-11 Library Service Delivery Model CJ Presented By: CAO Resolution No. 8: Moved By: Councillor Klein Seconded By: Councillor Beres AND RESOLVE THAT Council receive Report CAO 12-11 Library Service Delivery for information purposes; FURTHER RESOLVE THAT Council support a local library service delivery model as outlined in the business case-Library Services for the Town ofTillsonburg. NAME FAVOUR of MOTION AGAINST MOTION Councillor Klein Yes Councillor Beres Yes Councillor Getty No Mayor Lessif, No Page4 MINUTES: Meeting for the Committee "Open Council" Deputy Mayor Renaud No Councillor Rosehart Yes The recorded vote reflects the motion is tie, three in favour of the motion and three against the motion. The motion is hereby defeated Moved By; Councillor Getty Seconded By: Deputy Mayor Renaud AND RESOLVED THAT Council support the Oxford County Library service delivery model. NAME FAVOUR of MOTION AGAINST MOTION Mayor Lessif Yes Councillor Rosehart No Deputy Mayor Renaud Yes Councillor Getty Yes Councillor Beres No Councillor Klein No The recorded vote reflects the motion is a tie,three in favour of the motion and three against the motion. The motion is hereby defeated. Moved By: Councillor Klein Seconded By: Councillor Beres AND RESOLVED THAT further to the resolutions concerning provisions of library services on June 11, 2012, staff provide a report to Council responding to the additional questions raised by Council and further that staff make a recommendation regarding the provision of library services; FURTHER RESOLVE THAT Council receive Report CAO 12-11 Library Service Delivery for information purposes. "Carried" DEVELOPMENT & COMMUNICATIONS 12. Permission to Operate Motorized Water Craft on Lake Lisgar for Turtlefest 2012 CJ Presented By: Director of Development & Communication Services Resolution No. 9: Moved By: Councillor Beres Seconded By: Councillor Klein AND RESOLVED THAT Council support the Turtlefest and Lake Lisgar Revitalization Project Committee's request to operate motorized water craft on Lake Lisgar during the Turtlefest Event on June 16, 2012; FURTHER RESOLVE THAT permission is granted with the condition that every participant in the Page 5 MINUTES: Meeting for the Committee "Open Council" water activity sign a Waiver of Liability, Release and Hold Harmless form prior to the event; AND FURTHER RESOLVE THAT permission is given in accordance with Section 2 of By-Law 2619, to prohibit motorized water craft from operating on Lake Lisgar. "Carried" 13. DCS 12 -38 Report-Proposed Public Notice Changes for Site Specific Zoning Applications [) Presented By: Director of Development and Communication Services Resolution No. 10: Moved By: Councillor Beres Seconded By:Councillor Klein AND RESOLVE THAT Council receive Report DCS 12-38 as information; FURTHER RESOLVE that Council adopt the recommendations contained herein. "Carried" 14. DCS 12-34 Report-Property Standards By-Law [] Presented By: Director of Development and Communication Services Resolution No. 11: Moved By: Councillor Stephenson Seconded By: Councillor Beres AND RESOLVE THAT Council receives report DCS 12-34- Property Standards By-Law for information purposes. "Carried" 15. Special Occasion Designation Request Presented By: Director of Development and Communication Services ~ -m Special Occasion Liquor.pdf Special Occasion Permit-AGCO-Executed.pdf Resolution No. 12: Moved By: Councillor Stephenson Seconded By: Councillor Beres AND RESOLVE THAT Council endorse the application for a special occasion permit required by the LCBO for the Turtlefest Event. "Carried" OPERATIONS 16. Operations Services Report OPS 12-09 Quarter Town Line Road Reconstruction-South of Baldwin Street to Esseltine Drive -Surface Asphalt Report CJ Presented By: Director of Operations Resolution No. 13: Moved By: Councillor Rosehart Seconded By: Councillor Getty AND RESOLVE THAT Council receives Operations Services Report OPS 12-09 for information purposes. "Carried" 17. Operations Services Report OPS 12-08-Transfer Station Signage Request CJ Page 6 MINUTES: Meeting for the Committee "Open Council" Presented By: Director of Operations Resolution No. 14: Moved By: Councillor Rosehart Seconded By: Councillor Getty AND RESOLVE THAT Council receives Operations Services Report OPS 12-08 -Transfer Station Signage Request; FURTHER RESOLVE THAT Council approve installation of signage as per the Heritage and Beautification Committee request at a cost of $400. "Carried" NOTICE OF MOTION RESOLUTIONS 18. Mayors Coalition for Affordable Sustainable Accountable Policing 6:1 Resolution No. 15: Moved By: Deputy Mayor Renaud Seconded By: Councillor Klein AND RESOLVE THAT Council Receives the correspondence from the Mayors Coalition Steering Committee; FURTHER RESOLVE that Council support the Mayors Coalition for Affordable Sustainable Accountable Policing by contributing $1000 towards their efforts. "Carried" RESOLUTIONS RESULTING FROM CLOSED SESSION BY-LAWS 19. By-Law 3621. To Enter Into a Collective Agreement with the Tillsonburg Dispatchers Firefighters' Association CJ Resolution No. 16: Moved By: Councillor Getty Seconded By: Councillor Rosehart AND RESOLVE THAT By-Law 3621, a By-Law to to enter into a collective agreement with the Tillsonburg Dispatchers Firefighters' Association, be read for a first and second time and this constitutes the first and second reading thereof. FURTHER RESOLVE THAT By-Law 3621, be given third and final reading and the Mayor and Clerk be and are hereby authorized to sign the same, and place the Corporate Seal thereunto. "Carried" 20. By-Law 3622, To Amend By-Law 3295. Victoria Wood CJ Resolution No. 17: Moved By: Councillor Getty Seconded By: Councillor Rosehart AND RESOLVE THAT By-Law 3622, a By-Law to amend Zoning By-Law Number 3295, be read for a first and second time and this constitutes the first and second reading thereof. Page 7 MINUTES: Meeting for the Committee "Open Council" FURTHER RESOLVE THAT By-Law 3622, be given third and final reading and the Mayor and Clerk be and are hereby authorized to sign the same, and place the Corporate Seal thereunto. "Carried" 21. By-Law 3623, To Confirm the Proceedings of the Council Meeting of June 11. 2012 c:J Resolution No. 18: Moved By: Councillor Getty Seconded By: Councillor Rosehart AND RESOLVE THAT By-Law 3623, To Confirm the Proceedings of the Council Meeting of June 11, 2012, be read for a first and second time and this constitutes the first and second reading thereof; FURTHER RESOLVE THAT By-Law 3623, be given third and final reading and the Mayor and Clerk be and are hereby authorized to sign the same, and place the Corporate Seal thereunto. "Carried" ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST ADJOURNMENT Moved By: Councillor Klein AND RESOLVED THAT the meeting be adjourned at 8:53PM. Approval Received: (1 of 1) Donna Wilson!Tillsonburg (Tuesday June 12, 2012 12:43 PM) Town ofTillsonburg Page 8 Teen and Adult Reading: A teen earns a book point for 75 pages. His or her name will be entered in the draw for an iPod 8GB for every 10 book points. An adult earns a book point for 100 pages. His or her name will be entered in the draw for a Kobo e-Reader Touch. Lounge at the Library: Thursdays 3:30-5:30 for teens to hang out, use Wi-Fi, read boaks,play the new Wii or watch pre-releases such as 21 Jump Street. Adult book blogs: To encourage on-line traffic, the library will post reviews of authors, titles, and series to our Face Book page. The blogs can be submttted to the library or posted on-line. Theme and devefopment: -last summer, 450 kids from the surrounding area registered in this programme -Posters, stickers and activity booklets are designed and made available by the TD National Bank, Toronto Public Library and the National Library of Canada -This year there are two activity booklets: for pre-school and school-aged. -Local businesses and service clubs are approached for local support -Some of sponsors Include, Kiwanis Club, Knights of Columbus, A & W, Wendy's, McDonald's and more -Some of our new sponsors this year include: Wai-Mart, Zehrs, and Metro. Events: June 30: Noon-FREE Fossils with Bob O'Donnell July 9: !Dam Mad Science with Mythical Animals.$7 July 21: 1Dam-noon-Free WILD Art Attack July 23: 7pm-FREE Dilly Dragon Magic Show Aug 9: Spm-FREE Late-night movie marathon Aug 13: lDam-Mad Science with Potions.$7 Aug ZZ: &pm-FREE UbraryTalentShowl Sign upl Aug 29: &pm-FREE Sponsor Appreciation BBQ WeeklystorytimeThursdays toam, July 12-Aug 30 New Drop-Off Summer Club: -July or August, or full summer -lt is an extension of the Summer Programme for parents who wish to drop of their children for supervised activities at the library , -Reading Clubs: -Mondays and Thursdays -Help to finish the programme, earn prizes, record books ·Help writing a small work of fiction and illustrations to donate to the library -craft Clubs: -Wednesdays -Fun crafts and activities like magic wands, swords and shields 1 -Adventure Clubs: -Trips to the WaterPark, Mini-Golf, Broadway Cinemas, making volcanoes, science experiments, game sessions -Costs: ·$45 for one month+ HST -$85 for full summer+ HST -cost includes up to 10 hours of supervision per week ·Children can attend as many clubs as they want each month -Supervision: -Library staff member: Children's Summer Programmes Coordinator -Volunteers aged 13-19 (Leaders-in-Training Programme) 8/28/2014 1 'j()411\t~hW·lt IJH'"f ltHfl:.!.Hi Ont:trl'' NOGl7.') June 6th, 2012 The Honourable James J. Bradley Minister of the Environment 77 Wellesley Street West 11th Floor, Ferguson Block Toronto, ON M7A 2T5 Dear Sir: RE: SOURCE WATER PROTECTION PROGRAM At a meeting held on June 4, 2012, the Council of the Town of Minto approved the following Resolution # 140-12: WHEREAS the Province of Ontario initiated the Source Water Protection Program in 2007 with a view to developing policies to protect sources of drinking water and since then economic and regulatory conditions have changed considerably; AND WHEREAS municipalities have implemented extensive changes to water treatment processes from top to bottom through the Drinking Water Quality Management System to ensure a consistent and safe water supply for all users; AND WHEREAS in the course of four years detailed technical assessments have been completed for 40 Source Protection Areas governed by 19 Committees with local representation and that public information and outreach has been considerable yet public understanding of the impact of the regulatory approach is minimal; AND WHEREAS Source Protection Plans have been prepared in draft form and provided for agency review often with a confusing array of policies, options and references to existing legislation in some cases where processes and approvals are already In place, and that approach will lead to less than effective implementation and duplication; tel· )]U-"Hj l,)i! hx: ''l~I·U~ l:!O'> www lll\'>'1\.Lninto.on :·a AND WHEREAS in some cases small rural municipalities may have more than one Source Protection Plan to implement which adds to the complexity of implementation and most smaller municipalities do not currently have resources or expertise on staff to effectively review the policies or to act as From: FCM Communique To: John Lessif ReplyTo: communique Subject: Diamond Jubilee I medaille du Jubile Sent: Jun 7, 2012 2:01 PM Dear Head of Council: CELEBRATING COMMUNITY BUILDERS: The Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal Program The Government of Canada is offering municipalities a unique opportunity to celebrate the people who help build communities. Through FCM, the federal government is inviting municipalities to award a Queen's Diamond Jubilee medal to a citizen who has made an exceptional contribution to his/her community. The medal program is the centrepiece of a year-long series of Diamond Jubilee initiatives by the federal government. The jubilee marks sixty years of public service by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. To ensure that communities of all sizes and in every region of the country have the opportunity to participate in the medal program, all of Canada's 3,734 local governments have been invited to nominate a medal recipient and one alternate candidate. There will also be an opportunity for FCM and Provincial-Territorial Associations associated with FCM to nominate recipients from the national and PT municipal sectors. Following informal discussions with FCM, the federal government is preparing to allocate medals on the following basis: 3,734 -Medals allocated for nominations from individual municipalities 108 -Medals allocated for nominations by FCM 108 -Medals allocated for nominations by PT associations 50 -Reserve medals (allocation to be determined at a later date) 4,000 You will find the eligibility criteria included, as well as the nomination form to be completed, saved and returned to FCM via email. Please note that the deadline for submitting the name of your candidate (and one alternate candidate) is August 1, 2012. Questions concerning the nomination process can be addressed to FCM by electronic mail. Requests for promotional items, as well as use of the Emblem permission and submissions for the Calendar of Events must all be submitted to the Diamond Jubilee Team. If your municipality is requesting Royal Portraits, Crown of Maples or Canadian promotional materials for a Canada Day celebration, requests must be submitted to the following address: CeremonialetSymboles- CeremonialandSymbols@pch.gc.ca. To learn more about the Diamond Jubilee, please visit the Diamond Jubilee website. Sincerely, Councillor Berry Vrbanovic President DCS 12-41 Committee Staff Liaison Policy DATE: June 25, 2012 TO: Kelley Coulter, CAO FROM: David Sam is, Director of Development & Communication Services SUBJECT: COMMITTEE STAFF LIAISON POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS RESOLVE THAT Council receive Report DCS 12-41 Committee Staff Liaison Policy; FURTHER RESOLVE THAT a by-law to endorse the Committee Staff Liaison Policy, be brought forward for Council consideration. PURPOSE To obtain Council endorsement of a Committee Staff Liaison Policy HISTORY & DISCUSSION Historically Tillsonburg has not developed nor had in place a process for a committee/staff liaison. The current committee/board structure was developed shortly after the last municipal election, largely to coincide with the current term of office. At that time Council endorsed staff appointments to act as Town representatives to the various committees. The attached policy provides guidance and advice to staff liaisons in order to minimize the Town's liability with respect to Committee/Board actions. Committee membership is for the benefit of the public and community at large, this policy establishes a number of guidelines dealing with conflicts of interest, minimizing the Town's liability and a communication process. This policy will allow staff liaisons the opportunity to make conscientious decisions with a clear understanding of what is at stake in terms of their representation. CONSULTATION/COMMUNICATION Two readings of the by-law on June 25, 2012, and the third reading on July 9, 2012 will act as appropriate communication on this initiative. FINANCIAL IMPACT /FUNDING SOURCE None PREPARED BY: Donna Wilson, Clerk APPROVED BY: David Samis, Director of Development & Communication Services DATE AUTHORED: June 21, 2012 liP age THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF TILLSONBURG APPOVAL DATE: SCHEDULES ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY COMMITTEE/STAFF LIAISON POLICY REVISION DATE: 00/00/0000 Schedule A Committee Staff List Schedule B Council Request Template A. Policy Statement Page 1 of 6 There is a need to provide a staff liaison person for Committees of Council and Boards of Council within the Town of Tillsonburg. B. Purpose Volunteering in the Town of Tillsonburg offers opportunities for the Town and volunteers to collaborate in developing the Town of Tillsonburg. The Town will benefit from the value of voluntary and community service and volunteers will develop civic pride in the giving of their time and expertise. The Town of Tillsonburg is committed to ensure and improve communications between Committees/Boards and Council. This policy is to provide guidance and advice to staff liaisons in order to minimize the Town's liability with respect to Committee/Board actions while participating in public life. This policy is to improve communication and opportunities for volunteerism in a safe and productive manner. C. Scope This policy applies to all staff that represents the Town on any committee or board. D. General This policy shall be administered by the Development & Communications Department. This policy shall be referred to as the "Committee/Staff Liaison Policy". This policy comes into force and effect on the date adopted. E. Authority The authority for the Committee/Staff Liaison Policy shall be by the approval of the Council of the Town of Tillsonburg. THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF TILLSONBURG ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY COMMITTEE/STAFF LIAISON POLICY APPOVAL DATE: SCHEDULES REVISION DATE: 0010010000 Schedule A Committee Staff List Schedule B Council Re uest Template PROCEDURES FOR THE COMMITTEE/STAFF LIAISON POLICY Conflict of Interest: Page 3 of 6 It is recognized that staff and public committee members have a broad range of interests that may from time to time lead to potential, actual or the appearance of a conflict of interest. Staff & Volunteers will be considered to have a conflict of interest where their private objectives conflict with municipal objectives. As such they shall not: • Benefit financially from their membership other than an honorarium that may be paid in certain circumstances. • Place themselves in a position where they are under obligation to any person who may benefit from the circumstances • Deal with any application, agreement or contract in which their spouse, child, grandchild, parent, grandparent, partner, or company has an interest. • Gain personal benefit from any knowledge about a municipal related matter. • Give preferential treatment to any person, partner, organization or company where the member has a financial interest. Where a conflict of interest exists, the volunteer shall declare the conflict, or possible conflict, and withdraw from direct involvement in the matter and refrain from any comment that might influence a decision. Volunteers shall ensure the conflict or possible conflict of interest is recorded in the minutes of the meeting. Appointment/Performance Based on the recommendation of the CAO, Council shall appoint a staff liaison as a member to the appropriate board or committee based on their level of expertise. THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF TILLSONBURG APPOVAL DATE: SCHEDULES ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY COMMITTEE/STAFF LIAISON POLICY REVISION DATE: 00/0010000 Schedule A Committee Staff List Schedule B Council Request Template Schedule A Page 5 of 6 COMMITTEE STAFF LIAISON Community Services Advisory Board Kelley Coulter, Donna Burditt, Jodi Aspden Cultural Advisory Board Cephas Panschow Development Committee David Samis, Kelley Coulter Heritage & Beautification Advisory Board Kelly Batt Parks & Recreation Advisory Committee Janet McCurdy TACAC Amber Zimmer Museum Advisory Board Patty Phelps BIA Cephas Panschow Accessibility Advisory Board Donna Wilson Library Board Terri Pope dllxfErdCount · 'lfl' -growing stronger. .'Yrogether To: M. Bragg, CAO FROM: L. Buchner, Director of Corporate Services SUBJECT: Insurance Review Feasibility Study RECOMMENDATION: Report No: A-4 2012-33 CORPORATE SERVICES Council Date: June 13, 2012 That Council approves circulation of the Feasibility Study Reports prepared by KPMG LLP, regarding an Oxford County municipal insurance review, to the Area Municipal Councils for comments and questions; And that the Area Municipal Councils be invited to submit comments, questions and attend a presentation by the KPMG Consultant of the Feasibility Study Reports at the regular meeting of County Council to be held Wednesday, July 11, 2012 at approximately 10:00 a.m. PURPOSE: To seek Council's approval to circulate the Feasibility Study Reports regarding a municipal insurance review as prepared for the County and Area Municipalities by KPMG LLP and set a date for a presentation by the Consultant. BACKGROUND: At their meeting held December 14, 2011, County Council received Report No. A-4 2011-60 titled "Insurance Review" for the purpose of informing Council of the Area Municipal Councils' responses to a request to support 'in principal' an insurance program review and preparation of a feasibility study for the County and its Area Municipalities. As the responses were all in support 'in principal' for a collaborative insurance program and risk financing review, the County Treasurer and Area Municipal Treasurers were authorized to circulate a request for proposals (RFP) for a consultant to conduct a municipal insurance review and prepare a feasibility study. In response to the RFP, the County Treasurer and Area Municipal Treasurers' recommended to County Council, at their regular meeting held February 22, 2012, to engage KPMG LLP to conduct a municipal insurance review and prepare a feasibility study. In response, Council accepted KPMG LLP's proposal. The RFP, as approved by Council, clearly set out the terms and scope of the engagement, with a completion date set for May 31, 2012. The deliverables required the consultant to formulate recommendations regarding a comprehensive and sustainable municipal insurance program for the County of Oxford and its eight Area Municipalities, based on the following: 5.01 Review existing insurance programs 5.02 Review of traditional insurance market 5.03 Review of Ontario Municipal Insurance Exchange reciprocal Page 1 of 2 Appendix "A" ) ix"A" Introduction Identification of Organization, Scope of Actuarial Analysis The County of Oxford (the County), a two tiered municipal corporation, governed by a ten- member council of elected officials (Mayor of the City of Woodstock, and the Mayors of the Towns of Ingersoll and Tillsonburg, and the Mayors of the Township of Blandford-Blenheim, Township of East Zorra-Tavistock, Township of Norwich, Township of South-West Oxford, and Township of Zorra, plus two Councillors from the City of Woodstock) requested KPMG LLP (KPMG) to conduct a municipal insurance program review. The County is exploring risk financing and risk management options for its property and casualty (P&C) insurance risks. Specifically, the County requested KPMG to conduct a review of: Existing insurance programs Traditional insurance market Ontario Municipal Insurance Exchange (OMEX) Other available insurance programs Self-insurance pooling Other creative risk financing alternatives The County also requested KPMG to prepare a feasibility study report for a self-insurance pooling program. To address the County's requirements, we prepare our Actuarial Report in four parts: Executive Summary, Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3. The Executive Summary consolidates key issues and considerations from the three parts to assist the County in its deliberations regarding the future structure of its P&C risk financing program. In the Executive Summary, we draw the attention of the County to the key decision points or action steps using yellow highlighted text. Part 1 addresses alternative risk financing options including an extensive discussion of self- insurance. Part 2 presents a summary of the County's current commercial P&C insurance programs with Frank Cowan Company (Frank Cowan) and OMEX including a more in depth description of OM EX's operations. Part 3 presents the results of our actuarial feasibility analysis for a self-insurance pooling program for the County. Each part of the Actuarial Report is prepared to provide detailed documentation of the findings, processes, methodology, and assumptions underlying the municipal insurance program review for the County. Actuarial Report-Executive Summary-Municipal Insurance Program Review Contact details for Ms. Friedland are: Jacqueline B. Friedland Partner and Actuarial Practice Leader, Property and Casualty Actuarial Services KPMG Canada Bay Adelaide Centre 333 Bay Street, Suite 4600 Toronto, ON MSH 2S5 Email: jfriedland@kpmg.ca Tel: 416-777-8320 Fax: 416-777-8818 Preparation of the Actuarial Report ndix"A" The KPMG actuarial team in Toronto, Ontario prepared the municipal insurance program review on behalf of the County. In addition to Jacqueline Friedland, key members of the KPMG actuarial team include Ellie Zhou, Actuarial Analyst; Irene Tao, ACAS, Manager; and Rachel Dutil FCAS, FCIA, Senior Manager. Ms. Friedland was actively involved in all aspects of the review and is responsible for all selections of methodologies, key assumptions, and findings; she also prepared the written reports documenting the analyses. Each part of the Actuarial Report is presented in the first person plural and represents the efforts of all who contributed to the review. Organization of the Executive Summary We organize the Executive Summary in the following four sections: Introduction Current insurance programs Self-funding considerations Commercial insurance programs Confidentiality of Actuarial Report This Actuarial Report provides comprehensive information about the operations of the County with respect to its current insurance programs. Details are provided to adequately document our work, and ultimately to facilitate the work of the County management in carrying out their duties. All of the information in each part of the Actuarial Report, except that information which is also publicly available from the County, is to be considered strictly confidential. Because of the nature of the material contained in the Actuarial Report, it is not intended to be subject to any disclosure requirements under any Freedom of Information Acts. Actuarial Report-Executive Summary-Municipal Insurance Program Review 3 ix"A" In addition to the coverages listed above, the Town of Tillsonburg carries a Canadian airports' liability insurance policy, which is arranged through Aon Reed Stenhouse, Inc. The following three insurers provide this coverage for Tillonburg: Lloyd's Underwriters under agreement no. AD11 00101 Underwriters at Lloyd's per Catlin Canada Inc. Allianz Global Risks US Company Limited The Township of Norwich is currently a subscriber to OMEX. At the request of the County, OMEX provided copies of its standard policy wording for the purpose of our review. We summarize the coverages currently offered by OMEX in the following table. OMEX Policy Types Generalliabilitv (GL) E&O (claims-made form) Non-owned automobile ElL (claims-made form) Crime Councillors' accident Boiler & Machinery (B&M) Automobile Property including: -Business interruption -Data processing equipment In Part 3 of our Actuarial Report, the feasibility analysis for a self-insurance pooling program, we present a summary of current limits and deductibles selected by the County and each municipality for the primary coverages (i.e., general liability, E&O, ElL, automobile, and property). This summary is reproduced as Exhibit A of Part 2 of the Actuarial Report. We note that in addition to the deductibles and limits summarized in Parts 2 and 3, there are numerous other limits and deductibles that are specified for various sub-coverages. Actuarial Report-Executive Summary-Municipal Insurance Program Review 5 ix"A" Drivers of Self-Insurance In considering a potential move to alternative risk financing options, the County will need to consider whether 'the traditional drivers of self-insurance are applicable to their current situation. The drivers of self-insurance include: -Availability and pricing -One of the primary reasons why organizations consider turning to self-insurance is to take control over its insurance destiny -to be able to ensure the availability over time of adequate insurance coverage at reasonable costs, terms and conditions. Cost effectiveness-Reducing long-term costs is a primary driver for self-insurance. There are several factors related to improving cost effectiveness through self-insurance including: reduced insurance company expenses, retention of investment earnings, and retention of underwriting profits. -Tailor-made solutions-Related to lack of availability of required coverages, is the need of many organizations to develop tailor-made solutions to address their unique exposures to risk. Self-insurance can promote greater flexibility and facilitate change as an organization changes. -Enhanced risk management -The mere presence of a self-insurance program generally creates incentives for more proactive risk control and claims management techniques within an organization. Control-Increased control over costs, investment income, availability of coverage and limits, structure of the insurance program, underwriting standards, risk management programs, and claims and litigation management are all factors in the self-insurance decision making process. Characteristics Conducive to Self-Insurance In Part 1 of the Actuarial Report, we identify three characteristics that are conducive to self- insurance: reliability of the estimate of expected claims, the effect of retained investment income, and the cost and availability of acceptable commercial insurance coverage. The County should determine whether or not these characteristics are applicable to their situation. A reliable estimate of the expected claims (including all claims-related expenses) is an important component of any self-insurance program's annual costs. The feasibility analysis contained in Part 3 of the Actuarial Report contains extensive discussion on the limited credibility of the County's historical claims and exposure data. As part of the feasibility analysis, we analyze the County's historical experience for four lines of business: automobile liability, automobile physical damage, GL (including E&O), and property. While we believe that these are appropriate divisions, we note that there are issues with the credibility of the County's data due to the limited volume of claims experience for each of the lines of business as well as the variability in the number of claims and volume of claims dollars from year to year. (The reader is referred to Part 3 of the Actuarial Report for a full discussion of this important issue.) Actuarial Report-Executive Summary-Municipal Insurance Program Review 7 ix"A" -Excess coverage -It is prudent practice for most self-insurance P&C programs to purchase excess insurance. Since the insurance market cycles impacts excess insurance, the County could face pricing and availability issues with its excess insurance program. -Competitiveness of commercial market-Depending on the insurance market cycle, self- insurance can sometimes result in increased cost for particular lines of coverage. It is not uncommon for self-insurers to reduce their retention in times of a soft insurance market to take advantage of less expensive, readily available commercial coverage. Viable Alternatives for the County In Part 1 of the Actuarial Report we describe four alternative risk financing mechanisms: -Funded deductible program with a commercial insurance carrier -Formal self-insurance fund or pool -Captive insurance -Reciprocal insurance exchange We can consider these alternatives as options along a self-funding continuum. The funded deductible program, which is at one end of the continuum because it has the greatest involvement from the insurance market, may be the quickest option to implement, and may have the lowest level of self-funding of all the alternatives. Captive insurance and reciprocal insurance exchanges are at the other end of the continuum as they represent a true entry into the insurance business with companies subject to the financial reporting and regulatory reporting requirements of the jurisdictions in which they are domiciled. We would position self- insurance funds between these two ends of the continuum. We believe that creating a captive insurance company is not practical for the County. We are unaware of any public entity in Canada that has created a captive insurer. Furthermore, the initial set-up costs, ongoing operational expenses, and capitalization requirements of a captive insurer are likely to be impractical for the County. In addition, there are significant concerns about the lack of sufficient credible historical experience from which to develop reliable estimates of expected claims. Similar comments apply to the development of an independent reciprocal insurance exchange created solely for the County. We do not believe that it is reasonable for the County to consider establishing its own reciprocal insurance exchange. We differentiate the decision to create a new reciprocal, which we do not believe is viable, from the decision to purchase coverage from OMEX, an existing reciprocal. We would categorize a decision to purchase insurance coverage from OMEX, which would be a reasonable alternative for the County to consider, as simply a decision as to which commercial market to utilize and not as a decision regarding the use of an alternative risk financing mechanism. If the County determines that it wants to move forward with a self-funded program having considered and articulated its risk appetite and recognizing the necessity of a long-term commitment from all participants, then we believe that the two viable alternatives are a funded deductible program and a formal self-insurance program (i.e., fund or pool). Actuarial Report-Executive Summary-Municipal Insurance Program Review 9 ix"A" When comparing other options, it is also important to consider non-financial issues, such as risk management services and public entity expertise which would be available to the County trough a commercial insurance program. If the County selects a self-insurance mechanism, there are additional costs that need to be considered. (See Part 1 of the Actuarial Report.) Actuarial Report-Executive Summary-Municipal Insurance Program Review 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION Identification of Organization, Role and Scope of Actuarial Analysis Use and Distribution Identification of KPMG Lead Actuary Accepted Actuarial Practice in Canada Preparation of the Actuarial Report Organization of the Actuarial Report Terminology Confidentiality of Actuarial Report KEY FINDINGS Structure of Self-Insurance Pool Underlying Feasibility Analysis Major Outstanding Issues Credibility of the County's Historical Claims Data Projections of Claims for Policy Year 2012 Ontario Automobile Reforms Selecting a Funding Level CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS (LIMITATIONS ON ACCURACY OF RESULTS) Materiality Data Reliance Inherent Uncertainty Extraordinary Future Emergence and Limitations of the County Historical Database Collectability of Excess Insurance Salvage and Subrogation (S&S) PfAD and Simulation Analysis Discounting and Underlying Assets Rounding CREDIBILITY OF THE COUNTY'S HISTORICAL CLAIMS EXPERIENCE Introduction to Credibility County's Historical Claims Experience Classical Credibility DATA Identifying the Data Needed Attempting to Obtain the Data Reviewing the Data Obtained Assessing Sufficiency and Reliability of the Data Obtained FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS-DESCRIPTION OF PROCEDURES Step 1 -Summarize the County's Data Step 2-Project Ultimate Claims Step 3 -Conduct Deductible Analysis Step 4-Select Pure Premium for Policy Year 2012 Actuarial Report-Part 3-Municipal Insurance Program Review-Feasibility Analysis for Self-Insurance Pooling For Oxford County 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 8 9 10 12 12 12 13 13 13 14 14 14 15 16 16 17 17 19 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 25 25 INTRODUCTION Identification of Organization, Role and Scope of Actuarial Analysis The County of Oxford (the County}, a two tiered municipal corporation, governed by a ten- member council of elected officials (Mayor of the City of Woodstock, and the Mayors of the Towns of Ingersoll and Tillsonburg, and the Mayors of the Township of Blandford-Blenheim, Township of East Zorra-Tavistock, Township of Norwich, Township of South-West Oxford, and Township of Zorra, plus two Councillors from the City of Woodstock) requested KPMG LLP (KPMG) to conduct a municipal insurance program review .. In this Actuarial Report, "the County" refers to the County of Oxford and all the cities and towns within its council. The County is interested in risk financing options for its property and casualty (P&C) insurance risks. Specifically, the County requested KPMG to conduct a review of: Existing insurance programs Traditional insurance market Ontario Municipal Insurance Exchange (OMEX) Other available insurance programs Self-insurance pooling Other creative risk financing alternatives The County also requested KPMG to prepare a feasibility study report for a self-insurance pooling program. To address the County's requirements, we prepare our Actuarial Report in four parts. Part 1 addresses alternative risk financing options including an extensive discussion of self-insurance. Part 2 presents a summary of the County's current commercial P&C insurance programs with Frank Cowan and OMEX including a more in depth description of OMEX's operations. Part 3 presents the results of our actuarial feasibility analysis for a self-insurance pooling program for the County. The Executive Summary consolidates key issues and considerations from the three parts to assist the County in its deliberations regarding the future structure of its P&C risk financing program. Each part of the Actuarial Report is prepared to provide detailed documentation of the findings, processes, methodology, and assumptions underlying the municipal insurance program review for the County. An important purpose of the Actuarial Report is to give the County a comprehensive report documenting our work in conducting the municipal insurance program review. The Actuarial Report is intended for use by the County management. We understand that the Actuarial Report will be read by parties who are not actuaries but are knowledgeable about insurance. We strive to produce a readily understandable presentation in both the text description and the accompanying exhibits. Actuarial Report-Part 3-Municipal Insurance Program Review-Feasibility Analysis for Self-Insurance Pooling For Oxford County Bay Adelaide Centre 333 Bay Street, Suite 4600 Toronto, ON M5H 2S5 Email: jfriedland@kpmg.ca Tel: 416-777-8320 Fax: 416-777-8818 Accepted Actuarial Practice in Canada This actuarial feasibility study for the County is conducted in accordance with accepted actuarial practice in Canada as set out in the Standards of Practice (SOP) of the Actuarial Standards Board (ASB)1. We project claims for the prospective policy year (July 1, 2012-June 30, 2013, hereafter referred to as "policy year 2012") on an expected basis and with adjustments for time value of money and provisions for adverse deviations (PfADs). Preparation of the Actuarial Report The KPMG actuarial team in Toronto, Ontario prepares the municipal insurance program review on behalf of the County. In addition to Jacqueline Friedland, key members of the KPMG actuarial team include Ellie Zhou, Actuarial Analyst; Irene Tao, ACAS, Manager; and Rachel Dutil FCAS, FCIA, Senior Manager. Ms. Friedland is actively involved in all aspects of the review and is responsible for all selections of methodologies, key assumptions, and findings; she also prepares this written report documenting the analysis. The Actuarial Report is presented in the first person plural and represents the efforts of all who contributed to the review. Organization of the Actuarial Report Part 3 of the Actuarial Report includes: detailed commentary, data exhibits, and calculations supporting our findings related to the feasibility analysis of a self-insurance pool for the County. The commentary for Part 3 of the Actuarial Report is organized in the following sections: Detailed table of contents Introduction Key findings Conditions and limitations (limitations on accuracy of results) Role and scope of the Actuarial Report Credibility of the County's historical claims experience Data 1 The ASB was established by the Canadian Institute of Actuaries (CIA) as an independent body; the mission of the ASB is to develop, establish, and maintain Standards of Practice governing actuarial practice in Canada. Throughout this report, we use the abbreviation "SOP" to refer to Canadian actuarial Standards of Practice promulgated by the ASB. Actuarial Report-Part 3-Municipal Insurance Program Review-Feasibility Analysis for Self-Insurance Pooling For Oxford County 3 KEY FINDINGS Structure of Self-Insurance Pool Underlying Feasibility Analysis In our feasibility analysis of a self-insurance pooling program for the County, we project expected claims and indicated funding for policy year 2012. Indicated funding is a term used to refer to our estimates of expected claims adjusted for present value discounting to reflect future investment income and inclusion of PfAD. The structure of the proposed pool, in terms of deductibles, limits, and excess insurance protection, is set out in the diagram below. Commercial Insurance Excess of $100,000 limits for all lines A total limits Company of business Ground-up claim Self-Insurance Pool Excess of member deductible retentions up to $100,000 per occurrence limits (with $100,000 limits measured from ground-up claim) Members of the Pool Deductible retentions (may vary by line of business) We assume that the combined limits for the self-insurance pool and member deductibles would be $100,000. Each member would have a choice of deductible retentions for each line of business covered by the pool. In this Actuarial Report, we develop estimates of expected claims and indicated funding at per occurrence deductible retentions of: $5,000 limits $10,000 limits $20,000 limits $25,000 limits $50,000 limits We prepare projections at the alternative deductible retentions and at $250,000 per occurrence limits for four lines of business: Automobile liability Automobile physical damage General liability (GL) including errors and omission (E&O) and excluding environmental impairment liability (ElL) Property excluding crime and boiler and machinery (B&M) (hereafter, referred to as property) We assume that GL coverage would be on an occurrence basis, and E&O would be on a claims-made basis. The feasibility analysis is based on historical claims data provided by OMEX for Norwich (evaluated as of December 31, 2011) and claims data for all others provided by Frank Cowan (evaluated as of January 31, 2012). We do not project future expected claims for ElL, crime, Actuarial Report-Part 3-Municipal Insurance Program Review-Feasibility Analysis for Self-Insurance Pooling For Oxford County 5 separating the County's data into groups for the actuarial feasibility analysis, we focus on the following key characteristics: Consistency of the coverage triggered by the claims in the group (i.e., group claims that will generally be subject to the same or similar laws, policy terms, claims handling, etc.) Volume of claim counts in the group -Length of time to report the claim once a covered event has occurred (i.e., reporting patterns) -Ability to develop an appropriate case outstanding estimate from earliest report through the life of the claim Length of time to settle the claim once it is reported (i.e., settlement, or payment, patterns) Likelihood of claim to reopen once it is settled -Average settlement value (i.e., severity) We strive to group the County's claims by lines of business or sub-coverages which display similar traits with respect to the characteristics listed above. We also consider analyzing claims by alternative per occurrence limits to achieve similar claims attributes within a particular line of business. Our goal is to divide the County's data into sufficiently homogeneous groupings without compromising the credibility of the data. Credibility refers to the predictive value given to a group of data. Increasing the homogeneity of the group of data or increasing the volume of data in the group tends to increase credibility. If we divide the data into too many homogeneous groupings, however, there is a risk that the volume of data in the individual group may become insufficient to perform a reliable analysis. This is a frequent challenge for the actuary. In "An Introduction to Credibility Theory," Langley-Cook states: We may liken our statistics to a large crumbly loaf cake, which we may cut in slices to obtain easily edible helpings. The method of slicing may be chosen in different ways -across the cake, lengthwise down the cake, or even in horizontal slices-but only one method of slicing may be used at a time. If we try to slice the cake more than one way at a time, we shall be left with a useless collection of crumbs.2 For the feasibility analysis, we analyze the County's historical experience by four lines of business: automobile liability, automobile physical damage, GL (including E&O), and property. While we believe that these are appropriate divisions with respect to the criteria listed previously in this section, we note that there are issues with the credibility of the County's data due to the limited volume of claims for each of the lines of business and due to the variability in claims activity from year to year. 2 PCAS, 1962. Actuarial Report-Part 3-Municipal Insurance Program Review-Feasibility Analysis for Self-Insurance Pooling For Oxford County 7 -Projections of the pool layer of claims, which are equal to the estimates of claims limited to $100,000 less the estimates of claims within the members' deductible retentions (Exhibit II, Sheets 1 and 2) on an: Expected basis Discounted expected basis Undiscounted with adjustments at the 75% and 90% confidence levels Indicated funding including adjustments for both discounting and MfAD to the 75% and 90% confidence levels Expected claims excess of a pool limit of $100,000 by line of business and in total (Exhibit I) When making decisions about whether or not self-insurance pooling is appropriate for the County, members will need to consider the estimates of claims that fall within their individual deductibles for each line of business as well as the projected claims within the pool layer. We do not present summary tables of our estimates within the text of this final Actuarial Report. Since, we include so many different options of deductible retentions as well as projections of claims on expected, discounted, adjusted for PfAD, and indicated funding bases, we direct the users of the Actuarial Report to Exhibits I through IV. As we work together to narrow the options, we will add summary tables of select options to this section of the Actuarial Report. The projected claims contained within Exhibits I through IV represent our estimate of the ultimate settlement value of those claims incurred during the policy year 2012 that will be the responsibility of the County either through member deductibles or through the pooled layer. It is important for the County to recognize that the values represent estimates of the claims incurred in the policy year and not the cash flow payments made during the policy year. As the County develops its revenue requirements for policy year 2012, the expected claims should be added to the costs of excess insurance and other operational expenses anticipated during the policy year by the County that are associated with the P&C self-insurance pooling program. Ontario Automobile Reforms On September 1, 2010, a new Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SASS) became effective in Ontario. As a result, new standard auto insurance policies began to apply on or after September 1, 2010. However, some of the reform changes also applied to: -Auto insurance claims that occurred after November 1, 1996 and are open on or after September 1, 2010 -Auto insurance policies in-force as of September 1, 2010 before their renewal on or after September 1, 2010. In this Actuarial Report, we do not explicitly consider the effect of the Ontario auto reforms in the estimation of expected claims for policy year 2012. Because of the extremely limited data available for automobile 81 (11 claims for the entire experience period, 2002 through 2011) and AB (5 claims for the entire experience period, 2002 through 2011) for the County, we do not believe it is reliable to add an explicit adjustment to historical claims experience for the recent Actuarial Report-Part 3-Municipal Insurance Program Review-Feasibility Analysis for Self-Insurance Pooling For Oxford County 9 confidence levels ranging from 75% to 90%. Funding at the 75% confidence level implies that 75% of the time, funding at the indicated amount will be sufficient to provide for all claims; 25% of the time, claims will exceed the funding estimate at the 75% confidence level. Similarly, funding at the 90% confidence level implies that 90% of the time, funding at the indicated amount will be sufficient to provide for all claims; 10% of the time, claims will exceed the funding estimate at the 90% confidence level. Such simulation-based approaches require a significant volume of claims experience from which actuaries can derive the model parameters. Actuaries typically conduct simulation analysis of claims by line of business. Actuaries may develop severity and frequency parameters separately for reported claims (i.e., case outstanding) and for unreported claims (i.e., incurred but not reported, IBNR, claims). Common assumptions for P&C insurance is that the severity (i.e., average value of claims) is lognormally distributed and that the frequency (i.e., number of claims) follows a Poisson or Negative Binomial distributtion. We are limited in our use of simulation analysis for the County due to the scarcity of historical claims data for all lines of business except GL. Thus, our simulation model is based entirely on GL; the resulting percentage MfAD at the 75% and 90% confidence levels are then applied to all lines of business. It is expected that this results in a conservative PfAD since the other lines of business generally have lower severities and less variability within the distribution of claims. For the County, we select a MfAD of 20% at the 75% confidence level and 42% at the 90% confidence level for $100,000 per occurrence limits. When selecting these margins, we consider the: -Results of the simulation analysis -Unique characteristics of the various lines of business -Variability in the County's claims experience -Magnitude of the deductible retentions and pooled limit Actuarial Report-Part 3-Municipal Insurance Program Review-Feasibility Analysis for Self-Insurance Pooling For Oxford County 11 verification. In particular, we rely on detailed claims data, exposure detail, and information about the County's current deductibles and insurance limits. The claims data provided by Frank Cowan is valued as of January 31, 2012; and the data provided by OMEX is valued as of December 31, 2011. Inherent Uncertainty It must be understood that estimates of future claims are subject to large potential errors of estimation. The ultimate disposition of claims is subject to the outcome of events that have not yet occurred. Examples of these events include jury decisions, court interpretations, legislative changes, public attitudes, and social/economic conditions such as inflation. Any estimate of future costs underlying projected claims is subject to the inherent limitation on one's ability to predict the aggregate course of future events. It should therefore be expected that the actual emergence of claims will vary, perhaps materially, from any estimate. The true amount that is needed at July 1, 2012 to provide for all occurrences in policy year 2012 will only be known after the passage of time-when the last claim has closed. Thus, no assurance can be given that the County's actual claims for policy year 2012 will not ultimately differ, perhaps significantly, from the estimates contained herein. In our judgment, we employ techniques and assumptions that are appropriate, and the conclusions presented herein are reasonable given the information currently available. Extraordinary Future Emergence and Limitations of the County Historical Database We assume that business will proceed as it has in the past, with no material changes in accounts or cash flows. We do not anticipate any extraordinary changes to the legal, social, or economic environment, or to the interpretation of policy language which might affect the cost, frequency, or future reporting of claims. In addition, our estimates make no provision for potential future claims arising from loss causes not contained in the historical data (i.e., class action lawsuits, ElL claims, pollution, asbestos, latent injuries, non-owned automobile, punitive damages, etc.) except insofar as claims of these types are included in the reported claims and are routinely developed. As our analysis is based entirely on the underlying claims data from the County, the projections will only include those categories of claims that are included within the historical experience. Thus, to the extent that certain claim types are either not present or have very limited frequency in the database, our future claims projections will not provide for such claims. For example, there are very few claims for E&O, two or less for each accident year in our ten-year experience period. While we do not exclude these claims from our liability analysis, the projections may not include sufficient provision for these exposures in the future. Collectability of Excess Insurance We provide estimates of future claims assuming a $100,000 per occurrence limit for the pool. We also estimate future claims in excess of the pool limit. When estimating future claims excess Actuarial Report-Part 3-Municipal Insurance Program Review-Feasibility Analysis for Self-Insurance Pooling For Oxford County 13 The discounted claim estimates at the alternative deductible retentions are based on industry- wide payment patterns that are adjusted to reflect the faster rate of payment that is expected for claims within the deductible layer. When discounting projected claims, the inherent uncertainty again increases. That is, in addition to the risk of underestimating or overestimating the overall amount of the claims, there are the additional risks that the timing of the future payments of those claims or the expected return on investments will differ materially from the assumptions underlying our procedure. Actual payments on claims (including payments for ALAE) could occur more or less rapidly than projected due to random variations and the timing of large claim payments. In addition, capital gains/losses or significant changes in economic conditions may affect the yield on assets supporting the liabilities. We assume a 1.21% annual rate of return on investments for discounting purposes. This rate of return is consistent with our review of the three-to five-year Government of Canada bonds at April 16, 2012 (1.46%) and a margin of 25 basis points. We do not review any investment information from the County. We form no opinion as to the validity or value of the County's assets. Rounding All figures in the supporting exhibits are carried to a greater number of decimals than shown. Thus, totals and calculations may not agree due to rounding. ·--···-·---·--·--·----- Actuarial Report-Part 3-Municipal Insurance Program Review-Feasibility Analysis for Self-Insurance Pooling For Oxford County 15 County's Historical Claims Experience In conducting an actuarial analysis for a self-insured organization, we often assign a credibility value to the organization's data based on both the volume of claims experience and the stability of experience from year to year. For the County, we observe a limited volume of claims for most lines of business as well as tremendous variability in the number of claims and volume of claim dollars from year to year. In the table below, we summarize reported claim counts and total limits reported claims as of January 31, 2012 by line of business. Total limits claims represents those claims that are within the County's deductibles as well as those claims that are covered by the commercial insurance excess of the deductible. (Further claim details are provided in Exhibit VII, Sheets 1 and 2.) Policy Reported Reported Reported Reported Year #of Claims Claims & ALAE #of Claims Claims & ALAE Auto Liability Auto Physical Damage 2006 1 925 2 240 2007 3 9,603 5 35,417 2008 11 454,680 1 9,230 2009 0 0 2 10,431 2010 5 101,651 1 9,709 2011 9 98,313 2 112 GL (including E&O) Property 2006 30 1,005,186 6 50,993 2007 28 468,238 7 178,829 2008 45 874,694 3 52,864 2009 30 617,044 3 244,382 2010 28 650,139 3 146,470 2011 26 727,841 2 35,434 The effect of such variability in claims experience is much greater uncertainty in the actuarial projections. Classical Credibility Actuaries have long relied on the number of claims as one indicator of the credibility of a data set. Such reliance is derived from classical credibility which is based on confidence interval analysis. In classical credibility, various assumptions are made with respect to the form of the distribution and whether or not to include claim severity (i.e., the average size of claim) in the calculations. One then calculates the appropriate number of claims necessary to ensure that with probability P, the actual claims (numbers or dollars) will be within ± k% of the expected. Actuarial Report-Part 3-Municipal Insurance Program Review-Feasibility Analysis for Self-Insurance Pooling For Oxford County 17 DATA The SOP outline the responsibilities of the actuary with respect to data. According to the SOP: The work with respect to data consists of identifying the data needed, attempting to obtain them, reviewing the data obtained, and assessing sufficiency and reliability of the data obtained. Identifying the Data Needed To conduct the feasibility analysis, we identify the following data requirements specific to the County: Individual claim details including accident date, line of business and sub-coverage, paid claims, case outstanding, and reported claims (sum of paid claims and case outstanding) Exposure information for historical, current, and future program years including population, number of vehicles, property values, operating expenditures, and number of employees Current deductibles and insurance limits by line of business and sub-coverage Current policy wording We also identify the following general information requirements: Industry claims development patterns by line of business for reported and paid claims Expected risk-free investment returns Attempting to Obtain the Data The County was able to provide all of the identified data via email attachments. Frank Cowan and OMEX provided historical claims data and policy wording, deductibles, and limits. The County supplied the exposure data. We rely on claims data from Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC) and General Insurance Statistical Agency (GISA) for claims development purposes. To determine a rate of return for discounting purposes, we rely on Government of Canada three to five year bonds at April16, 2012. ------------- Actuarial Report-Part 3-Municipal Insurance Program Review-Feasibility Analysis for Self-Insurance Pooling For Oxford County 19 FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS-DESCRIPTION OF PROCEDURES Our analysis proceeds in the reverse order that the exhibits are presented in. We deliberately organize the exhibits in this manner so that the County can focus on the findings contained within Exhibits I through IV. The following five steps describe our analysis of claims for policy year 2012: 1. Summarize the County's data 2. Project ultimate claims 3. Conduct deductible analysis 4. Select pure premium for policy year 2012 5. Estimate expected claims and indicated funding for policy year 2012 Step 1 -Summarize the County's Data In Exhibit XIII, we summarize the deductibles and limits for the insurance coverage currently in place for the County. In Exhibit XII, we summarize historical exposure data by individual entity and by calendar year. The table below summarizes the exposure bases selected for the four lines of business analyzed in this feasibility study. Line of Business Selected Exposure Base Automobile liability Number of automobiles Automobile physical damage Number of automobiles GL Population Property Total insured value (thousands of dollars) These selected exposure bases are consistent with those used by other Canadian self-insured public entities. For all calendar years in which the County did not provide detailed exposure information, we estimate exposure values based on the values provided by the County for other years. It is important that the County approve our estimated exposure values. (See Exhibit XII, including Sheet 3 with detailed notes.) For Norwich, exposure data was provided for some years by both the municipality and OMEX. Based on input from Norwich, we rely on the data submitted by the municipality when there were different values. In Exhibit XI, Sheets 1 and 2, we summarize historical claims data by line of business and sub- coverage within line of business. Claims include those within the County's deductibles and claims greater than the deductible. We present, by accident year (i.e., January 1 to December 31) and sub-coverage within line of business, the following: Actuarial Report-Part 3-Municipal Insurance Program Review-Feasibility Analysis for Self-Insurance Pooling For Oxford County 21 For claims development purposes, we rely on automobile TPL data even though the claims experience of the County is both liability and AB coverage. There are only five AB claims in total over the experience period 2002 to 2011 for a total reported claim amount of about $12,000. Thus, we do not believe that this approximation materially affects our analysis. For automobile physical damage and property, we judgmentally select claims development patterns based on our experience with Canadian public entities. These are both fast reporting and settling lines of business, and late development is generally not expected. We interpolate industry based development patterns which are based on annual reporting (i.e., data as of 12 months, 24, months, etc.) to reflect the January 31, 2012 valuation date of the Frank Cowan claim data. OMEX provided claims data for Norwich as of December 31, 2011. As there are less than ten claims in the OMEX data base, we rely on the same development patterns as used for the Frank Cowan data. We do not believe that this approximation would materially affect the findings. In Exhibit IX, Sheets 1 through 3, we present several diagnostics based on ultimate claims at total limits, including: -Pure premium (projected ultimate claims per exposure) -Severity (average value per reported claim) -Frequency (number of reported claims per exposure) As expected, we observe significant variability from year to year for each of the five lines of business. The table below summarizes the indicated total limits pure premiums, severities, and frequency by line of business for accident years 2006 through 2010.8 8 We do not present 2011 diagnostics in the tables as that accident year is considered "immature" from an actuarial perspective and there is significant uncertainty in estimated ultimate claims and claim counts due to the potential late reporting of claims. ------···--- Actuarial Report-Part 3-Municipal Insurance Program Review-Feasibility Analysis for Self-Insurance Pooling For Oxford County 23 Step 3 -Conduct Deductible Analysis Claims elimination ratios (CERs) represent the claims eliminated from the projected claims at $100,000 per occurrence limits due to the selected deductible retentions. These "eliminated" claims would be retained by the County through its members' deductibles. We present the deductible analysis in Exhibit VIII, Sheets 1 through 4. The first step is to develop each claim to an ultimate value. We then trend the claims to the cost level expected for policy year 2012. The next step of the deductible analysis is to limit each individual claim, adjusted for claims development and trend, to the proposed deductible retentions. CERs are selected, by line of business, based on a review of the ratio of claims limited to the deductible retention and claims limited to $100,000. In the following table, we summarize selected CERs (relative to $100,000 limits claims) by line of business and deductible retention. Deductible Retention CER Deductible Retention CER Automobile Liability Automobile Physical Damage $5,000 0.17 $5,000 0.32 $10,000 0.26 $10,000 0.60 $20,000 0.37 $20,000 0.80 $25,000 0.42 $25,000 0.90 $50,000 0.65 $50,000 0.95 GL including E&O Property $5,000 0.12 $5,000 0.15 $10,000 0.20 $10,000 0.24 $20,000 0.34 $20,000 0.41 $25,000 0.40 $25,000 0.48 $50,000 0.65 $50,000 0.76 Step 4-Select Pure Premium for Policy Year 2012 We select policy year 2012 pure premiums for each of the lines of business at total limits in Exhibit VII, Sheets 1 through 4 and at $100,000 per occurrence limits in Exhibit VI, Sheets 1 through 4. Pure premiums are equal to projected ultimate claims trended to the cost level expected during policy year 2012 divided by exposures. We review the pure premiums by year as well as various averages. Actuarial Report-Part 3-Municipal Insurance Program Review-Feasibility Analysis for Self-Insurance Pooling For Oxford County 25 We develop severity and frequency parameters for GL based on the County's historical experience and our knowledge of GL claims for Canadian public entities. We assume that the severity (i.e., average value of claims) is lognormally distributed and that the frequency (i.e., number of claims) is Negative Binomial distributed. We run 100,000 simulation trials. The following table summarizes key assumptions of our simulation analysis. Key Simulation Assumptions for GL Only Severity Mean 57,500 Standard deviation 287,500 Coefficient of variation 5.00 Frequency Mean 29.6 Standard deviation 6.8 Coefficient of variation 0.23 We select a MfAD of 20% at the 75% confidence level and 42% at the 90% confidence level for $100,000 per occurrence limits. -----------·------------------~-------------- Actuarial Report-Part 3-Municipal Insurance Program Review-Feasibility Analysis for Self-Insurance Pooling For Oxford County 27 Other assumptions are reviewed in light of the County's historical claims and exposure experience. The Actuarial Report contains numerous exhibits which document these other assumptions. Claims Development Factors We rely on insurance industry experience for the selection of reported and paid claims development factors. Specifically, we use reported claims development factors to project the County's reported claims to an ultimate basis; and we rely on insurance industry paid claims development experience to derive payment patterns for the development of present value discount factors to reflect future investment income. We assume that the County's future claims development will be similar to the selected patterns based on insurance industry experience. As noted previously, there is significant variability in historical claims experience for the County. It is possible that the selected patterns based on the industry historical experience will not be predictive of future claims development for the County. Trend Factors Trend rates are selected based on a review of insurance industry statistics as well as our knowledge of the general insurance environment. Trends are selected to reflect not only economic inflationary factors but also societal factors that tend to increase both frequency and severity of claims over time. The selected trend rate reflects the exposure base and any inherent inflationary force in exposures. Annual claims rate trends by line are summarized in the table below. Automobile liability 5% Auto physical damage 0% GL 7% Property 5% The trend rates reflect the most recent available insurance industry information. Our claims projections are highly dependent on the selected trend rates. The longer the projection period, the greater the uncertainty and the greater the likelihood that actual experience may differ from the projected claims included in this report. Trend factors have a significant impact on the selection of pure premiums and CERs. Rates of Return for Present Value Discounting Discounted liabilities are calculated assuming an annual rate of return on investments of 1.21% based on feedback from the County and our review of rates of return on Government of Canada three to five year bonds as of April16, 2012. -------~~-------------·---·----~~-···-----------~------ Actuarial Report-Part 3-Municipal Insurance Program Review-Feasibility Analysis for Self-Insurance Pooling For Oxford County 29 EXHIBITS The following is an index to all exhibits: Exhibit I Expected Claims for Policy Year 2012 Exhibit II Projected Expected Claims within a Pooled Retention up to $100,000 Limits Exhibit Ill Projected Expected Claims and Claims at 75% and 90% Confidence Levels Exhibit IV Projected Expected Claims Policy Year 2012 Exhibit V Development of Present Value Factors-Assuming 1.21% Annual Rate of Return Exhibit VI Selected Pure Premiums-Policy Year 2012-Ground-Up, $100,000 Per Occurrence Limits Exhibit VII Selected Pure Premiums-Policy Year 2012-Ground-Up, Total Limits Exhibit VIII Selected Claims Elimination Ratios Exhibit IX Diagnostics Exhibit X Development of Ultimate Claims and Claim Counts Exhibit XI Historical Claims Data Exhibit XII Summary of Exposure Data Exhibit XIII Summary of Current Deductibles and Limits Actuarial Report-Part 3-Municipal Insurance Program Review-Feasibility Analysis for Self-Insurance Pooling For Oxford County 31 ,., Oxford -analysis.xls Oxford County Projected Expected Claims Within a Pooled Retention up to $100,000 Limits Policy Year 2012-By Line of Business and Alternative Deductible Limits Automobile Alternative Per Occurrence Deductible Limits Physical Total Liabilit)' Damage GL PropeJ!Y All Coverages (I) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) $5,000 $10,000 $20,000 $25,000 $50,000 $5,000 $10,000 $20,000 $25,000 $50,000 $5,000 $10,000 $20,000 $25,000 $50,000 Column Notes: Expected Claims Excess of Deductible to $IOO,OOO Limits 136,I20 I2,546 985,672 I54,03I 12I,360 7,380 893,788 I37,722 I03,320 3,690 737,881 106,915 95,120 1,845 670,641 94,231 57,400 923 394,464 43,491 I57,065 I40,73 I 120,595 11 I,334 67,922 178,989 160,829 138,839 128,528 79,320 Projected Claims at 75% Confidence Level 14,476 I,I37,34I I77,732 8,558 I,036,451 159,704 4,307 861,251 124,79I 2,I59 784,958 I I0,293 I,092 466,772 5I,463 Projected Claims at 90% Confidence Level 16,497 1,296,097 202,541 9,780 1,184,465 182,511 4,959 991,545 143,670 2,493 906,180 I27,326 I,275 545,100 60,099 (2)-(5) Based on difference of expected claims at $IOO,OOO per occurrence limits and at alternative deductible retentions from Exhibit III, Sheet I. (6) = [(2) + (3) + (4) + (5)]. 2012 Pool Layer 1,288,369 1,160,249 951,807 861,836 496,278 1,486,6I5 1,345,444 1,110,944 I,008,744 587,249 1,694,125 1,537,586 1,279,013 I,I64,527 685,794 Exhibit II Sheet I 4/20/2012 5:04PM .. Oxford -ana1ysis.x1s Oxford County Projected Expected Claims and Claims at 75% and 90% Confidence Levels Policy Year 2012-By Line of Business and Alternative Deductible Limits Alternative Automobile Per Occurrence Physical Total Deductible Limits Liability Damage GL Property All Coverages (I) (2) (3) ( 4) (5) (6) $5,000 $10,000 $20,000 $25,000 $50,000 $100,000 $5,000 $10,000 $20,000 $25,000 $50,000 $100,000 $5,000 $10,000 $20,000 $25,000 $50,000 $100,000 Column Notes: 27,880 42,640 60,680 68,880 106,600 164,000 32,170 49,446 70,825 80,621 126,140 197,015 36,660 56,507 81,540 93,072 147,308 233,205 5,904 11,070 14,760 16,605 17,528 18,450 Expected Claims 135,600 227,484 383,391 450,631 726,808 1,121,272 27,182 43,491 74,297 86,982 137,722 181,213 Projected Claims at 75% Confidence Level 6,812 156,465 31,364 12,837 263,795 50,433 17,228 447,492 86,719 19,435 527,446 101,809 20,740 860,036 162,967 22,164 1,346,997 217,693 Projected Claims at 90% Confidence Level 7,763 178,306 35,743 14,670 301,467 57,635 19,834 515,190 99,839 22,437 608,900 117,532 24,221 1,004,357 190,314 26,236 1,594,427 257,681 196,566 324,685 533,128 623,099 988,657 1,484,935 226,812 376,511 622,264 729,312 1,169,884 1,783,869 258,472 430,280 716,403 841,941 1,366,200 2,111,549 (2)-(5) Calculated in Exhibit IV, Sheets 1 and 2; includes total expected claims for all municipalities and the County. (6) = [(2) + (3) + (4) + (5)]. 2012 py Exhibit III Sheet 1 4/20/2012 5:04PM ~ Oxford County Projected Expected Claims Policy Year 2012 By Line of Business and at Alternative Deductible Limits 2012 Projected Expected Claims at Alternative Per Occurrence Limits Member Ex Eo sure $5,000 $10,000 $20,000 $25,000 $50,000 (I) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Automobile Liability Blandford-Blenheim 7 476 728 1,036 1,176 1,820 East Zorra Tavistock 18 1,224 1,872 2,664 3,024 4,680 Ingersoll 29 1,972 3,016 4,292 4,872 7,540 Norwich 26 1,768 2,704 3,848 4,368 6,760 Oxford County 137 9,316 14,248 20,276 23,016 35,620 South West Oxford 27 1,836 2,808 3,996 4,536 7,020 Tillsonburg 43 2,924 4,472 6,364 7,224 Il,l80 Woodstock 100 6,800 10,400 14,800 16,800 26,000 Zorra 23 1,564 2,392 3,404 3,864 5,980 Total 410 27,880 42,640 60,680 68,880 106,600 Automobile Physical Dama~e Blandford-Blenheim 7 101 189 252 284 299 East Zorra Tavistock 18 259 486 648 729 770 Ingersoll 29 418 783 1,044 1,175 1,240 Norwich 26 374 702 936 1,053 1,112 Oxford County 137 1,973 3,699 4,932 5,549 5,857 South West Oxford 27 389 729 972 1,094 1,154 Tillsonburg 43 619 I, 161 1,548 1,742 1,838 Woodstock 100 1,440 2,700 3,600 4,050 4,275 Zorra 23 331 621 828 932 983 Total 410 5,904 11,070 14,760 16,605 17,528 Column Notes: (2) Based on exposure data provided by the County and summarized in Exhibit XII, Sheet I. The County provided exposures on a calendar year basis. Policy year 2012 exposures are based on the average of projected exposures for 2012 and 2013. (3)-(8) Based on selected $100,000 limits pure premiums in Exhibit VI and the claims elimination ratios in Exhibit VIII. Oxford -analysis. xis 2012 PY detail by member $100,000 (8) 2,800 7,200 11,600 10,400 54,800 10,800 17,200 40,000 9,200 164,000 315 810 1,305 1,170 6,165 1,215 1,935 4,500 1,035 18,450 Exhibit IV Sheet I 4/20/2012 5:04PM ,., Oxford County Development of Present Value Factors-Assuming 1.21% Annual Rate of Return For Projected Claims at $100,000 Per Occurrence Limits Cumulative % Paid Incremental % Paid Automobile A~e Liabili~ Ph~sical Dama~e GL ProEerty (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 12 10.9% 87.0% 3.8% 83.3% 24 20.9% 100.0% 13.0% 100.0% 36 34.7% 100.0% 26.0% 100.0% 48 49.6% 100.0% 39.0% 100.0% 60 64.4% 100.0% 51.1% 100.0% 72 75.6% 100.0% 62.4% 100.0% 84 86.0% 100.0% 71.1% 100.0% 96 89.9% 100.0% 77.5% 100.0% 108 94.0% 100.0% 83.0% 100.0% 120 94.0% 100.0% 87.5% 100.0% 132 96.6% 100.0% 89.7% 100.0% 144 98.6% 100.0% 92.9% 100.0% 156 99.0% 100.0% 95.0% 100.0% 168 99.5% 100.0% 98.0% 100.0% 180 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% (10) Present Value Factor Assuming 1.21% Annual Rate of Return Column/Line Notes: (2) and (4) Based on review ofthe insurance industry experience from IBC. (3) and (5) Judgementally selected. (6)-(9) Based on differences in cumulative percentages from columns (2)-(5). Automobile Liabili~ Ph~sical Dama~e (6) (7) 10.9% 87.0% 9.9% 13.0% 13.9% 14.9% 14.8% 11.2% 10.4% 3.9% 4.0% 0.0% 2.6% 2.0% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.949 0.992 (10) Based on incremental payment pattern and a 1.21% assumed annual rate of return which is adjusted for MfAD. Oxford -analysis.xls pv GL (8) 3.8% 9.2% 13.0% 13.0% 12.1% 11.3% 8.7% 6.4% 5.4% 4.6% 2.2% 3.1% 2.1% 3.0% 2.0% 0.936 ProEerty (9) 83.3% 16.7% 0.992 Exhibit V Sheet 1 4/20/2012 5:04PM IBI!J Oxford -analysis.xls Oxford County Selected Pure Premiums -Policy Year 2012 Automobile Liability-Ground-Up, $100,000 Per Occurrence Limits Projected Ultimate Trend at Accident #of Claim 5.0%to Trended Ultimate Year Automobile Counts Claims 1-Jan-13 Claims (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 2002 336 1 3,152 1.669 5,260 2003 340 13 51,917 1.590 82,548 2004 340 4 8,825 1.514 13,361 2005 347 3 5,392 1.442 7,776 2006 366 I 1,002 1.373 1,376 2007 363 3 10,924 1.308 14,289 2008 373 II 151,200 1.246 188,395 2009 389 0 -1.186 2010 394 5 189,21I 1.130 213,808 2011 405 10 264,844 1.076 284,972 (8) Average Pure Premium All Years All Years excluding High and Low Latest 5 Years Latest 5 Years excluding High and Low (9) Selected Pure Premium Column and Line Notes: (2) Based on data provided by the County. See summary of exposures in Exhibit XII. (3)-(4) Selected in Exhibit X, Sheet 1. Pure Premium (7) 16 243 39 22 4 39 505 543 704 211 176 358 362 400 (5) Assume an annual trend rate of 5.0% for automobile liability. Trend to average accident date of policy year 2012. (6) = ((4) X (5)). (7) = [(6) I (2)]. (8) Various averages of trended pure premium by year in (7). (9) Judgementally selected. Pure Premium Exhibit VI Sheet I 4/20/2012 5:04PM ,., Oxford -analysis.xls Oxford County Selected Pure Premiums-Policy Year 2012 GL including E&O-Ground-Up, $100,000 Per Occurrence Limits Projected Ultimate Trend at Accident Claim 7.0%to Trended Ultimate Year PoEulation Counts Claims 1-Jan-13 Claims (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 2002 197,971 25 525,670 2.035 1,069,739 2003 198,248 34 511,167 1.902 972,241 2004 197,872 22 164,119 1.777 291,639 2005 199,390 29 607,359 1.661 1,008,823 2006 200,383 30 526,912 1.552 817,767 2007 200,948 28 534,928 1.451 776,181 2008 201,126 45 937,493 1.356 1,271,241 2009 203,275 30 716,345 1.267 907,609 2010 203,688 28 1,024, Ill 1.184 1,212,547 2011 204,150 26 1,304,827 1.107 1,444,443 (8) Average Pure Premium All Years All Years excluding High and Low Latest 5 Years Latest 5 Years excluding High and Low (9) Selected Pure Premium Column and Line Notes: (2) Based on data provided by the County. See summary of exposures in Exhibit XII. (3)-(4) Selected in Exhibit X, Sheet 2. (5) Assume an annual trend rate of7.0% for GL. Trend to average accident date of policy year 2012. (6) = [(4) X (5)]. (7) = [(6) I (2)]. (8) Various averages of trended pure premium by year in (7). (9) Judgementally selected. Pure Premi urn Pure Premium (7) 5.40 4.90 1.47 5.06 4.08 3.86 6.32 4.46 5.95 7.08 4.86 5.01 5.54 5.58 5.40 Exhibit VI Sheet 3 4/20/2012 5:04PM ~ Oxford-analysis. xis Oxford County Selected Pure Premiums -Policy Year 2012 Automobile Liability-Ground-Up, Total Limits Projected Ultimate Trend at Accident #of Claim 5.0%to Trended Ultimate Year Automobile Counts (1) (2) (3) 2002 336 1 2003 340 I3 2004 340 4 2005 347 3 2006 366 I 2007 363 3 2008 373 II 2009 389 0 2010 394 5 20II 405 10 Column and Line Notes: Claims 1-Jan-13 Claims (4) (5) 3,152 5I,9I7 8,825 5,392 I,002 10,924 56I,48I - I94,387 277,9I9 (8) Average Pure Premium All Years 1.669 I.590 1.514 1.442 1.373 1.308 1.246 1.186 1.130 1.076 All Years excluding High and Low Latest 5 Years (6) 5,260 82,548 13,36I 7,776 I,376 I4,289 699,606 2I9,657 299,041 Latest 5 Years excluding High and Low (9) Selected Pure Premium (2) Based on data provided by the County. See summary of exposures in Exhibit XII. (3)-(4) Selected in Exhibit X, Sheet I. Pure Premium (7) I6 243 39 22 4 39 1,876 558 738 353 207 642 445 500 (5) Assume an annual trend rate of5.0% for automobile liability. Trend to average accident date of policy year 20I2. (6) = [(4) X (5)]. (7) = [(6) I (2)]. (8) Various averages oftrended pure premium by year in (7). (9) Judgementally selected. pure premium Tot_ Limit Exhibit VII Sheet I 4/20/2012 5:04PM __, Oxford-analysis. xis Oxford County Selected Pure Premiums -Policy Year 2012 GL including E&O-Ground-Up, Total Limits Projected Ultimate Trend at Accident Claim 7.0%to Trended Ultimate Year PoEulation Counts Claims 1-Jan-13 Claims (1) (2) (3) 2002 197,971 25 2003 198,248 34 2004 197,872 22 2005 199,390 29 2006 200,383 30 2007 200,948 28 2008 201,126 45 2009 203,275 30 2010 203,688 28 2011 204,150 26 (4) (5) 1,075,018 781,374 164,119 1,718,371 1,172,731 570,946 1,142,888 942,936 1,275,684 2,343,825 (8) Average Pure Premium All Years 2.035 1.902 1.777 1.661 1.552 1.451 1.356 1.267 1.184 1.107 All Years excluding High and Low Latest 5 Years (6) 2,187,662 1,486,173 291,639 2,854,213 1,820,079 828,442 1,549,756 1,194,699 1,510,410 2,594,614 Latest 5 Years excluding High and Low (9) Selected Pure Premium Column and Line Notes: (2) Based on data provided by the County. See summary of exposures in Exhibit XII. (3)-(4) Selected in Exhibit X, Sheet 2. (5) Assume an annual trend rate of7.0% for GL. Trend to average accident date of policy year 2012. (6) = [(4) X (5)]. (7) = [(6) I (2)]. (8) Various averages of trended pure premium by year in (7). (9) Judgementally selected. pure premium Tot_ Limit Pure Premium (7) 11.05 7.50 1.47 14.31 9.08 4.12 7.71 5.88 7.42 12.71 8.12 8.18 7.57 7.00 8.20 Exhibit VII Sheet 3 4/20/2012 5:04PM .,., Oxford County Selected Claims Elimination Ratios Automobile Liability-Policy Year 2012 Selected Ratio of Projected Limited Claims Accident Ultimate Projected Ultimate Trended Claims Limited to: Relative to $100,000 Limits Claims Year Claim Count $5,000 $10,000 $20,000 $25,000 $50,000 $100,000 $5,000 $10,000 $20,000 $25,000 (I) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (II) (12) 2002 I 5,000 5,259 5,259 5,259 5,259 5,259 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 2003 13 37,717 57,702 72,366 77,366 82,563 82,563 0.46 0.70 0.88 0.94 2004 4 7,487 12,487 13,360 13,360 13,360 13,360 0.56 0.93 1.00 1.00 2005 3 7,780 7,780 7,780 7,780 7,780 7,780 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2006 I 1,375 1,375 1,375 1,375 1,375 1,375 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2007 3 8,248 13,248 14,299 14,299 14,299 14,299 0.58 0.93 1.00 1.00 2008 II 28,578 45,804 65,804 75,804 113,808 163,808 0.17 0.28 0.40 0.46 2009 0 2010 5 20,115 34,161 54,161 64,161 114,161 200,813 0.10 0.17 0.27 0.32 2011 10 31,789 61,789 104,245 124,245 186,128 277,388 0.11 0.22 0.38 0.45 ( 14) Weighted Average Claims Elimination Ratios -All Years 0.19 0.31 0.44 0.50 (15) Weighted Average Claims Elimination Ratios -2005-2010 0.17 0.26 0.37 0.42 (16) Selected Claims Elimination Ratios-Relative to $100,000 Limits Claims 0.17 0.26 0.37 0.42 Column/Line Notes: (2) See Exhibit X, Sheet I. (3)-(8) Based on claim details provided by the County, development factors selected based on insurance industry experience, and an assumed annual trend rate of5.0%. Claims trended to January I, 2013, the average accident date of policy year 2012. Total number of claims in the database is 50. (9)-(13) Equal to projected ultimate trended claims at various limits in columns (3) through (7) divided by projected ultimate trended claims at $100,000 limits in (8). (14) and (15) Based on weighted averages of ratios in (9)-(13). (16) Judgementally selected. Oxford-analysis. xis CER $50,000 (13) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.69 0.57 0.67 0.70 0.65 0.65 Exhibit VIII Sheet 1 4/20/2012 5:04PM ~ Oxford County Selected Claims Elimination Ratios GL including E&O-Policy Year 2012 Selected Ratio of Projected Limited Claims Accident Ultimate Projected Ultimate Trended Claims Limited to: Relative to $100,000 Limits Claims Year Claim Count $5,000 $10,000 $20,000 $25,000 $50,000 $100,000 $5,000 $10,000 $20,000 $25,000 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (II) (12) 2002 25 62,963 104,576 184,576 224,262 380,573 651,951 0.10 0.16 0.28 0.34 2003 34 110,609 181,203 288,266 334,190 496,121 696,121 0.16 0.26 0.41 0.48 2004 22 60,431 99,515 160,118 176,577 224,137 274,137 0.22 0.36 0.58 0.64 2005 29 91,319 144,898 226,557 266,557 461,197 744,427 0.12 0.19 0.30 0.36 2006 30 96,918 153,563 262,153 302,691 441,585 652,181 0.15 0.24 0.40 0.46 2007 28 101,164 176,992 293,106 338,026 505,830 684,347 0.15 0.26 0.43 0.49 2008 45 142,201 227,316 364,413 429,413 729,395 1,082,608 0.13 0.21 0.34 0.40 2009 30 101,733 187,208 328,586 381,191 562,737 823,201 0.12 0.23 0.40 0.46 2010 28 105,291 175,291 304,481 364,481 643,569 1,111,386 0.09 0.16 0.27 0.33 2011 26 105,709 190,709 353,860 433,860 798,681 1,369,474 0.08 0.14 0.26 0.32 (14) Weighted Average Claims Elimination Ratios-All Years 0.12 0.20 0.34 0.40 (15) Weighted Average Claims Elimination Ratios-2005-2010 0.13 0.21 0.35 0.41 (16) Selected Claims Elimination Ratios-Relative to $100,000 Limits Claims 0.12 0.20 0.34 0.40 Column/Line Notes: (2) See Exhibit X, Sheet 2. (3)-(8) Based on claim details provided by the County, development factors selected based on insurance industry experience, and an assumed annual trend rate of7.0%. Claims trended to January I, 2013, the average accident date of policy year 2012. Total number of claims in the database is 297. (9)-(13) Equal to projected ultimate trended claims at various limits in columns (3) through (7) divided by projected ultimate trended claims at $100,000 limits in (8). ( 14) and (15) Based on weighted averages of ratios in (9) - ( 13 ). (16) Judgementally selected. Oxford -analysis.xls CER $50,000 (13) 0.58 0.71 0.82 0.62 0.68 0.74 0.67 0.68 0.58 0.58 0.65 0.66 0.65 Exhibit VIII Sheet 3 4/20/2012 5:04PM ~ Oxford County Summary of Ultimate Claims and Diagnostics by Accident Year-$100,000 Per Occurrence and Total Limits Total Limits Selected Ultimate Indicated Accident Rptd Claims at Claims at Claim Pure Premium Severi~ Year Jan. 31,2012 $100,000 Limits Total Limits Counts Ex2osures $100,000 Limits Total Limits $100,000 Limits (I) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Automobile Liabili~ ~AB + BI + PD +DC) 2002 3,090 3,152 3,152 I 336 9 9 2003 50,497 51,917 51,917 13 340 !53 153 2004 8,515 8,825 8,825 4 340 26 26 2005 5,132 5,392 5,392 3 347 16 16 2006 925 1,002 1,002 I 366 3 3 2007 9,603 10,924 10,924 3 363 30 30 2008 454,680 151,200 561,481 II 373 405 1,505 2009 389 2010 101,651 189,211 194,387 5 394 480 493 2011 98,313 264,844 277,919 10 405 654 686 Automobile Ph~sical Damas;e ~Collision+ Com2rehensive) 2002 120 120 120 I 336 2003 43,103 43,103 43,103 7 340 2004 32,548 32,548 32,548 6 340 2005 33,037 33,037 33,037 5 347 2006 240 240 240 2 366 2007 35,417 35,417 35,417 5 363 2008 9,230 9,230 9,230 I 373 2009 10,431 10,431 10,431 2 389 2010 9,709 9,709 9,709 I 394 2011 112 118 118 2 405 Column Notes: (2) Based on information provided by the County. Claims data summarized in Exhibit XL (3)-(5) Selected in Exhibit X, Sheet I. 0 0 127 127 96 96 95 95 I I 98 98 25 25 27 27 25 25 0 0 (6) Based on information provided by the County. Exposures are numbers of vehicles. See summary of exposures in Exhibit XII, Sheet I. (7) = [(3) I (6)]. (8)= [(4)1(6)]. (9) = [(3) I (5)]. (10) = [(4) I (5)]. (II)= [(5) I (6)]. Oxford -analysis.xls diagnostics (9) 3,152 3,994 2,206 1,797 1,002 3,641 13,745 36,350 26,582 120 6,158 5,425 6,607 120 7,083 9,230 5,216 9,709 53 Total Limits (10) 3,152 3,994 2,206 1,797 1,002 3,641 51,044 37,345 27,895 120 6,158 5,425 6,607 120 7,083 9,230 5,216 9,709 53 Exhibit IX Sheet I Freguencl:: (II) 0.003 0.038 0.012 0.009 0.003 0.008 0.029 0.013 0.025 0.003 0.021 O.Dl8 0.014 0.005 0.014 0.003 0.005 0.003 0.005 4/20/20!2 5:04PM .,., Oxford County Summary of Ultimate Claims and Diagnostics by Accident Year-$100,000 Per Occurrence and Total Limits Total Limits Selected Ultimate Indicated Accident Rptd Claims at Claims at Claim Pure Premium Severi~ Year Jan. 31,2012 $100,000 Limits Total Limits Counts ExEosures $100,000 Limits Total Limits $100,000 Limits Total Limits (I) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 2002 3,792 3,792 3,792 3 315,647 2003 92,505 92,505 92,505 9 338,849 2004 3,528 3,528 3,528 I 399,707 2005 38,462 38,462 38,462 8 431,822 2006 50,993 50,993 50,993 6 462,256 2007 178,829 178,829 178,829 7 443,595 2008 52,864 52,864 52,864 3 470,741 2009 244,382 143,909 244,382 3 522,651 2010 146,470 146,470 146,470 3 540,597 2011 35,434 38,977 38,977 2 617,110 Column Notes: (2) Based on information provided by the County. Claims data summarized in Exhibit XI. (3)-(5) Selected in Exhibit X, Sheet 3. (7) (8) (9) Pro e 0.01 0.01 1,264 0.27 0.27 10,278 0.01 0.01 3,528 0.09 0.09 4,808 0.11 0.11 8,499 0.40 0.40 25,547 0.11 0.11 17,621 0.28 0.47 47,970 0.27 0.27 48,823 0.06 0.06 18,561 (6) Based on information provided by the County. Exposures are property values in thousands of dollars. See summary of exposures in Exhibit XII, Sheet I. (7) = [(3) I (6)]. (8) = [( 4) I (6)]. (9) = [(3) I (5)]. Oxford -analysis.xls diagnostics (10) 1,264 10,278 3,528 4,808 8,499 25,547 17,621 81,461 48,823 18,561 Freguency (II) 0.010 0.027 0.003 0.019 0.013 0.016 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.003 Exhibit IX Sheet 3 4/20/2012 5:04PM ~ Oxford County Exhibit X Development of Ultimate Claims and Claim Counts-$100,000 Per Occurrence and Total Limits Sheet 2 Total Limits Claims Projected Ultimate Selected Ultimate Jan~ 31, 2012 DevelOJ2ment Factors to Ultimate Paid Claims Re~rted Claims Re12orted Claims Accident #Rptd Paid Reported #Rptd Paid Reported # Rptd $100,000 $!00,000 Total #Rptd $100,000 Total Year Counts Claims Claims Counts Claims Claims Counts Limits Limits Limits Counts Limits Limits (I) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (II) (12) (13) (14) GL -Occurrence 2002 25 1,023,670 1,023,670 1.000 1.140 1.050 25 545,004 525,670 1,075,018 25 525,670 1,075,018 2003 33 729,466 729,466 1.000 1.200 1.070 33 548,114 510,522 780,728 33 510,522 780,728 2004 21 142,002 142,002 1.000 1.282 1.087 21 182,080 154,325 154,325 21 154,325 154,325 2005 27 524,965 524,965 1.000 1.395 l.ll8 27 458,798 407,359 586,904 27 407,359 586,904 2006 28 484,190 1,003,695 1.000 1.584 l.l67 28 572,401 525,333 1,171,153 28 525,333 1,171,153 2007 28 468,238 468,238 1.000 1.920 1.219 28 717,149 534,928 570,946 28 534,928 570,946 2008 43 236,153 814,955 1.000 2.497 1.319 43 552,299 869,217 1,074,612 43 869,217 1,074,612 2009 29 218,206 599,202 1.000 3.688 1.538 29 613,762 694,933 921,524 29 694,933 921,524 2010 27 73,340 550,141 1.000 7.093 2.047 27 381,880 924,111 1,126,013 27 924,111 1,126,013 2011 25 44,728 697,842 1.000 21.869 3.262 25 782,831 1,237,554 2,276,552 25 1,237,554 2,276,552 E&O-Claims-Made 2002 1.000 n/a 1.000 n/a 2003 I 643 643 1.000 n/a 1.005 I n/a 646 646 I 646 646 2004 I 9,657 9,657 1.000 n/a 1.014 I n/a 9,794 9,794 I 9,794 9,794 2005 2 736,860 1,099,590 1.000 n/a 1.029 2 n/a 200,000 1,131,467 2 200,000 1,131,467 2006 2 1,491 1,491 1.000 n/a 1.059 2 n/a 1,578 1,578 2 1,578 1,578 2007 1.000 n/a 1.090 n/a 2008 2 59,739 59,739 1.000 n/a 1.143 2 n/a 68,276 68,276 2 68,276 68,276 2009 I 10,724 17,842 1.000 n/a 1.200 I n/a 21,411 21,411 I 21,411 21,411 2010 I 30,542 99,998 1.000 n/a 1.497 I n/a 100,000 149,671 I 100,000 149,671 2011 I 7,419 29,999 1.000 n/a 2.242 I n/a 67,273 67,273 I 67,273 67,273 See column notes on Exhibit X, Sheet 4. Oxford-analysis.xls ultimate 4/20/2012 5:04PM ~ Oxford County Development of Ultimate Claims and Claim Counts-$100,000 Per Occurrence and Total Limits Column Notes to Exhibit X, Sheets 1 through 3 (2)-(4) Based on claim data provided by the County and summarized in Exhibit XI. (5)-(7) For automobile liability, GLand E&O, based on Ontario insurance industry data from IBC and GISA. For automobile physical damage and property, selectedjudgementally based on the fast reporting and settlement nature of these lines of business. (8) = ((2) X (5)]. (9) = [(3) x (6)]. Adjusted projections so that development factors are not applied to large claims and ultimate claims are limited to $100,000 per occurrence. (10) = [(4) x (7)]. Adjusted projections so that development factors are not applied to large claims and ultimate claims are limited to $100,000 per occurrence. (11)=[(4) x(7)]. (12)-(14) Selected based on review of columns (8) through (II). Oxford-analysis. xis ultimate Exhibit X Sheet 4 4/20/2012 5:04PM .,., Oxford County Exhibit XI Historical Claims Data-Based on Individual Claim Detail as of January 31, 2012 Sheet 2 Claims & ALAE Claims & ALAE Accident # Case Reeorted # Case Reeorted Year Claims Outstanding Paid Total Limits >$100,000 Claims Outstanding Paid Total Limits > $100,000 (I) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (II) GL Bodily Injury GL Proeerty Damage 2002 12 699,327 699,327 444,659 13 324,343 324,343 64,120 2003 21 704,952 704,952 239,333 12 24,514 24,514 2004 12 128,900 128,900 9 13,102 13,102 2005 14 297,018 297,018 29,223 13 227,947 227,947 110,267 2006 14 281,168 397,309 678,477 311,899 14 238,337 86,881 325,218 198,682 2007 15 428,725 428,725 11,549 13 39,513 39,513 2008 28 485,764 221,641 707,405 88,735 15 93,038 14,512 107,550 2009 18 323,920 190,234 514,154 77,382 II 57,076 27,972 85,048 2010 19 307,825 62,383 370,208 8 168,976 10,957 179,933 2011 20 558,472 37,772 596,244 70,099 5 94,642 6,956 101,598 E&O Total GL 2002 25 1,023,670 1,023,670 508,779 2003 I 643 643 34 730,109 730,109 239,333 2004 I 9,657 9,657 22 151,659 151,659 2005 2 362,730 736,860 1,099,590 899,590 29 362,730 1,261,825 1,624,555 1,039,080 2006 2 1,491 1,491 30 519,505 485,681 1,005,186 510,581 2007 28 468,238 468,238 11,549 2008 2 59,739 59,739 45 578,802 295,892 874,694 88,735 2009 I 7,118 10,724 17,842 30 388,114 228,930 617,044 77,382 2010 I 69,456 30,542 99,998 28 546,257 103,882 650,139 2011 I 22,580 7,419 29,999 26 675,694 52,147 727,841 70,099 Property Other (Crime and Boiler and Machine!~) 2002 3 3,792 3,792 2 29,055 29,055 2003 9 92,505 92,505 3 21,965 21,965 2004 l 3,528 3,528 l 3,168 3,168 2005 8 38,462 38,462 2006 6 50,993 50,993 I 5,090 5,090 2007 7 178,829 178,829 2008 3 52,864 52,864 2009 3 244,382 244,382 100,473 2010 3 146,470 146,470 2011 2 34,078 1,356 35,434 Note: Detailed claim data provided by Cowan and OMEX on behalf of the County. Oxford -analysis.xls claim data 4/20/2012 5:04PM .,., Oxford County Exhibit XII Summary of Exposure Data Sheet 2 Calendat Blandford-East Zorra Oxford South-west Yeat Blenheim Tavistock lnj!ersoll Norwich CounD:: Oxford Tillson burl! Woodstock Zorra Total (!) (2) (3) (4) (5) (10) (6) (7) (8) (9) (!!) Total QQerating Exuenditures 2002 3,281,857 2,333,564 9,606,891 4,778,948 88,494,277 3,160,187 9,962,066 17,393,373 5,423,111 144,434,274 2003 3,494,360 2,202,920 10,024,497 5,023,487 86,500,016 3,555,706 10,990,492 19,038,035 5,661,343 146,490,856 2004 3,891,756 2,427,113 10,137,732 5,448,774 I 00,433,227 3,432,185 12,720,209 20,220,024 5,588,722 164,299,742 2005 3,985,710 2,641,683 11,432,139 5,692,604 I 02,850,324 3,900,552 13,179,386 22,890,956 6,196,598 172,769,952 2006 4,161,218 2,777,245 12,078,917 5,979,074 I 06,505,509 3,680,504 14,297,539 24,001,906 6,550,245 180,032,157 2007 4,337,168 2,900,161 13,413,511 6,542,737 115,162,010 4,021,607 13,711,923 24,891,505 6,838,848 191,819,470 2008 4,734,155 3,077,820 13,225,868 6,892,429 122,565,132 4,176,951 14,332,683 29,474,537 6,559,320 205,038,895 2009 5,450,770 3,173,704 13,774,453 7,758,129 141,174,024 6,080,738 15,183,224 30,713,517 7,594,581 230,903,140 2010 5,536,882 3,151,084 14,089,606 7,956,453 148,198,517 6,429,461 15,371,323 30,647,637 6,557,392 237,938,355 2011 5,987,180 3,242,222 14,559,825 8,207,340 141,350,675 5,103,300 14,834,676 31,971,110 6,967,163 232,223,491 2012 6,063,172 3,350,000 15,287,816 8,375,000 144,866,375 5,043,000 15,279,716 32,!!4,624 7,239,538 237,619,242 2013 6,245,067 3,450,000 16,052,207 8,500,000 143,973,070 5,250,000 15,738,108 33,078,603 7,529,119 239,816,174 Number of Emuloyees 2002 16 15 47 121 629 22 208 320 25 1,403 2003 16 15 47 136 702 21 209 336 25 1,507 2004 16 15 47 142 777 20 322 344 25 1,708 2005 16 15 47 129 685 21 2!! 341 25 1,490 2006 16 15 47 130 712 21 228 369 25 1,563 2007 16 15 49 137 699 20 222 363 25 1,546 2008 16 15 70 142 745 20 209 380 25 1,622 2009 17 15 67 144 793 21 199 386 25 1,667 2010 16 15 52 138 793 21 164 385 25 1,609 2011 18 15 52 140 831 21 224 385 25 1,7!! 2012 18 15 50 141 831 21 231 388 25 1,720 2013 18 15 50 142 831 21 231 388 25 1,721 See notes on Exhibit XII, Sheet 3. Oxford -analysis. xis exposure 4/20/2012 5:04PM ~ Oxford County Exhibit XIII Summary of Current Deductibles and Limits Per Occurrence Deductible I Self-Insured Retention Automobile General Errors & Enviromental Member TPL DC-PD All Perils ProEerty Crime Liability Omission Liability Blandford-Blenheim nil nil 5,000 10,000 nil 25,000 5,000 5,000 East Zorra Tavistock nil nil 5,000 10,000 nil 10,000 10,000 10,000 Ingersoll 5,000 nil 5,000 10,000 nil 10,000 10,000 10,000 Norwich nil nil 5,000 5,000 nil 5,000 5,000 5,000 Oxford County 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 nil 25,000 10,000 no coverage South West Oxford 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 nil 10,000 10,000 10,000 Tillsonburg nil nil 10,000 10,000 nil 10,000 10,000 10,000 Woodstock 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 nil 50,000 25,000 25,000 Zorra 5,000 5,000 10,000 10,000 nil 10,000 10,000 10,000 Per Occurrence Limits Aggregate Limit Automobile General Errors & Enviromental Enviromental Member TPL DC-PD All Perils ProEerty Crime Liability Omission Liability Liability Blandford-Blenheim 20,000,000 not applicable 8,810,700 1,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000 2,000,000 4,000,000 East Zorra Tavistock 20,000,000 not applicable 18,833,000 1,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000 2,000,000 4,000,000 Ingersoll 25,000,000 not applicable 33,824,000 1,000,000 25,000,000 25,000,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 Norwich 50,000,000 not applicable 100,000,000 1,000,000 50,000,000 50,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 Oxford County 20,000,000 not applicable 353,518,984 1,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000 no coverage no coverage South West Oxford 15,000,000 not applicable 16,472,000 1,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000 2,000,000 4,000,000 Tillsonburg 20,000,000 not applicable 58,015,200 1,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000 2,000,000 4,000,000 Woodstock 20,000,000 not applicable 111,278,100 1,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 Zorra 20,000,000 not applicable 21,826,700 1,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000 2,000,000 4,000,000 Notes: Provided by the County. Oxford -analysis.xls terms 4/20/2012 5:04PM We look forward to responding to your questions or comments about each Part of the final Actuarial Report including the Executive Summary. Sincerely, ~-~ uf~ Jacqueline Friedland, FCAS, FCIA, MAAA Partner and Actuarial Practice Leader KPMG Canada (416) 777-8320 jfriedland@kpmg. ca TABLE OF CONTENTS British Columbia Captives .......................................................................................................... 18 Captives and Fronting Insurance Companies 19 Captive Regulation 19 Historically, captive insurers have operated in environments with less stringent regulation than that of primary insurers. However, as the U.S. captive market evolved, the extent of captive regulation increased. Captive regulation, which is generally articulated in enabling legislation in a particular domicile, varies tremendously from domicile to domicile. 19 Captive regulation also addresses the issue of where the money has to reside. For some domiciles, there are no restrictions; for others, either the minimum capital or money for ongoing expenses must be held locally or the captive must maintain a letter of credit with a local bank. 20 Captive Operational Considerations 20 Reciprocal Insurance Exchange Role of Capital and Surplus The Self-Funding Continuum Defining Risk Appetite Actuarial Report-Part 1 -Municipal Insurance Program Review-Alternative Risk Financing Options For Oxford County 22 24 26 27 Use and Distribution Each part of the Actuarial Report (including the opinions and conclusions contained within) is provided to the County solely for its internal use as a guide in its determination of the future structure of its risk financing program. It is not intended or necessarily suitable for any other purpose. We understand that copies of each part of the Actuarial Report will be provided to the municipalities comprising the County. We consent to such distribution on two conditions: (1) the County will distribute the parts of Actuarial Report in their entirety including all text and supporting exhibits and appendices rather than any excerpt and (2) the County will inform all recipients that KPMG remains available to answer any questions which may arise regarding the Actuarial Report. The County must advise KPMG in writing and receive KPMG's written permission prior to distributing the Actuarial Report beyond the parties listed above. All third parties agree to keep this report confidential and make no further distribution of this report without the expressed written consent of KPMG. Any use or reliance on any part of the Actuarial Report by any third party is done at their own risk. KPMG will not be liable for the consequences of any third party acting upon or relying upon any information or conclusions contained in our reports. Any further use or distribution of any part of the Actuarial Report and the attached exhibits and appendices are expressly prohibited without KPMG's prior written consent. Identification of KPMG Lead Actuary Jacqueline Friedland leads the municipal insurance program review for the County on behalf of KPMG. Ms. Friedland is a Fellow of the Canadian Institute of Actuaries (FCIA), a Fellow of the Casualty Actuarial Society (FCAS), and a Member of the American Academy of Actuaries (MAAA). Contact details for Ms. Friedland are: Jacqueline B. Friedland Partner and Actuarial Practice Leader, Property and Casualty Actuarial Services KPMG Canada Bay Adelaide Centre 333 Bay Street, Suite 4600 Toronto, ON M5H 2S5 Email: jfriedland@kpmg.ca Tel: 416-777-8320 Fax: 416-777-8818 Preparation of the Actuarial Report The KPMG actuarial team in Toronto, Ontario prepared the municipal insurance program review on behalf of the County. In addition to Jacqueline Friedland, key members of the KPMG actuarial team include Ellie Zhou, Actuarial Analyst; Irene Tao, ACAS, Manager; and Rachel Actuarial Report-Part 1 -Municipal Insurance Program Review-Alternative Risk Financing Options For Oxford County 2 Alternative Risk Financing Options The County requested KPMG to describe alternative risk financing options (also referred to as alternative risk transfer, ART, mechanisms). This section of the Actuarial Report addresses the following alternatives: Funded deductible program with a commercial insurance carrier Formal self-insurance fund or pool Captive insurance -Reciprocal insurance exchange In considering alternative risk financing options, the major decision for the County is whether or not to self-finance (i.e., self-insure) those risks typically covered by P&C insurance. Since the fundamental decision for all four alternatives is whether or not to self-insure, much of Part 1 of the Actuarial Report is dedicated to the topic of self-insurance. We begin with a general description of self-insurance and then present its primary drivers, which include: -Availability and pricing -Cost effectiveness -Tailor-made solutions -Enhanced risk management -Control We also discuss the characteristics conducive to self-insurance and critical success factors for the potential implementation of any type of self-insurance program. In addition, we include a discussion of the disadvantages of self-insurance. Finally, the last portion of this section describes each of the four alternative risk financing mechanisms listed above: funded deductible program, self-insurance fund or pool, captive insurance company, and reciprocal insurance exchange. Actuarial Report-Part 1 -Municipal Insurance Program Review-Alternative Risk Financing Options For Oxford County 4 Availability and Pricing A major motivating factor behind self-insurance is dissatisfaction with existing insurance coverage or costs. When the insurance market cycle hardens, many insureds experience difficulties in obtaining both the insurance coverages and the insurance limits that they require. Generally, long tail coverages, such as general liability (GL) and errors and omissions (E&O) liability, and high-risk exposures and industries, are among the first to face restrictions in the commercial insurance market. Furthermore, the limited coverage that may be available is often offered at unaffordable rates. Thus, one of the primary reasons why organizations consider turning to self-insurance is to take control over its insurance destiny-to be able to ensure the availability over time of adequate insurance coverage at reasonable costs, terms and conditions. There are situations in which the commercial insurance marketplace ignores an organization's favourable loss experience. Thus, the creation of a self-insurance mechanism may provide for savings as the organization's annual contributions will typically reflect its own claims experience instead of the industry's claims experience. Frequently, the best time to consider self-insurance is when the commercial market misperceives the true claims exposure. Cost Effectiveness Reducing long-term costs is a primary driver for self-insurance. There are several factors related to improving cost effectiveness through self-insurance including: reduced insurance company expenses, retention of investment earnings, and retention of underwriting profits. Reduced Insurance Company Expenses. Commercial insurance premiums include estimated claims as well as provisions for broker commissions, marketing costs, underwriting expenses, claims administration, general overhead expenses, and insurance company profit. An organization can significantly reduce, or even completely eliminate, most of these expenses through self-insurance. An actuary, in consultation with the organization, often develops self-insurance costs which include provisions for expected claims and administration expenses (including claims management fees and broker fees for excess coverage). For many self-insurers, there are minimal or no marketing expenses. Furthermore, they can significantly reduce the underwriting, claims management, and overhead expenses from those of commercial insurance companies. Another potential source of cost savings available with some forms of self-insurance (such as captive insurance companies and reciprocal insurance exchanges) is direct access to reinsurers. Direct access may result in a reduction of the costs of transferring higher layers of risk. Through direct interaction with reinsurance companies, the organization often avoids some of the mark-up costs which results in significant savings. Furthermore, the structure of some reinsurance programs may entitle the captive or reciprocal to receive reinsurance commissions. Retention of Investment Earnings The ability to control the investment income is another significant factor in the cost effectiveness of a self-insurance program. Organizations typically pay commercial insurance premiums in Actuarial Report-Part 1 -Municipal insurance Program Review-Alternative Risk Financing Options For Oxford County 6 The tailor-made nature of self-insurance programs can lead to improved loss control efficiency and promote greater awareness of the factors that commonly give rise to claims. A self- insurance program allows for a greater degree of control in determination of appropriate litigation and claims settlement strategies that match the needs of the insured, not the needs of the insurer. An important additional benefit of using a captive insurance company or a reciprocal insurance exchange is the formalization of a self-insurance program. A captive or reciprocal promotes a greater discipline than often executed with other types of self-insurance programs due to the formal requirements for issuing policies, instituting procedures, and compliance with auditor and domicile regulators. Benefits also include sound funding of claims reserves, more accurate claims records, improved accounting for cost of risk, and proper allocation of risk costs to source of risk. (While these benefits are frequently identified specifically for captives and reciprocals, we believe that they are equally applicable to self-insurance funds and pools.) Since the captive insurance company or reciprocal insurance exchange is a separate company with separate accounting records, the success of the risk retention program can be reflected in the profit and loss statements of the captive or reciprocal. Another advantage with self-insurance is the improvement and management of cash flow. A self-insurance program can offer more flexible payment plans for contributions thereby offering a direct cash flow advantage to the organization. As noted previously, the ability of a self- insurance program to generate investment income from claims reserves may be a critical advantage which is particularly important when contributions are paid in advance and claims are paid out over a long period of time. Control The aspect of greater control is evident in the above reasons for creating self-insurance programs but is often cited as an independent benefit. Increased control over costs, investment income, availability of coverage and limits, structure of the insurance program, underwriting standards, risk management programs, and claims and litigation management are all factors in the self-insurance decision making process. For example, with a complex organizational structure, self-insurance can assist in taking advantage of an overall risk management strategy through the issuance of separate coverages to operational entities or members. A self-insurance program also assists in the control of volatility. A commercial insurer's prices vary according to the market cycle and the experience of industry-wide classifications. This pricing often does not accurately reflect differences in individual insureds. Self-insurance can result in the stabilization of premium which is beneficial to an organization's financial planning and control functions. Characteristics Conducive to Self-Insurance A reliable estimate of the expected claims (including all claims-related expenses) is an important component of any self-insurance program's annual costs (e.g., annual contributions to a self- insurance fund or funded deductible or premiums to a captive insurer or reciprocal insurance exchange). Expected claims represent the estimate of the ultimate costs for claims and claims- Actuarial Report-Part 1 -Municipal Insurance Program Review-Alternative Risk Financing Options For Oxford County 8 Excess coverage Competitiveness of commercial market Increased Administrative Responsibilities To ensure sound operations, self-insurance programs require a commitment of time, money, personnel, and management. Many self-insurers rely on the administrative services of independent advisors. Thus, there is a great dependency on the quality and consistency of services from these advisors. The Art of Self-Insurance states: ... a self-insured is responsible for identifying and selecting qualified vendors in the areas of program administration and cost management. Under an insurance program, most of these services are provided on a bundled basis by the insurance company. This includes claims, safety and loss control, actuarial and accounting, risk information, and legal services. Once service firms are selected, ongoing management of their performance is required to ensure the program's long-term success. Also, a self-insured is still subject to some insurance marketing activities in the case of securing excess insurance and security bonds. Underwriting submissions must be prepared and presented to the marketplace. Left unmanaged, the increase in administration could overshadow any potential program savings. Provincial reporting requirements vary based on the type of ART mechanism selected. Reporting requirements are greater for a captive insurance company and a reciprocal insurance exchange than for a self-insurance fund or pool, or for a funded deductible program. We describe these requirements in more detail in the following sections of this Actuarial Report. Variability in Claims It is critical that the self-insured organization recognizes that it is ultimately assuming the risk related to the self-insured claims. If claims exceed expectations, due to either adverse performance or failure of excess insurance partners, the organization and its participants are ultimately responsible for the payment of claims. The assumption of risk is an important differentiator between self-insurance and traditional commercial insurance risk transfer. As a self-funded mechanism, a self-insurer must properly plan and reserve for claims. A lack of planning and accounting could significantly impair the organization's financial position. Self- insurance funds and captive insurers are generally not protected by provincial guarantee or insolvency funds. Pricing of Other Lines of Insurance The Art of Self Insurance raises the issue of the impact of self-insuring some lines of coverage on other lines and other services. Many organizations market their insurance programs on a package basis (i.e., property, automobile, and liability coverages combined). By withdrawing Actuarial Report-Part 1 -Municipal Insurance Program Review-Alternative Risk Financing Options For Oxford County 10 Self-Insurance Alternatives We describe four alternative ART mechanisms for the County's consideration: -Funded deductible program with a commercial insurance carrier Formal self-insurance fund or pool -Captive insurer -Reciprocal insurance exchange For each ART technique, we briefly describe the operations of the program, define key terms, list the categories of costs, and discuss capitalization and regulatory requirements. Actuarial Report-Part 1 -Municipal Insurance Program Review-Alternative Risk Financing Options For Oxford County 12 members of the group. Cooperation, focus, and long-term commitment of the members are important factors in the success of any group program. Group insurance plans require a significant amount of work by the sponsoring organization -for both the establishment of the program and its ongoing maintenance. Therefore, the sponsoring organization and the insurance partner will want to ensure that there truly is a long-term commitment to the group by its members. Actuarial Report-Part 1 -Municipal Insurance Program Review-Alternative Risk Financing Options For Oxford County 14 Captive Insurer Many organizations operating in Canada, the United States, and around the world have selected captive insurance as a means of providing P&C insurance. Captive domiciles exist in British Columbia, the United States, and numerous off shore locations (i.e., Barbados, Bermuda, Grand Cayman, Switzerland, Malta, Dublin, etc.). A captive is a limited purpose, licensed insurance company, the main business purpose of which is to insure or reinsure the risks of the captive's owners. An important characteristic of a captive insurer is that it is owned and controlled by its insured(s). Generally, the captive's owners have direct involvement and influence over the major operations including capitalization, underwriting, claims management, policy form, and investments of the captive. A major distinguishing characteristic between captive insurance and other alternative risk financing mechanisms, such as a self-insurance fund, is that a captive is a licensed insurance company. (This is also true of a reciprocal insurance exchange which is addressed in the next section of this report.) As a licensed insurance company, a captive generally functions like a regular insurer: it issues policies to its policyholders, collects premiums, disburses claim payments, prepares balance sheets and income statements, and complies with the regulatory requirements of the jurisdiction in which it is domiciled. As a licensed insurer, the captive insurer takes risk and must therefore have risk capital to support its contractual obligations as well as to support the risks it assumes. Types of Captives There are numerous ways to classify the many different types of captives operating throughout the world today. We describe the following types of captives: Single owner/parent captive Group captive -Industry captive -Association-owned captive -Agency captive -Segregated portfolio company -Protected cell company -Incorporated cell company -Rent-a-captive -Sponsored captive -British Columbia captives Actuarial Report-Part 1 -Municipal Insurance Program Review-Alternative Risk Financing Options For Oxford County 16 their own captive. Rent-a-captives are also attractive to those that do not want to share in the losses of other captive participants as would be required in a group captive. A sponsored captive, originally authorized by 1999 legislation in Vermont, is an adaptation of the rent-a-captive and protected cell arrangements. The core of a sponsored captive is owned by an insurance company. The sponsor (which must be an insurer, reinsurer, or another captive) prepares the documentation, supplies the start-up capital, and supervises the captive's reporting and management. In a sponsored captive, a protected cell is created by statute for each participant's insurance risk. The contract between the participant and the sponsor determines each participant's rights. Advantages of the sponsored captive are similar to the rent-a-captive and include: Low entry cost More cost effective than single parent due to economies of scale Short time frame to commence operations -Chance to test the captive concept without jumping into captive ownership British Columbia Captives British Columbia is the only province in Canada that has enacted specific captive legislation. The legislation in British Columbia defines three different types of captives: Pure captive or single parent captive: This type of captive insures the risks of its parent, its parent's affiliated corporation, and their officers, directors, employees, agents or independent contractors. -Association captive: Association captives insure the risks of the association's members, its affiliated entities, and their officers, directors, agents or independent contractors. The association's membership may be corporations, societies, cooperatives, unions, partnerships, or individuals. Under the legislation, the association must have been in existence for at least one year prior to the approval of a captive insurance program. -Sophisticated insured captive: This type of captive insures the risks of a group of "sophisticated insureds," their affiliate corporations, or their officers, directors, employees, agents or independent contractors. A sophisticated insured is defined to be an insured whose aggregate annual premiums total at least $500,000 and has some expertise in insurance matters. Each sophisticated insured is required to own a share of the captive insurance company. The majority of British Columbia captives are single parent or pure captives. The captive legislation states that the three types of captives "may undertake only prescribed classes of insurance." According to the Insurance (Captive Company) Act Regulation (including amendment up to B.C. Reg. 129/2010, June 1, 2010): A captive insurance company may carry on any class of insurance within the meaning of the Insurance Act except: a) Surety insurance, other than reinsurance of surety insurance, and Actuarial Report-Part 1 -Municipal Insurance Program Review-Alternative Risk Financing Options For Oxford County 18 A discussion of captive regulation is really a discussion of the choice of captive domicile. Captives have prospered in jurisdictions where laws are favourable to their creation and ongoing operations. Generally, these jurisdictions have the following characteristics in common: Low capitalization requirements, including the allowance of letters of credit as a means to capitalize Less regulation, in terms of rates, forms and coverages Use of generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) versus statutory accounting principles Lower taxes Flexible investment standards Loans back to parent organization permitted when all parties are financially sound Minimal annual fees -Infrastructure of professionals to provide required services Captive domiciles specify minimum capitalization requirements as well as requirements for ongoing underwriting and reserves. Captive legislation generally includes the minimum amounts required to start captive operations and the ongoing solvency ratios required in each domicile. It should be noted that the regulator, in each domicile, will review the business plan and captive proposal submitted to determine the appropriate initial capital requirement; this may be greater than the minimum requirements stipulated by law. In many jurisdictions, there are very few restrictions on the types of investment allowed. While the regulations state that the regulator will review or must approve the investment policy, most domiciles allow flexibility in a captive's investments. Annual financial reporting and audit requirements are also components of captive insurance regulation as are local reporting requirements including management, financial control, and annual meetings. Captive regulation also addresses the issue of where the money has to reside. For some domiciles, there are no restrictions; for others, either the minimum capital or money for ongoing expenses must be held locally or the captive must maintain a letter of credit with a local bank. Captive Operational Considerations Organizations can often treat premiums paid into a captive insurance company as a tax deductible expense, similar to premiums paid to a commercial insurer. The claims reserves carried by the captive are also generally tax deductible. It must be noted that a detailed description of tax issues related to captives is outside the scope of this assignment. There is more regulatory supervision for a captive insurance company than of a self-insurance fund, and less supervision with a captive than for a reciprocal insurance exchange. An advantage of a captive insurance company (also of a reciprocal insurance exchange) is direct access to the wholesale reinsurance market. Finally, the capital and surplus requirements of a captive are reasonable and manageable in most domiciles which would be considered. In addition to the annual registration and license fees, a captive will incur the following types of frictional costs: captive management, legal, auditor, actuary, investment manager, and broker. Captive management services are generally required by a licensed company in the selected Actuarial Report-Part 1 -Municipal Insurance Program Review-Alternative Risk Financing Options For Oxford County 20 Reciprocal Insurance Exchange "The hard market conditions of the early 1980s led various organizations such as municipalities, hospitals, school boards, public utilities, legal associations and community newspapers to seek alternative risk financing programs in order to obtain the insurance coverage they required at a stable, reasonable cost." (The Reciprocal-A MEARIE Publication for Insurance Members, Spring Edition 2006). These organizations were successful in creating reciprocal insurance exchanges to meet their insurance needs. A reciprocal insurance exchange is an insurance market of reciprocal agreements of indemnity or insurance among persons known as subscribers. The exchange is effected through an attorney-in-fact common to all persons. Subscribers agree to become liable for their share of claims and expenses incurred among all subscribers and authorize the attorney-in-fact to exchange insurance with other subscribers, pay claims, invest premiums, recruit new members, underwrite business, receive premiums, and effect contracts of reinsurance. Reciprocal insurance exchanges are not-for-profit organizations. There are several reciprocal insurance exchanges in Canada providing P&C insurance coverages to municipalities. These are established based on requirements of provincial Insurance Acts. The acts deal with licensing, permissible classes of business, premium and reserve requirements, and guarantee fund obligations. Most reciprocals in Canada utilize the services of an actuary to assist in the determination of both premiums and reserves. The actuary establishes premium and reserve estimates that reflect the unique coverage and limits of the reciprocal. To the extent possible, the actuary would incorporate the historical experience of the reciprocal's subscribers in his or her analysis. When necessary, the actuary would also incorporate insurance industry experience in the analysis. Reciprocals are similar to captives in that there is direct access to the wholesale reinsurance market and capital and surplus requirements are generally manageable. The tax free status of a reciprocal allows investment income to accrue directly to participants to help pay claims. While there may be no minimum capital or surplus requirement cited in the provincial Insurance Act, we strongly recommend, that the capital and surplus requirements for any proposed reciprocal be based on an analysis of the risks insured. (See previous comments regarding capitalization for a captive insurance company; similar comments apply for a reciprocal insurance exchange.) Regulatory and financial reporting requirements tend to be greater for reciprocal insurance exchanges than for the other three options described in this report. For example, the Ontario Insurance Act considers reciprocal insurance exchanges as insurance companies and as such, they must comply with the insurance reporting requirements specified in the Insurance Act. This includes the filing of annual audited financial statements and an actuarial statement of opinion regarding policy liabilities (i.e., claim liabilities and premium liabilities). Actuarial Report-Part 1 -Municipal Insurance Program Review-Alternative Risk Financing Options For Oxford County 22 Role of Capital and Surplus Capital and surplus (hereafter referred to as surplus) is important in the management of self- insurance funds or pools, captive insurers, and reciprocal insurance exchanges. While surplus is not a regulatory requirement of self-insurance funds as it is for captive insurers and reciprocal insurance exchanges, it is nevertheless good practice to have adequate surplus. To determine what is "adequate" surplus, it is important to understand the purpose of surplus and how to set a target for an "adequate" financial condition. Canadian actuarial Standards of Practice as promulgated by the Actuarial Standards Board define financial condition and financial position. Financial condition of an entity at a date is its prospective ability at that date to meet its future obligations, especially obligations to policy owners, members, and those to whom it owes benefits. Financial condition is sometimes called "future financial condition". Financial position of an entity at a date is its financial state as reflected by the amount, nature, and composition of its assets, liabilities, and equity at that date. The purpose of surplus for any ART mechanism is to ensure that the program has sufficient resources to provide for the cost associated with unexpected claims. An adequate financial condition provides the program with a level of safety and financial soundness so that it is not vulnerable to adverse business and economic conditions. The amount of surplus that is defined as "adequate" depends to a great extent on the sponsoring organization's own risk profile and its risk appetite, as well as the possible negative impacts to its financial position from the material and relevant business risks to which it is exposed. An adequate financial condition provides additional capacity (i.e., funding) so that the ART mechanism can absorb unexpected losses. A target for surplus should take into account the current and forecasted business environments and should, as the result of surplus adequacy planning, be adjusted on a timely basis by management (in consultation with any participants, depending on the type of ART mechanism) to ensure surplus adequacy under stress scenarios and through entire business cycles. When considering the appropriateness of surplus for an ART mechanism, it is valuable to review guidelines for commercial insurance companies. According to Guideline A-4-Internal Target Capital Ratio for Insurance Companies (Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Canada, OSFI, June 2011): An insurer's capital planning process should be forward-looking and incorporate rigorous stress testing and scenarios that identify possible events or changes in market conditions that could adversely impact the insurer. Stress testing is a risk management technique used to evaluate the potential effects of a set of specified changes in risk factors, corresponding to exceptional but plausible events. When Actuarial Report-Part 1 -Municipal Insurance Program Review-Alternative Risk Financing Options For Oxford County 24 The Self-Funding Continuum We can consider the alternatives presented in this Actuarial Report as options along a self- funding continuum. The funded deductible program, which is at one end of the continuum because it has the greatest involvement from the insurance market, may be the quickest option to implement, and may have the lowest level of self-funding of all the alternatives. Captive insurance and reciprocal insurance exchanges are at the other end of the continuum as they represent a true entry into the insurance business with companies subject to the financial reporting and regulatory reporting requirements of the Provinces in which they are domiciled. We would position self-insurance funds between these two ends of the continuum. As we have noted several times in this Actuarial Report, a long term commitment is critical to the success of any self-funded program. Nevertheless, it is reasonable that a program established by any organization may move along the continuum over time. An organization may start with a funded deductible or other type of group purchasing plan and then after several years move to a more formal self-insurance fund or pool. Alternatively, an organization may establish a self-insurance fund and then after a number of years decide to formalize the program in a reciprocal insurance exchange. The most important decision is not necessarily which of the alternative risk financing mechanisms is best for the long-term, but rather to evaluate the reasonableness for the organization to move away from a guaranteed cost, complete risk transfer program to a program which incorporates a degree of self-funding for potential claims. Actuarial Report-Part 1 -Municipal Insurance Program Review-Alternative Risk Financing Options For Oxford County 26 environment of tremendous economic growth will likely have a more significant risk appetite than one with a shrinking economy. 6. Is inclusive of a tolerance for loss or negative events that can be reasonably quantified. This links to the third characteristic, acknowledges a willingness and capacity to take on risk. A risk appetite is not the amount that you just found out you have to pay for a claim because of an exclusion in insurance coverage. The risk appetite is the strategically-determined decision after careful thought and analysis including a review of expected losses (when quantifiable) at alternative retentions. 7. Is periodically reviewed and reconsidered with reference to evolving industry and market conditions. As the organization evolves and market conditions change, the risk appetite decision should be reevaluated. 8. Has been approved by leadership. Again, we emphasize that decisions regarding risk appetite are not for the organization's risk manager on his or her own. They are key operational decisions that should involve leadership of the organization. Once an organization's risk appetite is defined, the challenge is to implement a robust governance and reporting framework that ensures day-to-day decisions are made in line with the organization's risk appetite. As an Appendix to this report, we attach a copy of a KPMG Advisory paper titled "Understanding and articulating risk appetite" that explores this topic further. Actuarial Report-Part 1 -Municipal Insurance Program Review-Alternative Risk Financing Options For Oxford County 28 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Identification of Organization, Scope of Actuarial Analysis Use and Distribution Identification of KPMG Lead Actuary Preparation of the Actuarial Report Organization of the Actuarial Report Confidentiality of Actuarial Report Current Program 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 4 OMEX 6 General Background Information 6 Information Sources 6 Summary of Interview with OMEX Leadership 7 OMEX Management Structure ..................................................................................................... 7 What do you see as advantages of OMEX vs. other commercial insurance programs vs. other alternative risk financing options? ................................................................................................ 7 OMEX Compared to Traditional Commercial Insurance Programs .......................................... 7 OMEX Compared to a Self-Insurance Pool .............................................................................. 8 Are mid-size or smaller townships best suited for participation in OMEX? .................................. 9 Are counties allowed to participate in OMEX? ............................................................................. 9 Is there any ability to segregate a group of municipalities from others' experience within OMEX? ........................................................................................................................................ 9 Do large municipalities tend to have better or worse claims experience? If so, how is this reflected in annual premiums for the various subscribers? ....................................................... 1 0 What has your recent experience been with respect to rate changes, changes in coverage wording, changes in deductibles, and changes in limits? .......................................................... 10 How do OMEX services differ from those of an experienced broker in the public entity sector?11 Is coverage for social housing included? ................................................................................... 11 Please describe partnership with Marsh Canada and Checkpoint Ontario program ................. 11 What role does the Appointed Actuary play with the reciprocal and for the subscribers of the reciprocal? ................................................................................................................................. 12 What is the cost of accessing OMEX's risk manager? .............................................................. 12 What is the cost of OMEX risk education programs? ................................................................ 12 Please describe how best practices are shared and with what frequency ................................. 12 Traditional advantages of self-insurance include availability and pricing, cost effectiveness, tailor-made solutions, enhanced risk management, and control. Are these still relevant for OMEX? Please explain .............................................................................................................. 12 Traditional disadvantages of self-insurance include increased administrative responsibilities, variability in losses, pricing of other lines of business, capitalization requirements, excess coverage, and competitiveness of market. Are these still relevant for OMEX? Please explain. 13 What is the initial commitment in terms of number of years? .................................................... 13 What is the initial commitment in terms of cost? ........................................................................ 14 Please explain the process for withdrawal, including any costs of withdrawal. ......................... 14 Actuarial Report-Part 3-Review of Current Program and OMEX For Oxford County Introduction Identification of Organization, Scope of Actuarial Analysis The County of Oxford, a two tiered municipal corporation, governed by a ten-member council of elected officials (Mayor of the City of Woodstock, and the Mayors of the Towns of Ingersoll and Tillsonburg, and the Mayors of the Township of Blandford-Blenheim, Township of East Zorra- Tavistock, Township of Norwich, Township of South-West Oxford, and Township of Zorra, plus two Councillors from the City of Woodstock) requested KPMG LLP (KPMG) to conduct a municipal insurance program review. In this Actuarial Report, "the County" refers to the County of Oxford and all the cities and towns within its council. The County is exploring risk financing and risk management options for its property and casualty (P&C) insurance risks. Specifically, the County requested KPMG to conduct a review of: Existing insurance programs Traditional insurance market Ontario Municipal Insurance Exchange (OMEX) Other available insurance programs Self-insurance pooling Other creative risk financing alternatives The County also requested KPMG to prepare a feasibility study report for a self-insurance pooling program. To address the County's requirements, we prepare our Actuarial Report in four parts. Part 1 addresses alternative risk financing options including an extensive discussion of self-insurance. Part 2 presents a summary of the County's current commercial P&C insurance programs with Frank Cowan and OMEX including a more in depth description of OMEX's operations. Part 3 presents the results of our actuarial feasibility analysis for a self-insurance pooling program for the County. The Executive Summary consolidates key issues and considerations from the three parts to assist the County in its deliberations regarding the future structure of its P&C risk financing program. Each part of the Actuarial Report is prepared to provide detailed documentation of the findings, processes, methodology, and assumptions underlying the municipal insurance program review for the County. An important purpose of the Actuarial Report is to give the County a comprehensive report documenting our work in conducting the municipal insurance program review. The Actuarial Report is intended for use by the County management. We understand that the Actuarial Report will be read by parties who are not actuaries but are knowledgeable about insurance. We strive to produce a readily understandable presentation in both the text description and the accompanying exhibits. Actuarial Report -Part 3-Review of Current Program and OMEX For Oxford County Preparation of the Actuarial Report The KPMG actuarial team in Toronto, Ontario prepared the municipal insurance program review on behalf of the County. In addition to Jacqueline Friedland, key members of the KPMG actuarial team include Ellie Zhou, Actuarial Analyst; Irene Tao, ACAS, Manager; and Rachel Dutil FCAS, FCIA, Senior Manager. Ms. Friedland was actively involved in all aspects of the review and is responsible for all selections of methodologies, key assumptions, and findings; she also prepared this written report documenting the analysis. Each part of the Actuarial Report is presented in the first person plural and represents the efforts of all who contributed to the review. Organization of the Actuarial Report Part 2 of the Actuarial Report is organized in the following five sections: detailed table of contents, introduction, current program, OMEX, and other commercial insurance options. Part 1 of the Actuarial Report contains an extensive description of self-insurance and specifically describes the reciprocal insurance exchange as one of the potential alternative risk financing options. In Part 2 of the Actuarial Report, we do not repeat the material contained in Part 1. We assume that the users of Part 2 have reviewed Part 1 of the Actuarial Report in depth as the discussions in Part 1 are critical to understanding the key differences between commercial insurance and a reciprocal insurance exchange. Confidentiality of Actuarial Report This Actuarial Report provides comprehensive information about the operations of the County with respect to its current insurance programs. Details are provided to adequately document our work, and ultimately to facilitate the work of the County management in carrying out their duties. All of the information in the Actuarial Report, except that information which is also publicly available from the County, is to be considered strictly confidential. Because of the nature of the material contained in the Actuarial Report, it is not intended to be subject to any disclosure requirements under any Freedom of Information Acts. Actuarial Report -Part 3-Review of Current Program and OMEX For Oxford County 3 In addition to the coverages listed above, the Town of Tillsonburg carries a Canadian airports' liability insurance policy, which is arranged through Aon Reed Stenhouse, Inc. The following three insurers provide this coverage for Tillonburg: Lloyd's Underwriters under agreement no. AD1100101 -Underwriters at Lloyd's per Catlin Canada Inc. -Allianz Global Risks US Company Limited The Township of Norwich is currently a subscriber to OMEX. At the request of the County, OMEX provided copies of its standard policy wording for the purpose of our review. We summarize the coverages currently offered by OMEX in the following table. OMEX Policy Types General liability (Gl) E&O (claims-made form) Non-owned automobile Ell (claims-made form) Crime Councillors' accident Boiler & Machinery (B&M) Automobile Property including: -Business interruption -Data processing equipment In Part 3 of our Actuarial Report, the feasibility analysis for a self-insurance pooling program, we created a summary of current limits and deductibles selected by the County and each municipality for the primary coverages (i.e., general liability, E&O, Ell, automobile, and property). We reproduce this summary exhibit in Part 2 of the Actuarial Report. (See Exhibit A.) We note that in addition to the deductibles and limits summarized in Exhibit A, there are numerous other limits and deductibles that are specified for various sub-coverages. Actuarial Report -Part 3 -Review of Current Program and OMEX For Oxford County 5 According to OM EX's 2010 Annual Report, their first objective for 2011 was member retention and new growth. It is important that the County evaluate the information provided by OMEX in light of OM EX's interest in expanding its number of subscribers. This does not invalidate the following information, but it must be read in context. This warning similarly applies to information that would likely be provided by a commercial insurance alternative, such as Frank Cowan, who would be seeking to retain existing insureds and further expand its service offerings to the County. Summary of Interview with OMEX Leadership OMEX Management Structure At the outset of our conversation, Linda described the management of OMEX and the services provided by each member of its senior management team. OMEX also provided an organization chart summarizing the lines of communication and services that would be available to the County as a subscriber to OMEX. We include this organizational chart as Exhibit B of this report. What do you see as advantages of OMEX vs. other commercial insurance programs vs. other alternative risk financing options? OMEX's representatives responded to this question in two parts. First, they commented on the advantages offered by OMEX relative to traditional commercial insurance programs; and second they noted advantages of participation in OMEX relative to the creation of an independent alternative risk financing mechanism, such as a regional self-insurance pool. OMEX Compared to Traditional Commercia/Insurance Programs Linda commented on how being a member-owned organization promotes a greater voice by the insureds (i.e., the member municipalities1) in the decision-making of OMEX. Since there are no intermediaries, OMEX is able to avoid extra steps and layers of communications. Linda believes that this helps avoid misinterpretation. Linda spoke about the strong governance which includes a member-elected board of directors. Since OM EX's board members are senior staff of the municipalities, there is strong communication, transparency, and accountability. These are achieved through activities such as the Annual General Meeting, the Annual Member Financial Statement, and the Annual Report. The sole focus of OMEX is on municipal insurance, which includes claims management and risk management for municipalities. Linda stated that since municipalities are the only thing OMEX does, they are "myopic." She believes that this myopic view benefits OMEX subscribers as they get "unclouded" municipal recommendations including broad policy wordings that are tailored to a municipality's needs. She cited the example of occurrence-basis sewer backup coverage 1 OMEX has both municipality and county members. All references to municipalities in this section of the Actuarial Report include both municipalities and counties. Actuarial Report -Part 3-Review of Current Program and OMEX For Oxford County 7 In its 2010 Annual Report, OMEX lists the following advantages of membership-based insurance: Greater control Municipality focused insurance Dependable insurance and coverage Costs savings over the long term Municipal expertise A proven alternative We note that there are similarities between the above list and the reasons why an organization would consider self-insurance, as described in Part 1 of our Actuarial Report. In Part 1, we present the following primary drivers for organizations considering alternative risk financing options: -Availability and pricing -Cost effectiveness -Tailor-made solutions Enhanced risk management -Control Are mid-size or smaller townships best suited for participation in OMEX? John and Linda replied that OMEX is suited to all sizes of municipalities and that they provide different, tailored levels of services to their different size organizations. They spoke about the risk management services provided by Shannon Devane, Director of Risk. For small municipalities, OMEX can act as the sole source of risk management services. Shannon can supply the same type of services provided by an on-site risk manager for some of the smaller subscribers to OMEX-essentially a "rent a risk manager" but without any additional associated fees. The services Shannon offers to the smaller municipalities are different than those provided to larger organizations, since the larger municipalities typically come forward with more sophisticated issues. Are counties allowed to participate in OMEX? Counties are allowed to participate in OMEX. Is there any ability to segregate a group of municipalities from others' experience within OMEX? Within the current OMEX structure, it is not possible to segregate the experience of a group of municipalities from other subscribers. Linda commented that OMEX had tried segregation of experience in the past and it was not successful. One of the advantages of participating in OMEX, according to Linda, is the spread of risk. If groups of municipalities are segregated, then the spread of risk is greatly reduced. Issues with reinsurance also can arise. OMEX believes that it is much better for the group as a whole to act as one large cooperative. Actuarial Report -Part 3-Review of Current Program and OMEX For Oxford County 9 Finally, with respect to limits, they commented that policy limits have remained very consistent in recent years. How do OMEX services differ from those of an experienced broker in the public entity sector? John and Linda spoke about the strong team of insurance professionals at OMEX. All members of the leadership team have been in the business a long time. They emphasized that they are not a broker-driven company but instead a direct writer that is focused and personalized. Since they only deal with municipalities, they believe that they understand municipalities better than any one broker ever could. They cited examples such as their understanding of the relevant legislation as well as the dynamics of elected municipal councils. OMEX hosts Board meetings four times a year with senior municipal bureaucrats. They believe that they are always aware of the pressures municipalities face. Since they only deal with their own subscribers, who are only municipalities, they believe that they are not fragmented by having to respond to different types of risk and different types of programs. Linda commented that the OMEX team works well as both generalists and specialists. They are able to readily backstop for each other and provide support for each other. Subscribers don't have to wait while someone is on holiday, as there is always someone from the leadership team available to provide the required service to OMEX subscribers. Linda commented that OMEX has established many contacts within the insurance brokerage communities and is able to reach out to these contacts as needed to help provide further services to their subscribers. She cited examples of environmental, construction, and surety. She concluded that OMEX is not operating in isolation but readily seeks out additional expertise externally whenever needed. Is coverage for social housing included? Coverage for social housing is not included in the OMEX program. However, Linda responded that they are able to use their relationships to assist subscribers in securing the necessary coverage. Please describe partnership with Marsh Canada and Checkpoint Ontario program. The program includes a municipal risk management resource website that is available to all OMEX members. According to OMEX's web site, Marsh Canada: ... provide[s] expertise to OMEX in areas such as loss control, engineering, policy and coverage issues and large loss settlements, as well as providing access to the traditional insurance markets. OMEX works in partnership with Marsh Risk Consulting to provide site evaluation services utilizing Marsh's proprietary risk control software TrendTracker. Actuarial Report -Part 3-Review of Current Program and OMEX For Oxford County 11 investment income accrues to the benefit of subscribers with no income tax. They believe that tax-free status should be added to the traditional list of advantages of self-insurance. Traditional disadvantages of self-insurance include increased administrative responsibilities. variability in losses. pricing of other lines of business. capitalization requirements. excess coverage, and competitiveness of market. Are these still relevant for OMEX? Please explain. For this question, OMEX responded as follows: As with self-insurance, OMEX members share the administrative costs of the reciprocal and we have worked over the past 20 years to build an efficient administrative infrastructure. The variability in losses is controlled by the purchase of reinsurance which caps the financial exposure to the group. With respect to lines of business, over OM EX's history, we have gradually moved additional lines of coverage into the reciprocal so that we now offer a broad, comprehensive municipal program and have more control over coverage and pricing. Initial capitalization requirements are not an issue for OMEX as we are a long-standing municipal insurer; however, OMEX as a reciprocal has certain regulatory surplus requirements which we monitor and maintain on an ongoing basis. OMEX's limits are sufficiently high that we not aware of any OMEX members who purchase excess coverage. With respect to market competition, as with self-insurance, the reciprocal looks to a more stable, long-term approach to insurance. While this does not capture the competitive soft-market conditions, it protects against the high cost of a hard market and provides for lower costs over time. What is the initial commitment in terms of number of years? OMEX views membership as a long term commitment to a philosophy and a method of sharing risk. According to John and Linda, membership in OMEX is continuous. However, they noted that there is a notice requirement in the reciprocal agreement which permits for leaving OMEX. According to Linda and John, the OMEX notice requirement is less strict than what is typically found in other reciprocals. We note that underwriting period is a defined term in the reciprocal agreement: Underwriting Period means a period of one (1) Year commencing one minute after midnight on January 1 of the then current Year and terminating one minute after midnight on January 1 of the following Year for any Underwriting Group with respect to which the Subscribers in such Underwriting Group share their associated underwriting responsibilities in common as determined by the Board of Directors from time to time. Actuarial Report -Part 3-Review of Current Program and OMEX For Oxford County 13 OTHER COMMERCIAL INSURANCE OPTIONS We contacted numerous other commercial insurers requesting that they share their standard policies for public entities as well as information about their preferred deductible and limit options. Several organizations responded that they are not interested in the municipal sector at this time and others mentioned that they currently participate in the Frank Cowan program. We only heard from one insurer with interest in this sector. Thus, we are unable to provide sufficient information about the current options that would be available through commercial insurance markets for the County. It is important for the County to recognize that KPMG is not an insurance broker and, as a result, we do not offer insurance placement services. Thus, simply because our personal contacts, primarily with senior actuaries, at a number of commercial insurance companies did not indicate interest in the public sector, the County would need to seek such market information through the services of a professional insurance broker. Actuarial Report -Part 3-Review of Current Program and OMEX For Oxford County 15 TOWN OF TILLSONBURG DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA DATE: Friday, March 16,2012 TIME: 8AM LOCATION: Boardroom, Customer Service Centre (10 Lisgar Ave) 1. Adoption of Agenda Moved by: H Spanjers Seconded by: P. Csanyi "That the agenda as circulated be approved" "Carried" 2. Adoption of Minutes Moved by: R. Thornton Seconded by: H Spanjers "That the minutes of March 2, 2012 meeting be approved" "Carried" CORPORATE OFFICE 200 Broadway, Tillsonburg, Ontario, N4G 5A7, Telephone# (519) 842-6428, Fax# (519) 842-9431 Web: www.tillsonburg.ca MINUTES Town. of;rillsonburg Meeting for the Committee "Community Services Advisory Board" Oil WednesdayApril18, 2012>3:00 PM Orders of the Day: Town·of Till~on'bUrg:c)ffices Chair: Chri$· Vanlandschoot Call to Order Adoption,ofAgenda . Adoption of Minutes · .. Delegati<»n8 Conflict of Interest $1.1Siness ansing out of the minutes Reports . · Communications Other Business Adjournment Attendance: Donna Burditt, Rayburn Lansdell, Chris Vanlandschoot, Jodi Aspden, Barb MacKinnon, Jack McCormick, Abbie Boesterd Regrets: Chris Rosehart, CALL TO ORDER-By Chris Vanlandschoot at 3:00 pm 1. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Moved by Barb MacKinnon Seconded by Abbie Boesterd AND RESOLVED THAT the agenda of April 18, 2012 be adopted as amended "Carried" 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Rayburn Lansdell Seconded by Barb MacKinnon AND RESOLVED THAT the minutes be adopted of February 29, 2012 "Carried" 3. DELEGATIONS None 4. CONFLICT OF INTEREST None PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Tuesday. May 8. 2012 MINUTES Present Scott McLean, Chair Marty Klein, Councilor Brad LeMaich, Vice Chair Jim Livermore Donald Baxter Bob McCormick Catherine Burke Donna Scanlan Janet McCurdy, Acting Director of Community Service/Community Centre/Program Manager Guests: Becky T , Brad Slade 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA & MINUTES MOTION to accept the agenda as distributed. Moved B. McCormick, and seconded by B. LeMaich. CARRIED. MOTION to accept the minutes of March 6, 2012 as distributed. Moved by D. Baxter, and seconded by B. McCormick. 2. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST None declared. 3. NEW BUSINESS 3.1 Resignation -Tamara Bull, for personal reasons. 3.2 Ice Allocation -presented by Becky Turrill (Customer Service Rep) and Brad Slade (Program Coordinator) • Staff were requested to determine the top five Parks and Recreation priorities from the Strategic Master Plan and share them with the committee at the next meeting • Further discussion on this topic was tabled until our next meeting, which is scheduled for June sth, at which time the committee will meet to review/endorse the top five priorities. 6. CORRESPONDENCE None 7. INFORMATION ITEMS 7.1 Playworks • Playworks, a subcommittee of this committee is working toward accreditation as a community that is "Youth Friendly" • Committee members are currently working on gathering information for the purpose of meeting specific criteria, as outlined in the accreditation process. • Two students, from this committee will present an update to council in the near future 8. ADJOURNAMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:23 p.m. Next Meeting: Tuesday, June 5, 2012 @ 6:30 p.m. TACAC COMMITTEE MINUTES May 1 2012 9.00 A.M. Annex Room Corporate Office Attendance-J. Armstrong Chair Regrets W.D. Jarvis Secretary R. Marsden J. Wilkinson A. Zimmer-Deputy Clerk S. Bray D. Peirce Call to order-J. Armstrong called the meeting to order. Adoption of Agenda Moved By J. Wilkinson/R. Marsden/ Carried. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest-None declared Approval of Minutes of April3 2012-Moved by W.D. Jarvis/ J. Wilkinson /Carried Business Arising 1. Walking Tour-To be decided at the June meeting. 2. Repairs to Cemetery-R. Marsden reported that repairs to the cemetery are progressing well. 3. Arc Meeting will be held at South Ridge School May 3oth at 6:30P.M. 4. Sorting Of materials-J. Wilkinson and D Peirce are continuing to sort materials and they will report at a later date. 5. Community Trust-This Committee has not been put in place due to lack of applicants to serve. Accessibility Advisory Committee Minutes from the meeting of April 30, 2012 In Attendance: Donna Wilson, Councillor Getty, Mike Cerna, Michael Kadey, Helen Lamas-Parker, Amber Zimmer 1) Meeting called to order by Donna Wilson at 3:00 2)ApprovalofAgenda Moved by: Mike Cerna Seconded by: Michael Kadey Resolve that the agenda for the meeting of April 30, 2012 be adopted. "Carried" 3) Adoption of Minutes from previous meeting Moved by: Helen Lamas-Parker Seconded by: Michael Kadey Resolve that the minutes of February 28, 2012be approved. "Carried" 4) Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest: none were disclosed 5) Site Reviews-identification of priority items • Committee reviewed the list and identified key locations that should have priority focus. • Decided to pass list on to senior management for further assessment. 6) "Award for Accessibility Excellence" Discussed possible ways to promote accessibility in businesses within Tillson burg • "How Does Your Business Measure Up?" Campaign in Focus on Tillsonburg • Making a presentation to Chamber of Commerce • Letting businesses know that the Committee will come out to their business and review their accessibility standards 7) Browsealoud Presentation -Amber Amber presented the BrowseAioud program now on the Town's website and taught the committee how to use the accessible program to access the Town website. 8) Helen Lamos-Parker -Report Discussed what she said on the On Focus Tillson burg program about BrowseAioud. 9) Round Table Michael inquired about the curb at the Livingston Centre. -Donna and Amber will follow up in ACR. Mike inquired about accessible parking spaces downstairs. -Donna will follow up with mall. TILLSONBURG BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA BOARD OF MANAGEMENT Minutes Carriage Hall, Tilllsonburg Tuesday May 15, 2012 -7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair, J. Kirkland at 7:00p.m. Present: J. Kirkland, V. Armstrong, C. Lamers, T. Pond, J. Mcintyre, C. Tomico, M. Renaud, Colleen Pepper Regrets: J. Lessif, B. McKay, K. Coulter, K. West, C. Panshow, D. Sinden, C. Jezovnik 2. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST OF THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF-none 3. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Moved J. Mcintyre Seconded by C. Tomico AND RESOLVED THAT THE AGENDA OF May 15, 2012 be adopted as written. "Carried" 4. Delegations -none 5. MINUTES & BUSINESS ARISING OUT OF THE MINUTES Minutes of the Board of Management meeting held on March 26, 2012. Moved by C. Tomico Seconded by C. Lamers AND RESOLVED THAT THE MINUTES OF March 26, 2012 be adopted as written. "Carried" 6. OTHER BUSINESS J. Kirkland opened the meeting with a welcome to Terry Pond. Terry's application to sit on the BIA Executive Board was approved by Tillson burg Town Council on Monday May 14, 2012. Terry has put his name forward to be the BIA Treasurer. No other names have come forward. Additionally, J. Kirkland extended a welcome to Town representative Colleen Pepper. C. Panschow explained that Colleen will eventually take his place at the BIA meetings. He will tender his resignation at a later date. minute) and double what we purchased (one 10 minute segment). The bonus is that it will be aired across Canada and we could receive up to 40 airings, which would be 4 times our original purchase of 10 minutes. This makes a lot of sense as there were some "slow" parts to what was taped and, in addition to this, they are committing to airing it nationally across Canada at least 20 times and possibly up to 40 times!! Please respond to this email and let me know if you are ok with this proposal. If you could respond by end of business Monday, May 14, it would be appreciated. Thanks and have a great weekend, Cephas PS. If you have any comments on what you would or would not like to be aired, please provide a description or the time spot on your particular video for that item. All were in favour of the extra promotional coverage. V. Armstrong reported that the Annual General Meeting will be held on Wednesday May 30, 2012 at the Carriage Hall. Invitations have been mailed to members. V. Armstrong asked if the Board members should receive their tickets in lieu of their volunteer time. Round table discussions ensued and the following motion was made. Moved by C. Tomico Seconded by C. Lamers AND RESOLVED THAT IN recognition of the Volunteer efforts made by the BIA Board members each individual will receive one (1) complimentary AGM ticket for that year on the Board. "Carried" c) AGM-V. Armstrong AGM Wednesday May 30, 2012-5:30Registration, 6:30 Dinner, 7:30 Meeting Guest Speaker: Kim DeKiein, OMAFRA Flowers for tables being donated for the evening by Nancy Neukamm, Flower Fountain. The meal and hall have been booked. Invites have been sent. Guest speaker booked. J. Kirkland reported that D. Kiesler will not be there, but will send a replacement to do the Financial report. d) Beautification Report-M. Renaud M. Renaud presented a full Beautifications report to the Board. As attached. M. Renaud presented outdoor sample lights that he received from a distributor. He will be setting up some of the trees with these lights as a trial for all to view and decide on new tree lighting for the future Bike Racks -V. Armstrong reported that she met with K. Batt and R. Vince for bike rack locates. They will be installed this week. Recycling Containers-V. Armstrong met with K. Batt. K. Batt suggested brushed stainless for the lettering on the front of the containers. V. Armstrong Entrepreneur of the Year Award presented to Chrissy's Catering; owners are Marcel & Laurie Rose hart Community Service Award presented to Marwood Metal Fabrication Ltd.; owner and President, Chris Wood Economic Development New Investment Award presented to I.M.A. Ltd.; owner and President, Jim Calvert Environmental Award presented to Verne's Carpet One Floor & Home; owners John and Anne Kirkland Employer of the Year Award presented to Allen Professional Search/The People Bank; Karen Baird, Branch Manager, Steve Jones, Vice President 7. TREASURER'S REPORT V. Armstrong reported that new cheques had been ordered and received. The Treasurer's Report was presented by T. Pond. The Accounts payable for March were submitted to the Committee for approval of payment. March 2012 They included, Bell Canada-31.40, V. Armstrong, Ex. Director and Expenses-3109.76, & 213.12, London Chamber of Commerce (diStrictly Business Trade Show) -254.25, Open Air Projections Inc. (Movie deposit for Turtlefest)-750.00,Tourism Oxford-197.75, Business Account Service Fees: 0 Total Expenses and Fees to April 30, 2012 to be completed for next meeting. (Note: change of signing authority and new Treausurer) Moved by C. Lamers Seconded by J. Mcintyre AND RESOLVED THAT THE payables be paid for March 2012. "Carried" 8. ROUNDTABLE J. Kirkland-announced that he may step down as Chair of the BIA if the Heritage Lighting project becomes a reality. This will enable him to focus on that project. C. Panschow-the new airport sign will be unveiled next Tuesday May 22, 2012 at 3 p.m. on Airport Road. All are invited to attend. Please RSVP to Annette Murray at the airport. DATE OF NEXT MEETING and ADJOURNMENT Annandale National Historic Site Advisory Committee Minutes of Meeting-Thursday, March 29,2012-3:00 pm Meeting to Order: at 3:00pm with the ti.lllowing in attendance: Bob Marsden, Donna Peirce, Mary Lou Sergeant, Patty Phelps, Dianne MacKeigan Regrets: Stan Windsor Approval of the Agenda: Moved by Donna, seconded by Mary Lou Carried Minutes and Business Arising from Minutes- Minutes amended to remove the last sentence in #I under business. Moved by Donna, seconded by Mary Lou to adopt the minutes as amended. Carried I l Council has approved the concept of moving the artifact fund to the Historical Society but they need to complete a trust fund committee before they approve the disposition of the fund. Mary Lou is interested in serving on such a committee. 2) A report by Janet McCurdy-2 summer students will be hired and a part time CSR. Reports: Financial Report-The tinancial statements were reviewed. Fundraising Committee-I<) tickets remain for the Wingfield performance in June. One night still needing a sponsor. Curator's Report-The curator reviewed her report. Some of the highlights include: I l The museum will be part of a group display about the Bam Quilt Project at the Tillsonburg Kiwanis Home and Rec show March 30,31 and April I. 2 l The Lunch and Learn Series is completely sold out. 3 l The museum will be part of Doors Open Oxtord on Saturday, September 22 from 9:00am to 5:00pm. 4) No word has been received from the author for Turtlefest on June 16. Other alternatives are being explored for children's activities at the museum for this day. 51 The Bam Quilt Project is well underway and painting begins in April with everything to be ready for the tourist season the end of May. 6) Planning is underway lor the Tillsonburg Country Christmas Festival with alternative plans being made if the Special Events Centre should happen to be sold and no longer available for the craft show. 7 l The curator was invited to a meeting with communication staff to discuss the possibility of the museum having its own website. 8J The museum will be closed from Good Friday through Easter Monday. Historical Society-Will not be getting a summer student this year. TACAC-has put in a motion to council that the pioneer cemetery be designated a municipal historic site. The fence around the Tillson block will be repaired. A fence is to be erected around the cemetery and a sign erected. Moved by Mary Lou and seconded by Donna that the reports be accepted as given. Carried LONG POINT REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS-MINUTES May 2, 2012 (as approved at the Board of Directors meeting held June 6, 2012) Members in attendance: L. Bartlett, D. Beres, B. Chanyi, M. Columbus, R. Geysens, E. Ketchabaw and R. Sackrider Staff in attendance: C. Evanitski, D. Holmes, J. Maxwell, J. Robertson, H. Surette and D. Mclachlan Regrets: R. Chambers and D. Travale Absent: C. Grice The LPRCA Chair called the meeting to order at 6:30pm Wednesday, May 2, 2012 in the Tillsonburg Administration Office Boardroom. ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS None DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST B. Chanyi declared a conflict relating to Item 9 (b) New Application re: NC-23/12 and removed herself from the table during discussion. DEPUTATIONS None MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS MOTION A-61 moved: R. Sackrider seconded: L. Bartlett THAT the minutes of the LPRCA Board of Directors regular meeting held April 41h, 2012 and the Mid-month Development Applications emailed April131h, 2012 be adopted as circulated. BUSINESS ARISING None FULL AUTHORITY COMMITIEE MEMBERS Leroy Bartlett, Dave Beres, Robert Chambers, Betty Chanyi, Michael Columbus Roger Geysens, Craig Grice, Ed Ketchabaw, Ron Sackrider, Dennis Travale - 1 - CARRIED A. For Work under Section 28 Regulations, Development, Interference with Wetlands & Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulations (R.R.O. 1990 Reg. 178/06), NC-23/12 B. That the designated officers of LPRCA be authorized to complete the approval process for these Development Applications, as far as it relates to LPRCA 's mandate and related Regulations. CARRIED NEW BUSINESS a) CALENDAR REVIEW This Friday, the Chair, Vice-Chair and the Mayor of Bayham will meet for a photo opportunity to promote the Municipality of Bayham/ALUS Expansion Project. Backus Heritage, Haldimand, Norfolk and Waterford North Conservation Areas opened May 1st. Deer Creek Conservation Area will open May 16th. There will be a parks tour May 11th for the Strategic Planning Committee to visit Deer Creek, Backus and Norfolk. The Board Members were provided with a copy of the Leighton and Betty Brown Scholarship poster. All were asked to encourage students to apply. MOTIONA-66 moved: B. Chanyi seconded: M. Columbus That the LPRCA Board of Directors receives the May Calendar Review Report as information. CARRIED b) GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT No discussion. MOTION A-67 moved: M. Columbus seconded:B.Chan0 That the LPRCA Board of Directors receives the General Manager's Report for April 2012 as information. CARRIED c) 18r QUARTER BUDGET PERFORMANCE Staff explained the various reports and responded to questions from the Board. No changes in projections are anticipated at this time. FULL AUTHORITY COMMITTEE MEMBERS Leroy Bartlett, Dave Beres, Robert Chambers, Betty Chanyi, Michael Columbus Roger Geysens, Craig Grice, Ed Ketchabaw, Ron Sackrider, Dennis Travale -3- CARRIED MOTION A-72 moved: D. Beres seconded: R. Sackrider That the LPRCA Board of Directors does now enter into an "In Camera" session to discuss: 0 the security of the property of the Conservation Authority; 0 personal matters about an identifiable individual, including Conservation Authority employees. CARRIED MOTION A-73 moved: B. Chanyi seconded: M. Columbus That the LPRCA Board of Directors does now adjourn from the "In Camera" session. CARRIED MOTION A-74 moved: R. Sackrider seconded: L. Bartlett That the LPRCA Board of Directors directs staff to issue an RFP regarding the sale of the Hay Creek building. CARRIED MOTION A-75 moved: B. Chanyi seconded: M. Columbus THAT the LPRCA Board of Directors endorses the Conservation Area Prohibited Notice template as amended in the report dated April 26, 2012. CARRIED MOTION A-76 moved: D. Beres seconded: R. Sackrider THAT the LPRCA Board of Directors approves option #2 in regards to the Pay Grid/Job Evaluation. The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 7:50pm. Roger Geysens Chairman Dana Mclachlan Administrative Assistant FULL AUTHORITY COMMITTEE MEMBERS Leroy Bartlett, Dave Beres, Robert Chambers, Betty Chanyi, Michael Columbus Roger Geysens, Craig Grice, Ed Ketchabaw, Ron Sackrider, Dennis Travale -5- CARRIED : S.'\[ErdCoun~ ~ -growing stronger. .. together To: M. Bragg, CAO FROM: L. Buchner, Director of Corporate Services SUBJECT: Business Tax Capping Policy Reform RECOMMENDATION: Report No: A-3 2012-32 CORPORATE SERVICES Council Date: June 13, 2012 Whereas the Province of Ontario first introduced mandatory "business tax capping" for the commercial, industrial and multi-residential property classes as a temporary reform mitigation program for the 1998, 1999 and 2000 taxation years; And whereas this "temporary" and "transitional" measure was succeeded by a permanent business tax capping program for the 2001 and subsequent taxation years, And whereas the 2012 taxation year will represent the fifteenth taxation cycle for which mandatory business tax capping has applied; And whereas the overall business tax capping scheme was introduced as a means of assisting taxpayers manage tax shifts related to Provincial Assessment and Property Tax reforms introduced for the 1998 taxation year; And whereas it has become evident over time that the protection provided under this program has been less related to the original impacts of reform and more so due to the ongoing impacts of subsequent assessment base updates; And whereas this program must now be seen as a redundant measure in light of the Province's successful four-year assessment phase-in program, which more effectively and equitably addresses assessment increases for all properties; And whereas this program now has only a marginal impact on a very limited number of taxpayers due to the County's careful and deliberate application of optional parameter and exclusion tools, and yet it remains a significant burden on the financial and administrative resources of both the County and our local municipalities; Therefore be it resolved that the County of Oxford calls on the Government of the Province of Ontario to Amend Part IX of the Municipal Act, 2001 and supporting regulatory provisions so as to make the entirety of that Part (Business Tax Capping) optional at the discretion of each upper and single tier jurisdiction; and That the County of Oxford calls on the Government of the Province of Ontario to make these changes and amendments effective for the 2013 taxation year to coincide with the pending reassessment and related four-year assessment cycle; and That the discussion paper "Allowing Municipalities to Opt Out of Business Tax Capping" prepared by Municipal Tax Equity (MTE) Consulting Inc., which speaks directly to this subject matter, and which addresses many of this Council's concerns, interests and preferences, shall be attached to, and shall form a part of this motion; and Page 1 of 3 COMMENTARY: Report No: A-3 2012-32 CORPORATE SERVICES Council Date: June 13, 2012 The Discussion Paper mentions the resource and financial burden that municipalities have had to bear as a result of business tax capping policies. In the case of Oxford County, the annual tax policy review relies heavily on an annual tax policy and assessment report prepared by MTE which is carefully reviewed by the Area Municipal Treasurers prior to making annual tax policy recommendations for consideration of County Council. Further, MTE is retained by the County to assist with in-year capping calculations resulting from changes to the assessment of business properties that have an impact on their tax obligations -often affecting multiple years. The capping related services provided by MTE cost on average $59,275 -with the highest cost being paid in 2005 at $74,251 and the lowest in 2007 at $38,503. The average cost of $59,275 represents approximately .15% of the County's levy. If the Province were to allow municipalities the discretion to opt out of the business tax capping program, the County would not only realize savings in terms of the fees paid to MTE, but each of the Area Municipalities would realize fairly significant savings in staff time required to ensure the business tax billings and in-year adjustments are accurate and explaining the complex calculations and inequities of tax bills to taxpayers of business class properties. This time savings could be utilized to more effectively maintain the quality and accuracy of the assessment base. In addition to the aforementioned arguments in support of local autonomy, allowing municipalities the ability to opt out of business tax capping, MTE's Discussion Paper recalls that the tax capping program was introduced as a means to provide business taxpayers with temporary relief from significant increases in tax obligations resulting from the Province's new property tax and assessment system, however, the business tax capping program is now redundant due to the success of the four-year assessment phase-in program which more effectively and equitably addresses assessment increases for all properties. As January 1, 2013 marks the first year of property reassessment in Ontario based on January 1, 2012 values, this would be an appropriate time to amend the Municipal Act, 2001, reinforced by the fact that 2012 marks the prescribed five year review of the Municipal Act, 2001. The Area Municipal Treasurers recently met to consider the Discussion Paper as prepared by MTE and unanimously agreed to seek County Council and Area Municipal Council's support to request the Province to amend the Municipal Act, 2001 to allow municipalities with tax policy setting authority to opt out of the business tax capping program. "Lynn Buchner" Lynn Buchner Director of Corporate Services "M.R. Bragg" M.R. Bragg CAO Page 3 of 3 Disclaimer and Caution Appendix "A" CUENT RESOURCE The information, views, data and discussions in this document and related material are provided for general reference purposes only. Regulatory and statutory references are, in many instances, not directly quoted excerpts and the reader should refer to the relevant provisions of the legislation and regulations for complete information. The discussion and commentary contained in this report do not constitute legal advice or the provision of legal services as defined by the Law Society Act any other Act, or Regulation. If legal advice is required or if legal rights are, or may be an issue, the reader must obtain an independent legal opinion. Decisions should not be made in the sole consideration of or reliance on the information and discussions contained in this report. It is the responsibility of each individual in either of a decision- making or advisory capacity to acquire all relevant and pertinent information required to make an informed and appropriate decision with regards to any matter under consideration concerning municipal finance issues. MTE is not responsible to the municipality, nor to any other party for damages arising based on incorrect data or due to the misuse of the information contained in this study, including without limitation, any related, indirect, special or consequential damages. M .. -.·~. -©-2012-M-.. -IT_E_"_C_I __________________ _ 'II"" c umCipa ax qUity onsu tants Inc. ~.+ ··-'l'•l ..... t: ., ... ~· ~•:-uo11ur•l~ •r Appendix "A" CUENT RESOURCE The following discussion has been prepared to explore this issue in a systematic fashion. Ideally, it will ultimately serve to crystallize, summarize and articulate the municipal perspective. To this end, tax practitioners, decision makers and taxpayers are asked to carefully consider the comments and general themes set out below. Other insights to ensure that this policy option can be comprehensively analyzed and evaluated are both welcome and invited; this will ensure that the vast array of stakeholder interests in the property tax process are carefully considered and captured before any new policy scheme is developed and implemented. Overview of Business Tax Capping Legislation creating the mandatory "10-5-5" tax capping program was originally presented as a transitional measure to provide temporary tax protection for the 1998 through 2000 tax cycles. In 2001, however, the Province introduced additional property tax reforms that served to reinforce the prescriptive nature of the property tax policy environment in Ontario. At this time, tax capping became a permanent feature of the property tax landscape as the original, temporary 10-5-5 program was replaced on a Province-wide basis with a modified model known as the "5% limit on increases". In response to concerns about the mechanics and prescriptive nature of the business tax capping program, the McGuinty Government announced a series of reforms for 2005 and subsequent taxation years. These reforms introduced a number of capping options to be used at the discretion of single and upper-tier municipalities. The initial range of optional tools included: 1) the ability to increase the annual cap from 5% of the previous year's final capped taxes up to 10%; 2) setting a second limit for annual increases of up to 5% of the previous year's annualized CVA taxes; and/or 3) the establishment of dollar thresholds of up to $250 whereby properties with nominal capping adjustments could be moved directly to their CVA tax liability in any given year. The 2005 reform package attempted to balance the interests of those in favour of maintaining property tax capping against the call to give municipalities the flexibility to accelerate movement towards full CVA taxation for all classes of property where this was the local preference. The 2009 taxation year represented another in a long series of reform and reassessment cycles. In addition to a number of fundamental changes to the assessment system, which included the introduction of a four-year reassessment cycle coupled with a program to phase-in assessment increases, the Province gave municipalities the option to begin permanently excluding individual properties from capping by utilizing "stay at CVA tax" and "cross-over CVA tax" tools. Challenges at the Municipal Level Municipalities throughout the Province have devoted significant resources to ensure compliant and appropriate implementation of the mandatory tax capping program since its inception. The capping program has proven to be an administrative and budgetary burden because of the increased complexity it has added to the annual tax billing exercise and the management of any in-year tax adjustments required in response to assessment appeals, tax rebates or other events that demand that taxes be recalculated. ~~ _©_c_2-01_2_M_u_n-ici-pa-I-Ta_x_E_q-uicy--C-on-s-ul-ta-nt_s_In-c-.-------------------------------------3---- ~.\ .... t.••' ,,,. t•J ...... ::•:-<! .. llll''h n_ capping has been made Redundant by the Four-Year Phase-In Program Appendix "A" CLIENT RESOURCE In its original incarnation, the tax capping program was introduced as a means to provide business tax payers with temporary relief as they became acclimated to the Province's new property tax and assessment system. In subsequent years, however, the protection provided to taxpayers has been less related to the original impacts of reform and more so due to the ongoing impacts of subsequent assessment base updates. While prior arguments could suggest that its continuation was necessary so as not to remove or deny protection, this program must now be seen as a redundant measure in light of the Province's successful four-year assessment phase-in program, which more effectively and equitably addresses assessment increases for all properties. capping Creates Inequitable Tax Treatment One of the central tenets of Ontario's property assessment and taxation system is that all properties are subject to a uniform valuation date, and that similar properties are to be assessed in a similar manner across the entire Province. While tax rates do fluctuate by jurisdiction and property class, the overall structure of the system is intended to ensure that properties that are similar in nature, value and use carry a similar portion of the overall tax burden. The marked exception from this goal is the mandatory tax capping program for business class properties. Under this system, two properties in the same municipality, assessed at the same value, can be subject to very different tax liabilities. While one may enjoy a large capping credit, the other could be forced to fund the cap with a tax liability in excess of what its CVA and prevailing tax rates would otherwise suggest. In another instance, one property may be eligible for capping protection going into the 2013 reassessment, while another, with the same 2012 and 2013 assessment might be excluded. There are endless combinations and examples that could be provided, but the critical point is that the capping program creates inequities by distorting the tax liability of each property subject to an adjustment, which results in similar properties paying disparate taxes. Ultimately, this undermines the intention of the property tax system to treat similar properties in a similar manner by breaking the link between one's assessment, the tax rates and the final taxes owing. capping also creates more subjective and global inequities in our property tax system. For example, in many jurisdictions, we see that the capping protection that is still being provided is concentrated to the benefit of a very few taxpayers. Those still captured by the capping rules are generally the very small minority, and it can be easily argued that it is unfair and inappropriate for a large number of business owners to be funding special treatment for a small sub-set of taxpayers. It should also be noted that in jurisdictions where the application of the claw-back option is not possible, or is insufficient to cover the costs of capping, the costs of protection for these small groups of business taxpayers must be funded by all other taxpayers. This concern is further amplified by the fact that the current system is designed to ensure that those receiving the greatest protection will continue to benefit with no specific end in sight. capping is Administratively Cumbersome and Complex There are also a number of practical considerations beyond the program's utility that remain relevant regardless of how many or how few capping adjustments, if any, are required in any M .. •iJi·~. -©-20-12-M-.. -1-T_E_·_c __ l ________________________ s_ liJ'>' c umc1pa ax qUity onsu tants Inc. ~.· _ ... _ t•,;l '··· t.•f ...... C•:•,...•l•••h ,,_ Discussion Paper Appendix "A" CUENT RESOURCE Allowing Municipalities to Opt Out of Business Tax Capping Prepared by: Municipal Tax Equity (MTE) Consultants Inc. 12005 Steeles Avenue, RR #3 Georgetown, Ontario L7G 456 June 1, 2012 lYJ,.. © 2012 Municipal Tax Equity Consultants Inc. ~., ••. '-'~' r, .. E:•r ...... . ~~·=--l-hll''l' .. . Introduction and Purpose Appendix "A" CUENT RESOURCE Leading into 1998, sweeping reforms to the property assessment and taxation system were introduced by the Harris Government under the auspices of a number of key goals. Primary among these was ensuring that the assessment of real property and taxation practices across Ontario would be more fair, consistent, and understandable for taxpayers. Despite this original conviction, when faced with widespread criticism of their initial efforts the Government of the day quickly introduced a mandatory tax capping program for business class properties for the 1998 through 2000 tax cycles, which became known as the 10-5-5, in a laudable attempt to ease the transition to the new property tax regime. Since these early days of reform, a variety of modified tax capping protection regimes have been implemented, replacing earlier successors with more permanent forms of relief. This tradition has created a long legacy of inequity within the multi-residential, commercial and industrial tax classes, which has effectively undermined the original goals of a stable, fair, transparent, and easily administered assessment and property tax system in the Province of Ontario. Since the initial implementation of business tax capping in Ontario, Municipal Tax Equity (MTE) Consultants Inc. has worked intently with property tax professionals and municipalities across the Province to meet the policy and administrative challenges of these demanding and complicated tax protection programs. MTE's involvement with capping has ranged from the development of critical educational materials and seminars, to the provision of ad-hoc expert assistance, to the development and management of our full service stand-alone capping program. To ensure that MTE's clients and the municipal community at large have had access to the most current and highest quality information and support, MTE has invested the time and resources required at every stage to ensure that our capping expertise evolved in-step with the program itself. This evolution has been deliberate in terms of capping program and calculation mechanics, the options available to municipalities, and the changing patterns of capping outcomes. From MTE's unique vantage point over the capping landscape, it has been possible to observe the history of capping unfold and have experienced its evolution at every stage. What has become particularly evident since the advent of CVA exclusion options in 2009 is that currently in many jurisdictions the actual impact of capping on the taxpayers' final liabilities has become marginal or non-existent. ·The capping program has diminished dramatically in importance, and is proving to have a material impact on fewer properties each year. The concern remains, however, that despite the limited number and magnitude of capping adjustments now being applied, the program as a whole continues to require significant time and resources to administer and manage. In light of the fact that so many municipal councils have adopted policy schemes aimed at minimizing the impact of capping to the greatest degree possible, it seems obvious that the next change to Ontario's capping policy, as currently set out under Part IX of the Municipal Act 2001, is for the Province to give municipalities the ability to Opt Out of the program in its entirety. Further, it may also be argued that 2013 is the most appropriate and opportune time for this change to be made. ~it~ _©_c_2-01_2_M_u_n-ici-pa-I-Ta_x_E_q-uicy--C-on-s-ul-rn-nt_s_In-c-.-------------------------------------2---- ~ •• _ .... tf~· f,l .. t ,,_ ..... C•:n.,.~\lll'!b n- Appendix "A" CUENT RESOURCE Despite the burdens posed by the business tax capping regime, Ontario's municipalities have accepted the associated challenges and have demonstrated a high degree of local responsibility with respect to the shape and outcomes of this program as it applies to taxpayers. Since the original introduction of optional capping tools in 2005, municipal staff and decision makers have in the vast majority of cases shown a keen interest and willingness to capitalize on the various options provided by the Province in order to optimize local capping regimes and accelerate the greatest number of properties to their full CVA tax liability. In addition to the application of the core capping calculation options, municipalities have widely utilized the "new construction" constraint options, which ensures new or significantly improved capped class properties are subject to CVA tax. Based on our observations, the majority of municipalities across the Province have strategically and deliberately employed the mix of optional capping tools in each taxation year that proved to be the most effective in meeting their local capping objectives. For most, this has meant a marked decrease in the annual cost of capping protection being provided and a striking increase in the number of properties being taxed at their full CVA tax level (i.e. CVA multiplied by Applicable Tax Rates). This not only means that more tax bills are being issued without capping adjustments, it also means that when in-year adjustments are required, the end tax adjustment is most likely to be made in direct proportion to any change in assessed value. This is not the case for properties subject to either a cap or claw-back adjustment. Case for Capping "Opt-Out" Policy The increasing range of capping options provided by the Province since 2005 has been a welcome change from the more prescriptive environment, which characterized 2004 and previous years. Notwithstanding the current flexibility offered to municipalities to tailor their local capping programs, we believe that there is a significant consensus within the municipal community that it is time for municipalities to be given the ability to opt out of business tax capping entirely. The McGuinty Government has proven it values policies that place the responsibility for local property tax decisions with the level of government most directly responsible for levying the tax itself. The Government's policy changes surrounding capping options, tax ratio movement, and levy restriction rules (hard-capping), have all provided municipalities with greater autonomy to craft local tax regimes that truly reflect local priorities and objectives within a common set of Province-wide standards and criteria. The Government must now show its commitment to this trajectory, thereby making decisions with respect to the future of capping in our communities local responsibilities. It should also be noted that the case for giving municipalities the ability to opt out of business tax capping is based on factors that go far beyond the argument for local autonomy; it is also strongly rooted in the fact that this specific program is outdated, redundant, inherently inequitable, administratively cumbersome and confusing to the taxpayer. The most relevant and critical of the concerns and issues raised by this program are explored below. In sum, it is MTE' s view that they create an overwhelming argument for the Government to make the continuation of capping a local choice. © 2012 Municipal Tax Equity Consultants Inc. 4 ~.• .••. t••' r" • t ., ..... ,. C•:••.-<•l<••h ": Appendix "A" CLIENT RESOURCE given jurisdiction. The capping program has proven to be very time-consuming, cumbersome and costly to administer. Simply undertaking the calculations, applying adjustments to specific properties and managing· affected tax accounts requires an abundance of internal resources. Municipalities continue to devote considerable human and budgetary resources each year to ensure that tax bills and adjustments are accurate, compliant and timely. These resources could be more effectively and strategically deployed to other more productive ends, such as improving the delivery of other services, if not for the demands of capping. Once adjusted bills are issued, the complicated and intricate nature of the capping calculations themselves make them very difficult for the lay person, business owner, and even many tax professionals to understand. This coupled with the often counter-intuitive outcomes revealed on tax bills and tax adjustments, result in an ongoing demand for explanations from taxpayers and their agents. This confusion and the awkwardness of the calculations has also had an impact beyond just the taxpayer. The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC), the Assessment Review Board (ARB), and even Provincial courts have struggled with the capping implications of decisions and adjustments since the inception of the original program. Again, this confusion is often confounded by the potential for counter-intuitive results. For example, it is not uncommon for a property owner to spend time and money seeking a reduction in their assessment only to find out later that the reduction does not result in any change to their final "capped" tax liability. For municipalities, this all means that intensive resources must be dedicated to the on-going management and maintenance of the capping program; for the taxpayer it often appears that their tax liability is arbitrary and incomprehensible. Next Steps and Weighing In 2012 represents the fifteenth taxation cycle that has been impacted by mandatory tax capping in Ontario. It is MTE' s view that in light of the more effective, equitable and predictable protection provided by the ongoing assessment phase-in program, it is timely for an exit strategy option to be put in place. MTE is also of the opinion that it would be ideal to make this option available in conjunction with the next general reassessment. This would allow municipalities to carefully consider and evaluate the tax impacts and shifts associated with the 2013 reassessment campaign both with and without capping in place. Such insight would allow interested municipalities to make informed decisions about whether or not to continue with this form of tax protection into the future. To provide municipalities with the flexibility needed to address their current priorities and circumstances with respect to mandatory tax capping protection, it is strongly recommended that the Minister of Finance and the Province of Ontario be requested to amend the contents of the Municipal Act;. 2001 to allow upper and single-tier municipalities to opt out of the business tax capping program set out in Part IX of that Act for the 2013 taxation year and future tax cycles. ~1t~ _©_c_2-01_2_M_u_m-·ci-pa_l_~_x_E_q-ui~--~-n-s-ul-rn-nt_s_In-c-.-------------------------------------6---- '·" .... \ .... ,,.. t., ...... ':.'"•:o~o11•"h ro:: THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF TILLSONBURG BY-LAW NO. 3625 A BY-LAW to adopt the Town ofTillsonburg Committee/Staff Liaison Policy. WHEREAS Section 270(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 states that a municipality shall adopt and maintain policies with respect to 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. WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Town ofTillsonburg is desirous of adopting the Committee/Staff Liaison Policy. THEREFORE the Council of the Town ofTillsonburg enacts as follows: 1. THAT the Town ofTillsonburg Committee/Staff Liaison Policy attached hereto as "Schedule A" is hereby adopted and forms part of this by-law. 2. AND THAT this by-law comes into force and effect upon passing. Read a First and Second Time this 25th day of June, 2012. Read a Third and Final Time and passed this 91h day ofJuly, 2012. Mayor-John Less if Clerk-Donna Wilson THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF TILLSONBURG APPOVAL DATE: SCHEDULES ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY COMMITTEE/STAFF LIAISON POLICY REVISION DATE: 0010010000 Schedule A Committee Staff List Schedule B Council Request Tem late A. Policy Statement Page 1 of 6 There is a need to provide a staff liaison person for Committees of Council and Boards of Council within the Town of Tillsonburg. B. Purpose Volunteering in the Town of Tillsonburg offers opportunities for the Town and volunteers to collaborate in developing the Town of Tillsonburg. The Town will benefit from the value of voluntary and community service and volunteers will develop civic pride in the giving of their time and expertise. The Town of Tillsonburg is committed to ensure and improve communications between Committees/Boards and Council. This policy is to provide guidance and advice to staff liaisons in order to minimize the Town's liability with respect to Committee/Board actions while participating in public life. This policy is to improve communication and opportunities for volunteerism in a safe and productive manner. C. Scope This policy applies to all staff that represents the Town on any committee or board. D. General This policy shall be administered by the Development & Communications Department. This policy shall be referred to as the "Committee/Staff Liaison Policy". This policy comes into force and effect on the date adopted. E. Authority The authority for the Committee/Staff Liaison Policy shall be by the approval of the Council of the Town of Tillsonburg. THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF TILLSONBURG ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY COMMITTEE/STAFF LIAISON POLICY APPOVAL DATE: SCHEDULES REVISION DATE: 0010010000 Schedule A Committee Staff List Schedule B Council Request Template PROCEDURES FOR THE COMMITTEE/STAFF LIAISON POLICY Conflict of Interest: Page 3 of 6 It is recognized that staff and public committee members have a broad range of interests that may from time to time lead to potential, actual or the appearance of a conflict of interest. Staff & Volunteers will be considered to have a conflict of interest where their private objectives conflict with municipal objectives. As such they shall not: • Benefit financially from their membership other than an honorarium that may be paid in certain circumstances. • Place themselves in a position where they are under obligation to any person who may benefit from the circumstances • Deal with any application, agreement or contract in which their spouse, child, grandchild, parent, grandparent, partner, or company has an interest. • Gain personal benefit from any knowledge about a municipal related matter. • Give preferential treatment to any person, partner, organization or company where the member has a financial interest. Where a conflict of interest exists, the volunteer shall declare the conflict, or possible conflict, and withdraw from direct involvement in the matter and refrain from any comment that might influence a decision. Volunteers shall ensure the conflict or possible conflict of interest is recorded in the minutes of the meeting. Appointment/Performance Based on the recommendation of the CAO, Council shall appoint a staff liaison as a member to the appropriate board or committee based on their level of expertise. THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF TILLSONBURG APPOVAL DATE: SCHEDULES ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY COMMITTEE/STAFF LIAISON POLICY REVISION DATE: 0010010000 Schedule A Committee Staff List Schedule B Council Re uest Template Schedule A Page 5 of 6 COMMITTEE STAFF LIAISON Community Services Advisory Board Kelley Coulter, Donna Burditt, Jodi Aspden Cultural Advisory Board Cephas Panschow Development Committee David Samis, Kelley Coulter Heritage & Beautification Advisory Board Kelly Batt Parks & Recreation Advisory Committee Janet McCurdy TACAC Amber Zimmer Museum Advisory Board Patty Phelps BIA Cephas Panschow Accessibility Advisory Board Donna Wilson Libra_!Y Board Terri Pope THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OFTILLSONBURG BY -LAW NUMBER 3626 A BY-LAW TO AUTHORIZE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF TILLSON BURG AND J. KAUENHOFEN, IN TRUST WHEREAS the Corporation of the Town of Tillson burg deems it necessary and expedient to enter into an agreement with J. Kauenhofen In Trust; THEREFORE the Council of the Town of Tillson burg enacts as follows: 1. THAT the Agreement attached hereto as Schedule "A" forms part of this by-law; 2. THAT the Mayor and Clerk be hereby authorized to execute the attached agreement marked as Schedule "A" on behalf of the Corporation of the Town of Tillsonburg. This By-Law shall come into force and take effect immediately after the final passing hereof. READ A FIRST AND SECOND TIME THIS 25th day of June, 2012. READ A THIRD AND FINAL TIME AND PASSED THIS 25th day of June, 2012. MAYOR-John Lessif CLERK -Donna Wilson f.)HA Ontario Real Estate ~sociotion Agreement of Purchase and Sale Commercial Form 500 lor use In the Province of Ontario This Agreement of Purchase and Sale dated this ............... ~.1~~ ............... day of ................... ~~~~ ...................... 20 .. ~~ .. .. BUYER, .. ~~~!~~-~~!-!~':".~.'?.~~.':' .. 1~. :'.'~.':!~~. (Fulf legcil'ricimes ·orcilf iiuyersi ............................................. , agrees to purchase from SELLER, ... '!~~ .. ~~~P.~~~~!~~-~!.~~~.'f.'?.~~~~fi.TI.!!!s1.C?.~.~~.~~ .. If"'l''"'"'""""''"'"'""'""'''''""'"""""""''"""'' the f~~~wing Fu I ega names or a Se lers) REAL PROPERTY: Address .. ~.~~. P.-:t.t?~!~ .~.~~~~. Im~~!'!~~~g~ .9.n~~.~l.f? .................................................................. :: ........................... . fronting on the .................................... !'!~~~ .................................... side of.. .................... ~!~·~«?.l.~.~-~~~~~ ................... . in the . I~~~ .~t"f.l.l.l~~~~!-!rs~. ~.C?.~.~'!-Y. ~~. 9~C?.~~ ........................................................................................................ . and having a frontage of ................. t~.~.fL .............. more or less by a depth of .......... ~~~.n.!m~9!-!!~L ....... more or less and legally described as ... ~.~-~~-~~.~~.~.~!.~!.~.~.~~.~!.~~~.~!.~.~~-~.~.~~~.~.~.~~!~~.~~-~~.~!.~~.~~~~~.~.~.~~~.~~-~~~·~···· .~.~~~~.~.~.~-~~~~~-~~~.~.~1·.~~·~.:~~~.~}!!!~~~~~.~~~.~~~~!¥..~~,~~~~~.~~:~?..~~~.~~~ .............................. (the "propertyl'). llega aescnphon or lana mciUdmg easements not aescnoea elsewhere) PURCHASE PRICE: Dollars (CDN$) .. ~~~~~9 .. ~~ ............................ . DEPOSIT: Buyer submits .. ~P.~~-~~~4!1.1?.~~.<?~ ............................................................................................................ . (Herewith/Upon Acceptance/as otherwise described in !his Agreement) by negotiable cheque payable to .. ~~!l.f!!.~·-~-~~-~~.<?!~~r.!~.Ir.l:l.~~ ................................................................ "Deposit Holder" to be held in trust pending completion or other termination of this Agreement and to be credited toward the Purchase Price on completion. For the purposes of this Agreement, "Upon Acceptance" shall mean that the Buyer is required to deliver the deposit to the Deposit Holder within 24 ~ours of the acceptance of this Agreement. The parties to this Agreement hereby acknoWledge that, unless otherwise provided for in this Agreement, the Deposit Holder shall place the deposit in trust in the Deposit Holder's non-interest bearing Real Estate Trust Account and no interest shall be earned, received or paid on the deposit. Buyer agrees to pay the balance as more particularly set out In Schedule A attached. SCHEDULE(S) A ... ~.~.~.~ ......................................................... attached hereto form(s) part of this Agreement. 1. IRREVOCABILITY: This Off~ shall be irrevocable by ............... 1 .~/i~Y.~~ ................ until ....... ~:~~ ......... ~./p.m. on ~ (Sel er Buyer) the ........... ~ ... ).b.~aay of .................... ~.~~~ ..................... 20.~~ .... , after which time, if not accepted, this Offer shall be null and void and the deposit shall be returned to the Buyer in full without interest. 2. COMPLETION DATE: This Agreement shall be completed by no later than 6:00 p.m. on the ............. ~~~~ ............. day . J of ................... ~!-!!Y. .................. , 20-'.L ....... Upon completion, vacant possession of the property shall be given to the j Buyer unless otherwise provided for in this Agreement. i INITIALS OF BUYER(S): ~ INITIALS OF SELLER(S): ~ [g IC 2012, On Iorio W E. late Ao.ocialion I"OREA'). All rights teserved. This form was developed by OREA r.,. tha use Oncl "f"''duction of ih members and h"""""' ,..,,... only. Anyothar usa or "'f'roduction is prohibited except wilh priorwn'lten consent of OREA. Do no! alter when prinKng or teprocludng tha stcndaod p!Hillpollion. Form 500 Revised 20) 2 Page 1 of 6 This fo1111 Is IICBnsed f<N use by G. D. L. Jenkins only. 9. FUTURE USE: Seller and Buyer agree that there is no representation or warranty of any kind that the future intended use of the properly by Buyer is or will be lawful except as may be specifically provided for in this Agreement. 1 0. TITLE: Provided that the title to the property is good and free from all registered restrictions, charges, liens, and encumbrances except as otherwise specifically/rovided in this Agreement ana save and except for (a) any registered restrictions or covenants that run with the lan providing that such are complied with; (b) any registered municipal agreements and registered agreements with publicly regulated utilities providing such hove been complied with, or security has been posted to ensure compliance and completion, as evidenced by a letter from the relevant municipality · or regulated utility; (c) an~ minor easements for the supply of domestic utility or telephone services to the property or adjacent properties; and d) any easements for drainage, storm or sanitary sewers, public utility lines, telephone lines, cable television lines or ot er services which do not materially affect the use of the property. If within the specified times referred to in paragraph 8 any valid objection to title or to any outstanding work order or deficiency notice, or to the fact the said present use may not lawfully be continued, or that the principal building may not be insured against risk of fire is made in writing to Seller and which Seller is unable or unwilling to remove, remedy or satisfy or obtain insurance save and excert against risk of fire (Title Insurance) in favour of the Buyer and any mortgagee, (with all related costs at the expense o the Seller}, and which Buyer will not waive, this Agreement notwithstanding any intermediate acts or negotiations in respect of such objections, shall be at an end and all monies paid shall be returned without interest or deduction and Seller, Listing Brokerage and Co-operating Brokerage shall not be liable for any costs or damages. Save as to any valid objection so made by such day and except for any objection going to the root of the title, Buyer shall be conclusively deemed to have accepted Seller's title to the property. 11 . CLOSING ARRANGEMENTS: Where each of the Seller and Buyer retain a lawyer to complete the Agreement of Purchase and Sale of the property, and where the transaction will be completed by electronic registration pursuant to Part Ill of the Land Registration Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter L4 and the Electronic Registration Act, S.O. 1991, Chapter 44, and any amendments thereto, the Seller and Buyer acknowled~e and agree that the exchange of closing funds, non-registrable documents and other items (the "Requisite Deliveries") and the release thereof to the Seller and Buyer will (a) not occur at the same time as the registration of the transfer/deed (and any other documents intended to be registered in connection with the completion of this transaction) and (b) be subject to conditions whereby the lawyer(s) receiving any of the Requisite Deliveries will be required to hold same in trust and not release some except in accordance with the terms of a document registration agreement between the said lawyers. The Seller and Buyer irrevocably instruct the said lawyers to be bound by the document registration agreement which is recommended from time to time by the Law Society of Upper Canada. Unless otherwise agreed to by the lawyers, such exchange of the Requisite Deliveries will occur in the applicable Land Titles Office or such other location agreeable to both lawyers. 12. DOCUMENTS AND DISCHARGE: Buyer shall not call for the production of any title deed, abstract, survey or other evidence of title to the property except such as are in the possession or control of Seller. If requested by Buyer, Seller will deliver any sketch or survey of the property within Seller's control to Buyer as soon as possible and prior to the Requisition Date. If a discharge of any Charge/Mortgage held by a corporation incorporated pursuant to the Trust And Loan Companies Act {Canada}, Chartered Bank, Trust Company, Credit Union, Caisse Populaire or Insurance Company and which is not to be assumed by Buyer on completion, is not available in registrable form on completion, Buyer agrees to accept Seller's lawyer's personal undertaking to obtain, out of the closing funds, a dischar.9e in registrable form and to register same, or cause same to be registered, on title within a reasonable period of time after completion, provided that on or before completion Seller shall provide to Buyer a mortgage statement prepared by the mortgagee setting out the balance required to obtain the discharge, and, where a real-time electronic cleared funds transfer system is not being used, a direction executed by Seller directing payment to the mortgagee of the amount required to ootoin the discharge out of the balance due on completion. 13. INSPECTION: Buyer acknowledges having had the opportunity to inspect the property and understands that upon · acceptance of this Offer there shall be a binding agreement of purchase and sale between Buyer and Seller. 14.1NSURANCE: All buildings on the property and all other things being purchased shall be and remain until completion at the risk of Seller; Pending completion, Seller shall hold all insurance policies, if any, and the proceeds thereof in trust for the parties as their interests may appear and in the event of substantial damage, Buyer may either terminate this Agreement and have all monies paid returned without interest or deduction or else take the proceeds of any insurance and complete the purchase. No insurance shall be transferred on completion. If Seller is taking back a Charge/Mortgage, or Buyer is assuming a Charge/Mortgage, Buyer shall supply Seller with reasonable evidence of adequate insurance to protect Seller's or other mortgagee's interest on completion. 15. PLANNING ACT: This Agreement shall be effective to create an interest in the property only if Seller complies with the subdivision control provisions of the Planning Act by completion and Seller covenants to proceed diligently at his expense to obtain any necessary consent by completion. ~ ~ INITIALS OF BUYER(S): ~ INITIALS OF SELLER(S): ~ IB,,,,_. IC> 2012, Onlorio Real Esrara Associ ali on {"OREA"). All righb ......ved. This fonn was d<waloped by OREA for rho use cr.d rapcodudlon of lis members and licen...,. .,_ only. Anyolheruse or repociudlon Is prohibiiod excsptwllh priorwrillen consenr of OREA. Do notalrerwhen p<lnllng or l8pltl<!uc:lng rho srandad pAHat polflon. Form 500 Revised 2012 Page 3 of 6 This form Is licensed for use by G. D. L. Jenkins only. 28. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS: The heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the undersigned are · bound by the terms herein. SIGNED, SEALED AND DEUVERED in the presence of: IN WITNESS whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal: Q/\11. ,{'\ -. -' .......... .. .............. ~ ....... 1'7"'""""""~"""""'""'''"'"" • {Wiin&5Si''DH\f.~............................. iiiuye · "ze signiri9'oll;' ~ ..... 1seoll DATE .. ~~.~~ .. ~~.!.~.~~.~ ..... .. (Wii,;&~~i ............ · ..... ··· ··· .... ········ ... ·· ..... ········ ....... ····· ·.. \B'uye'r}Auiliaiizad·sr9;,·,;;9·0llicerf'"''''''''' ·· ............. ···· · ....... !11 DATE ...................... ··· ........ .. I, the Undersigned Seller, agree to the above Offer. I hereby irrevocably instruct my lawyer to pay directly to the brokera~e(sl with whom I have agreed to pay commission, the unpaid balance of the commission together with applicable Harmomzed Sales Tax (and any other taxes as may hereafter be applicable), from the proceeds of tfie sale prior to any payment to the undersigned on completion, as adviseCl by the brokerage(s) to my lawyer. SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED in the presence of: IN WITNESS whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal: fW;i,;~;j""'"'''''"'''''''•••••·························· .. ···"·'"''"''' • \S".;iliir/Auihoriz~cisi'Qnii19·olli'c.ei)'"' .... · ............................ ·· 1s.aiJ DATE ............................. ······ • (Wiinessi ···· · ... · · ·· · .... · ··· ................................. · ............ · · \s&iliir/AuiliariZ&<isf9nin'9'omC'&if ....................................... 1s.a11 DATE .................................. . SPOUSAL CONSENT: The Undersigned Spouse of the Seller hereby consents to the disposition evidenced herein rursuant to the provisions of the Family law Act, R.S.0.1990, and hereby agrees with the Buyer that he/she will execute al necessary or incidental documents to give full force and effect to the sale evidenced herein. • (Wii,;8~$j'····· .. ·······...................................................... \Spouioj'''''"'''''"'''"'''"'"''"···..................................... (Seal) DATE .................................. . CONFIRMATION OF ACCEPTANCE: Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, I confirm this Agreement with all changes both lyped and written was finally accepted by all parties at ................... a.m./p.m. this ......................................... day of ................................................................. , 20 ........... . · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · isi9~~i,;,:.; ;,r s~n~; ·~; ~;,r.;ri · · · · · · · • · · · · · · • · • · • · INFORMATION ON BROKERAGE(S) Listing Brokerage ... ~.9.~.~ ..................................................................................................................... Tei.No.( ................ ) ................................. . C<><>p/Buyer Brokerage .... ~.9..~.r; ......................................................................................................... Tei.No.( ................ ) .................................. . ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I acknowledge receipt of my signed copy of this accepted Agreement of Purchase and Sale and I authorize the Brokerage to forward a copy to my lawyer. (Selleri'""·························· ..................................... DATE ..................... . (Selleri"'''"''"''·················· ..................................... DATE ..................... . Address for Service.~~~ .~r.C?.~~~!!':l.~.~~~~~. ~~.i~.~. ~~-......................... .. I!!!!i!~~!?~%.q.r:'.~~~l~.!'!I.~9..?.~! .......... Tel.No.( .. ~~.~ ... ).~~~~.~~~ .. ~.?.~.9. Sell!lr's Lawyer ..................................................................................... . Address .............................................................................................. . ( ........... ) ........................................... ( ........... ) .................................... . Tei.No. FAX No. I acknowledge receipt of my signed copy of this accepted Agreement of Purchase and Sale and I authorize the Brokerage to forward a copy to my lawyer. . ........................................................................... DATE ..................... . (Buyer) (li;,):iij"'"'"'''""'""'"""'""''""'"""'"'"'"'""''"""' DATE .................... .. Address for Service .. ~~~. -~~~~~Y.. !:\.~~.~ .. ~~.~-J1.1.1:?.9.r:t.~~~SI. 9.!'!1 ............. . ~~~.~~.~ .......................................... Tei.No.( ... 9.W .. ) .. ftQQ7~:4~9 .......... . Buyer's Lawyer .. ~!'!gr.9.'il. ~.~.Q.~.m~.9~ .~~m.~.i.Q.,.~ .9.iN~Y ....................... . Address .. !:'!~~-~~~ .T.!!1.~.9.!1~!-!rs,. 9!':1. -~~9 .. ~.1:!?. ..................................... . ( .. l?W .. J .. ~.~?.~901 ... E .......................... ( .. ~.1.~ ... ) .. ~~~~-~.~-~.~ .................. . Te .No. FAX No. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY COMMISSION TRUST AGREEMENT To: Co-operating Brokerage •hewn on the foregoing Agreement of Purchase and Sale:· In consideration lor the CC>Operating Brokerage procuring the foregoing Agreement of Purchase and Sale, I hereby declare that all moneys received or receivable by me In connection with the Transaction as contemplated in ihe MLS® Rules and Regulations of my Real Estate Board shall be receivable and held in !rust. This agreement shall constitute a Commission Trust Agreement as defined in tho MLS® Rules and shall be subject to and governed by the MLS® Rules pertaining to Cammi,.ian Trust. DATED as of the date and Hme of the acceptance of the foregoing Agreement of Purchase and Sale. Acknowledged by: iA~ih~~~~;d· 'k;'i;i~·d .. th~· u;ii~ii ·ti~~k;;~9~;· .. · · ... · · .. · .. · · · .. · · · .... · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ... · 'i.4~ih;;;i;;;d ·i;; ·b'i~d · iio·~· c:.;;.;j;~;;~·ti~Q' ·a;;;k~;~Q'~i .. · .... · · · .. · · · .. · · · .. · · · · · · · · · · · · · [B C20t2, Onlcrlo Rod EslaleAs.oclalion rOREA1. All righB .....,....d. This form was developed byOREA for lhe u .. and reprcduclion ol its members and li=- ""'"''. orJy. Arrfothet ""'"'reproduction Is fll'lhlbi!ad ax<optwllh priorwrillen consentoiOREA Do not alter when prinling"' oeprodudng tho standard pm<et portion. Fonn 500 Revised 2012 Page 5 of 6 Till$ fonn Is licensed for UH by G. D. L. Jenkins only. f :. lllb-Hi-· lt.: lt.:: q;s l:'.tiUl'J-Town or lllsonourg !',.--........,_\. . I SCHEDULE 4'8"-RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS Thu Schedule is attached to and forms part of tho Agreement of Purchase and Sale · betwce11 · · · BUYER: ,and SELLER: Tbe Carporation of the Town ofTillsoobure · for lhe pnrchue and sale of Part, Plan 4jR· dattd tbe 111 day ~if , 1012 GENQAT, CONDlUQNfi: The Purdlascr agrees that the title of the Purdmscr to the said lands win be &ubject 10 lhe CQVmanfS and BgR!~;mcnts substantially in the form contained herem as Schedule "Bn end agreea to eoxevutc: a form of pl'eliminary development agreement ixmtaining the sam~:: which .~11 be regisrered. 011 title at the time of closing. L The Pur~ acknowledges that the:. property is being sold by the VeAdor punuant to the Tc;~wn ofTillsonburg Economic Development Qffice Ind\l$tr1al Land Sales Guidelines regarding land l,lSe and tenancy and the corresponding inft.lrmation pro~i.ded by til(: purchaser in their I..etter oflntent and that arty changes in JnJtialllSe or tem~.ncy must be approv«< by the Town ofTillsonburg. 2. Tbb l'urchucr and the Ve11:dor mutually agre<: on tho merits of developing the land t;:OnSistent with the existing quality Uld design ali !MdenQed by development in the Ind~o~strial Park. · 3. The .Pure.haser acknowlcdgea that tbe pl'OpCCL)' is subject to Site Plan Control as per Bylaw 2932 lllld that that an 11greement will be required prior to ttie issuance of a buUdi11g . permit. Aa pan of the revi!ffl process, the Purchaset will be l'CqUired to aubmit the following drawings fot &J'9roval by ~e Town ofTiDsonbutg: (11.) Ov~,Site Plan including locatioi'l. and screening for ouwde storage; (b) Floor plaD: (c) Building elevations; L .. (d) Propos~;d t:Xterior materials; (e) Landscaping plan; (f) Servicing plan; ~- l'Wther, the purchaser acknowledges and agrees that ~cy will be requited to pro"'ide a security deposit in acco1~c with the Town ofTillson\Jl.u'g'& Site Plan Bylaw. 4. Minimum lot coverage will be 10%. S. All sales of industrial land .arc subject to applicablo zoning by~ta.ws and.. any other regulatory bylaws of the Town ofTillsonburg alld the CoU11ty of qxrord. 6. The purcha.~~Cf will be subject· to the regulations of the Town, County of Odofd and Province of Ontario, Miuistly of the Environment, governing· the discharge of wastes and emuenfs into municipal saniLy sewers IUld will provide lhc necessary environmental protection and bolia.ble for the cost of any prctreanttent which may be rcqq.ired to comply with the said regulations. · 5. These conditions or sale shall ~:ontinue to be binding on boUt of tile parties hereto and shall not merge on complc:tion of ~he tnmsactions but ~hall remain binding an both of the palties. ---------+---~~---.. . . --.. .... .. . .. y--.--.. --. "'--, ... :-:: .. :::: .... :::: .... -.... :-.... =::..;-·--.· -,,,-:-::,. =:~::-::. ;-··. -· .;-. I i I I i I i I i l I t .• that~ Transferee may, at any timc:: after rhree (3) years from the time of default, give notice in writing to the TJ.<!JUlfetor at the Dc:wel(IJilllent C~ioner's Office, Town of Tillionbwog Corporate Office. ZOO J:!roadway, Suite 204, Tillson'bw& Ontario, rtqlliring the Trao.sferot to exercise:: the option to repurchase the lanclQ as ~foresail'l. If, after receiVing ~~ notice from the Ttan$ferco, t'Q.e. Tl'UlSfcrot docs not exeioise its right tc;~ rep1,1rchase the sW! lands by giving notice in Writing, mailed to the addres~ for sorvico of !he TrQ.IIsfcree u shown on the Transfer, of such. intention within ninety (90) da.y11 of receipt of the said notice fu».n the Transferee_ then the Tnmaf~'s ~gh.t to Rp\ltChaSI:! said lands_under the provision of this pal'llgtaph shall terminate, 12, Construction of tba building ehall. b!! conside~·ed tQ be eommcnced .when alJ}' required building penuits have beeu c;~btait.ied and the forms f(ll' the foOtings are in place. The building: shall be considered to be conipleted when subsblndal .P~OTI'flllllQC has taken place, as such is defmed by the CQJL9f:nlction Lien Act, RS.O. 19?0. Provided that ap.PJOpriate al\owll!lces shal.1 be made for default cll1lsed by d~lays ~sulting from. fues, strikes, floods, acts of God, oc the Queen's enemies, or la.wfi!l acfli of Public Autb.orltic6, or dt,day.s caused by material suppliers or common oatrlers which cannot reasonably be . fore!leen or provided against. 13. Unless the cove11.ants in paragt.-aph 10 have been satisfied, the Traraferee cov'enaal$ that it wlll not sell the said lands, or any psrt tbe~c9f;. to any person, fmn or corporation, without first offering in writing, delivered lO the Devc:lQpment COmmissioner's Oft'ice. Town of Till.sonburg . Corporate Office, 200 Ptt~adway. Suite 204, Tillsonburg. Ontario, to sell such lands to the T11ltlsferor :at a price fCIUill to ninety (?0%) percent ofdu: mig:inal pt.~tchase price paid by the TtatJ.n'eree to tho 'D:anafQI'Of, and .free ftOlll 8!1Y and all encumbrance&. For the purpose oftlds paragraph. If the Transferee is a corpodlion, the word ··sell", in addition to its ordinary meanil'lg,. :shall be &Mtcd to mean and indude a sale or disposition of d1e col'poraw sbareholding c;~f tbe Ttanaferee by the pmon cr p~aons wlto, at the IW:e of the n-aasfer of lalids by the TtBOsferw to the Transferee. holds or hold a majority of the ~parate sbai'~. The 1)'111\Sferor shall have uinc:ty (90) da.yJ from the reeeipt of an offer mado by the Ti:;msferee, under the pl'tlvisiOilS of this po.ragraph, to accept Sl,tch·offer. Such acceptance shall he in Writing and mailed to the address for service of the ~w:e as ehown on the Trusfcr. If the iransferor does not ac:cept on offer to sell, ~ade by the Transferee Q!lder the provision of this parag~.~h, lb.e Transferl!r'$ right,. provided in thiS paragraph to r~i.lrehaso the lands so ort'ere~ &ball terminate. Provided however, that Jhe Tnllisfaee may sell or othetwi$c:: ttii.II.SWr the said land to a !iUbsidiary or affiliate corporation as defined in the B\lSlnc:s.s Corp01-ations Act, R.S.O. 1990, without first SQ offering to 11cll the l~ds back tD the Transferor provided such subsidi~ coafa.nns the acceptance of the within bl.lilding covenant& aml the offer · of re·salc in lhis paragraph and ~p~11Ly undeJtaf<.c;s in writing tc comply th«ewitb, by exccutio11 of lll.lch documents. in oonfirmation tl1ereof, as the Tl'ilnsferot may require. .... I ' ~~ I I rj zi H ~ ~ ~ I li ~h! ~ ~b!l . ~ 8· a II iiI Ill I ::0 ll. .-I 0 IIIII 'il ~~~ ~~ I : • !, 0 () ~ i "'d~ ~ I '-Ull ~~~ <L"' ~~ 0 -~ i! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . ij "' I ~~ I ! I I I I I .La:3:1I.LS N'IOONI1 -~~-~~-·-------- li ,, . . -.. THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF TILLSONBURG BY-LAW NUMBER 3627 A BY-LAW to authorize the Sale of certain lands on Cedar Street to Rick's Carpet Limited. WHEREAS pursuant to Section 8 of the Municipal Act,2001, S.O. 2001, C.25, a municipality has the capacity, rights, powers and privileges of a natural person for the purpose of exercising its authority under this or any other Act, AND WHEREAS the Corporation of the Town of Tillsonburg is desirous of selling certain lands being 60 Cedar Street, Town of Tillson burg, County of Oxford. AND WHEREAS Rick's Carpet Ltd. have made a written offer to purchase these lands at the Purchase Price of $600,000.00. BE IT THEREFORE ENCACTED by the Council of The Corporation of the Town of Tillsonburg as follows: 1. THAT the Council of the Town of Tillson burg do authorize the conveyance of lands described as 60 Cedar Street, in the Town of Tillson burg, County of Oxford, at the purchase price of $600,000.00; 2. THAT the Mayor and Clerk be hereby authorized to execute on behalf of The Corporation of the Town of Tillson burg such documents to give effect to this conveyance. 3. That this by-Law shall come into full force and effect upon the date of enactment. READ A FIRST AND SECOND TIME THIS 2s'f' DAY OF June, 2012. READ A THIRD AND FINAL TIME AND PASSED THIS gth DAY OF July, 2012. Mayor -John Lessif Clerk -Donna Wilson r ...:A.~F;. ~Auaciation Form500 for use In the Provtnoe d Onlario This Agreement of Purchase and Sale dated this .............. ?.?X!~ ............. day of ................... }IJ!')g ................... 20 .. J? .. BUYER, ................................................ Bi9s:t:u:;;~rP.~~.J..~~~ ............................................... , agrees to purchase from (Full legal names of all Buyers) SI!LLI!R, .............................. Jb.e..C.QrP.Q~tl.c;m .. Of.Ib~ . .tQ:W.r.l.Qf.Jl.IJ~~-nb.IJt1L ............................ , the following . (Full legal names of all SeUers) REAL PROPERlY: Address ......................................... ~O .. C.~d~.r:.st.~~t~.JJIIs.o.nRJ..I[Q,.QN.N.4G.ZNl. ........................................ . fronting on the .............................. , ..... !;~.!?:!; .................................... side of .................... ~~Q.<;IJ . .s.t~~t ................... . In the ................................................. Is:?.w.~ .. Qf.JJ.IJ~Qf.l.b.\.lm,.C.o.~.JnW..Qf.Q~rn ................................................. . and having a frontage of ........ ~.·-~~ .. ~Q:fS!.~.:ti:: ....... more or less by a depth of ........... J~gyJ~.r. ........... more or less and legally described as ............. NC?.~:.J9 .. ~ .. ~~~~r.m~n~~J?Y..i=! .. IJ~~-P.!!=!f.IJ?f.?!-!!:Y.~.Y.(.Il?~r!.gf.Ii!!~9.!1P.~rg., ....... .. ............................................. S.~~.::?$;00~!-JI~~.:·~·:.~f.I.Q . .':~::.:-.~~~I:\~~ ............................................ (the "property"). (Legal desalptlon of land including easements not described elsewhere) Dollars (CON$) ........... J~Q.Q,QQ9.: Q.Q .......... . ............................................................... $.1.~.!1!-:l.~.~f.E?.9.~!1!?.1:-'.!?.~0~ ............................................................... Dollars DEPOSIT• Buyer submits .................................................... J).P.Q.O .. f!.g:;~p.t.GI.Os:;~ .................................................... . (Herewith/Upon Acceptance/as otherwise described In this Agreement) ........................................... f.Jf.tY..thQ.I.lS.an.ct ........................................... Dollars (CDN$) ........... SP.-OO.Q,QP ......... . by negotiable cheque payable to ............................. :I .. I:-:\.WHI.~~.rJ:.;~.9J.ty_g~.· ............................... "Deposit Holder'' to be had in trust pending CO I~ or at's' lei IIi IStia I d this /lgf!S I ent at! to be aecfited toloatl the P\rd1aSe Price Q1 WI pletia I. For the purposes of this Agreement, "Upon Acceptance" shall mean that the Buyer is required to deliver the deposit to the Deposit Holder IIVithin 24 hours of the acceptance of this Agreement. The parties to this ~ hereby acl<novvtedge that, unless otl'lei'Y.ftse prcMded for in this .Agee! t tel rt, the DepOsit Holder shall place the deposit in trust in the Deposit l-kllder's non-interest bearing Real Estate Trust Account and no interest shall be earned, received or paid on the deposit. au,...,... to pay the......._ as 11'1018 particU.ty sat out in Sc:hedule A attaclllld. SCHEDULE(S) A ............................. t .. ~ • .t..~ ............................. attached hereto fonn(s) part of this Agn.en'lellt. 1. IRREVOCABIUTY:lhis Offer shall be irrevocable by ....... (seli~~.r... ............ until .. l.t;.O.Q .. ~ ... a.m./p.m. on the ............. ~Qth ............. day of .................... J.I,JJ!~ .................... 20 ... 1.2 .. , after which time, if not accepted, this Offer shall be null and void and the deposit shall be returned to the Buyer in full without interest. 2. CCI'M.EllON DATE::This Agreement shall be completed by no later than 6:00p.m. on the ........... l.~th ............ day of .............. Qa,Qbgr: ............. ; 20 .... 12 ..... Upon completion, vacant possession of the property shall be given to the Buyer unless otherwise provided for in this Agreement. Real RJnnslM 2012 ,/' 9. RII1JRE ..a Seller and Buyer agree that there is no representation or warranty of any kind that the fUture Intended use of the property by Buyer Is or will be lawful except as may be specifically provided for in this Agreement. 10. TI1I.EI Provided that the title to the property is good and free from all registered restrictions, charges, liens, and encurrilrances except as otherwise specifically provided in this Agreement and save and except for (a) atTf registered restrictionS or covenants that run 'INith the land providing that such are complied with; (b) any registered m.mlclpal agreements and registered agreements with publicly regl.Eted utilities providing such have been complied with, or sea.~rity has been posted to enue compliance and completion, as evidet1(:ed by a Jetter from the relevant m.miclpallty or regiJated utility; (c) any lilinor easements for the SUpply a dOmestic utility or telephone services to the property or adjacent properties; and (d) erry easements for drainage, storm or sanitary sewers, public utility lines, telephone lines, cable television lines ar other services which do not materially affect the use a the property. If within the specified times raerred to In paragraph 8 atrf valid objection to title or to any outstanding work order or deficiency notice, or to the fact the said present use may not lawfully be continued, or that the principal building may not be insured against risk. of fire is made in writing to Seller and which Seller is unable or unwilling to rerrove, remedy or satisfy or obtan insurance save and except agairist riSk c:l fire (Trtle Insurance) in favour c:l the Buyer and any rrortgagee, (with all related costs at the expense of the Seller), and which Buyer will hot waive, this Agreement nolwithstanding any intermediate acts or negotiations in respect of such objections, shall be at mend and·allrmiies paid shall be reti.Jlled Vvffhout interest or deduction and Seller, Usting Brokerage and Cc>operating Brokerage shall tiOt be liable for any costs or damages. Save as to 8tiY valid objection so li'lade by auch day and ~cept for any objection going to the root of the title, Buyer shall be conclusively deemed to h~ accepted Seller's title to the property. 11. a.o&ING ~re each of the Seller and Buyer retain a lawyer to complete the Agreement of Purchase and Sale of the property, and where the transaction will be C01l1)1eted by eleetronlc registration pursuant to Part Ill of the Land Registration Reform fJd., R.S.O. 1990, Charm-L4 and the Bectronlc Registration HJ., S.O. 1991, Chapter 44, and any amendments thereto, the Seller and Buyer acknowledge and agree that the exchange of dosing funds, nat-registrable documents and ether iterrs (the "Reqlisite Deliveries") and the release thereof to the Seller and Buyer vAll (a) not occur at the same time as the registration of the transfer/deed (and any other documents intended to be registered In connection with the colllJ{etlon r:l this transaction) and (b) be subject to conditions whereby the IEP~t~Y&r(S) receMng any of the Requisite Deliveries will be required to hold same in trust and not release same except in accordance with the terms r:l a document registration agreement between the said lawfers. 1he Seller and Buyer Irrevocably Instruct the said lawyers to be bound by the document registration agreement which Is recommended from time to time by the Law Society of Upper Csnada. Unless otherwise agreed to by the lawyers, such exchange of the Requisite Deliveries Will occur in the applicable Land Titles Office or such other location agreeable to both lawyers. 12. DOCuuENTs .AND DISCHARGE: Buyer shall not can for the production of any title deed, abstract, survey or other evidence a title to the property except SL!Ch as are in the possession or control of Seller. If requested by Buyer, Seller vAll deliver any sketch or survey c:l the property within Seller's control to Buyer as soon as possible and prior to the Requisition ~. If a discharge of any Charge/Mortgage held by a corporation incorpOrated pursuant to the Trust And Loan Companies lv::;t (Ca1ada), Chartered Bank, Trust ~. Credit Union, Csisse Populaire or Insurance COrrpany and which Is not to be 8SSl.ll1ed by Buyer on COfT1Jletion, is not available in registrable form on COfT1Jietion, Buyer agrees to accept Seller's l~s personal undertaking to obtain, out of the closing funds, a discharge in registrable form and to register same, or cause same to be registered, on title within a reasonable period of time after coflllletion, provided that on or before COJll)letlon Seller shall provide to Buyer a rmrtgage statement prepared by the mortgagee setting out the balance required to obtain the discharge, and, where a real-time electronic cleared funds transfer system is not being used, a direction executed by Seller directing payment to the mortgagee of the amount required to obtain the discharge out of the balance due on completion. 13. IIIB'ECIICftBuyer acknowledges having had the opporturity to inspect the property and understands that upon aoceptance of this Offer there shall be a binding agreement of purchase and sale between Buyer and Seller. 14. INSURANCe All buildings on the property and all other things being purchased shall be and remain until completion at the risk. of Seller. Penclng completion, Seller shall hold all Insurance policies, if any, and the proceeds thereof in trust for the parties as their Interests may appear and in the event of substantial damage, Buyer may either terrrinate this Agreement and have all ~mnies paid returned without interest or deduction or else take the proceeds of any Insurance and complete the purchase. No Insurance shall be transferred on completion. If Seller is tal<ing back a Charge/Mlrtgage, or Buyer Is assuming a Charge/Mortgage, Buyer shall supply Seller with reasonable evidence of adequate insurance to protect Seller's or other rmrtgagee's interest on COJ'T1)1etion. 15. fiL.ANiiNG MrnThls Agreement shall be effective to create an Interest In the property only if Seller CO"l'lies with the subdMslon control provisions of the Planning Ad. by ~~nd Sel covenants to proceed diligently at his expense to obtain any necessary consent by COf11Jietion. ~ INI11ALS OF BUVER(S): . INn.ALS OF SEll ER(S): "-..____/ l'tJ 0:2012. Orlafo Rail-~ ("CIAI:A"). ~ rltit.--wd. lWsfcrmWM dMioped ~ 00EA ferh'""" ondrep'OCI..don clils morrbono.-.:1 a-!=QI. a1y. Pnt caw uee a~ Ia l"tlh''itBd """"'''l'oflh p1a IMllfln CXI1IOI1I c1 ORrA Do not ala'Ydal prfnllrg arop'OCb:lrg1he liWlCIIrd prHetl)lricn Form 800 Revised 2012 Pege 3 v1 7 Real Forms"2012 28. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS= The heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the undersigned are bound by the terms herein. ~:~.~::'~:~~:~:~~:;M;'DA~~~L~ (W:.:r-~r.:"\ .. -:.;1.!.tl~~~f............... ··=~~~'OriiciBr)"" ..................................... ~DATE ................................. .. I, the Undersigned Seller, agree to the above Offer. I hereby irrevocably instruct my lawyer to pay directly to the brokerage(s) with whom I have agreed to pay commission, the unpaid balance of the cornmlssion together with applicable Harmonized Sales Tax (and any other taxes as may hereafter be applicable), from the proceeds of the sale prior to any payment to the undersigned on completion, as advised by the brokerage(s) to my lavvyer. SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED In the presence of: IN \IIATNESS whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal: ........ ~ .9l'P.9.rml9.1:'.9.t:.W!l.I9.~!J.Rf.I!I.~!J~.r:9 ......... ~··················································· ... ··············· ··~ ..... a;;;;;;···············•······················ ~ DA~ .......................•••........ (Vi.ibiiiBBi.. ... . .. ... .. . ... ... .. ...... .... .... .... ... . .. .. .. . ... ... . .... .. .. .. . .. (SeikidAiaiiiciitiSd Sigiiiiig'OftiOiir;" .. . .. .... .. ............. .... ... ... .. . (SeaQ DATE .................................. . SPOUSAL CONSENnlhe Undersigned Spouse of the Seller hereby consents to the disposition evidenced herein pursuant to the provisions of the Family Law k:t, R.S. 0.1990, and hereby agrees with the Buyer that he/she will execute all necessary or incidental documents to give full force and effect to the sale evidenced herein. ~ ...... :............................................................... '(SjiCi.ij8)""""''""'"""""""""'""''""''""""'"""""""""" ! DATE ................................. .. CONFIRMATION OF ACCEP I :ANCE: NXWthslanclrg anythirg conlained herein to the cmtray, I oonllrm this /lgeerT1!nt IMth all changes both typed and written was finally accepted by all parties at .................... this ......................................... day ' of .............................. ~~.Y. ............................ , 20 ... J .. ?. .. . • (Siilniitui-ii o; saiiei-·a; i:i.iYitr> .. • • .... • .. • • • • • • • · INFORMA110N ON BROKERAGE($) . Listing Brokerage ....................................... I:h: .. Y.Y.J.I.I.~.~.rt .. ~~l';Y..b~g.:; ..................................... Tei.No.( .... ~;\..~ .... ) ..... J~§§ ... O.~.~~ ..... .. ................................................................ G.7..~ .. S.iJT.I~Q.~ .. s.tu.JJJ.I~Q.O.P..YT.'9, .. QN .. N~G .. '-.tl.6 ............................................................... . Co-op/Buyer Brokerage ........................................................................................................................ Tei.No.( ................ ) .................................. . 1 acknCMIIedge receipt of r1l' signed copy of thiS acoopted Jlgeement of and Sale ll1d I authaize the Brokerage to folwaltl a copy to my lawyer. (i:ieiliiij"""""'""""""'"" ........................................... DATE ..................... . ............................................................................ DATE .................... .. (seller) Address for Service .................. .:l.!l.Q.J;l.m~.«~Y ... ~f.l.c;tf.lr:,. ................ . ..... I!!!I!9.1:!!:!!-!!ll.r.9.N..!'ll.~.~ .. ~.e..7. ...... Tei.No.( .• ~.:J..~ .. ) .... ~~-~ ... ~.Q.Q.~ .. .. Seller's Lawyer ..................................................................................... . Address .............................................................................................. . ( ........... ) ........................................... ( ........... ) ................................... .. Tei.No. FAX No. · FOR OFFICE USE ONLY 1 acknoWledge reoelpt of my signed copy of this accepted Agreement of and Sale and 1 authorize the Brokerage to forward a copy to my lawyer. .. ........................................................................... DATE ..................... . (Buyer) per: Rick's Carpet Ltd • (eeyeij"'""'""'"""'""""""''"""''"'"''"'""'''"'"''''"'" DATE .................... .. Address for Service ............................................................................. .. .. ...................................................... Tei.No.( ........... ) ........................... . Buyer's Lawyer .................................................................................... .. Address .............................................................................................. . ( ........... ) ........................................... ( ........... ) ................................... .. Tei.No. FAX No. To: c~ Brolerage shi:IYJn on 1he foregoing Agr&amant or Pwdlale and Sale: In coneldarallon for the Co-op&ratlng Brokarege prcnulng the foregoing Agi'BIImllllt of Purdlaae and Sale, I h&raby dealantthat all moneys received or receivable by me In connecllcn with the Transaitn • ~ In the MLSIP RIDs and Regulatkna ol my Real Estate Bead lhall be receivable end held lntnet Tills agreement shall oonatlute a CorrmiBIIUl Trust .AQreernenl as d8llned In 1h& MLSIBl Rulas and shall be subject to and gDYemed l7f the M.SIP Rules pertaining to Co1111rission Trust. DATEO u of the dale and time of the aocep1ance d the foragci'Jg Agreement of Purchase and Sale. Acknollladged by. ........................................................................................................... . ...................................................................................................... . (Authorized to bind the Listing Brokerage) (Author1zed to bind the Co-operating Brokerage) 1"1] 411 2011, On1ulo Real &loto Alooolallon roRE!A'). All ~gilts reserved. Thlo twm wu dovolopod by ORE'A for tho uto and r.p111dudl0n of Ita morrbonland lloe .... a !::E!, only. Ally other"'" or '"""'dudlon II prohlliltsd """"pi v.1lh prior -n conaonl of ORI!A. Do oolall&r vmon prtnlng or RIProdudng tho IWtdtrU .......,C por11on. Farm 500 Rel/lted 2011 Pllillt 5 c1 7 Real Forms'" 2012 Sct.eduleA Form500 Agi"eement of Purchase and Sale-Commercial for use in the Province of Ormr1o This Schedule is attached to and forms part of the Agreement of Purchase and Sale between: BUYER, .............................................................. Ri~'.$ .. Cj;I.~~J;.J...~<:I ............................................................... , and SELLER, ......................................... JJJ.~.~9.1P.Q@t.I9JI.Qf.Jh~.Jg.w.n.Qf.IIJJ~9.1:\P.~.r:9 ....................................... .. for the purchase and sale of .............................. 9.~H:;~9.~r:.~.~~-~,.JJJ!~9.0.R~.r:9, .. Q~ .. ~~G .~N~ ............................ . ........................................................ dated the ................ ~;l.I:1Q ................ day of ............ Jl.l.r:l~ ............. , 20 ... 1?. .. Buyer agrees to pay the balance as follows: ... (continued from page 6) Note: {1.) The Buyer hereby acknowledges being advised that they may seek outside professional advice (lawyer, building inspector, accountant, surveyor, mortgage consultant, environmental consultant, etc.), and that no Information supplied by the Real Estate Brokers involved in this transaction shall be construed as legal, tax, or environmental advice. (2.) The Seller represents and warrants that the fixtures and chattels as Included In this Agreement of Purchase and Sale will be in good working order and free from all liens and encumbrances on completion. The Parties agree that this representation and warranty shall survive and not merge on completion of this transaction, but apply only to the state of the property at completion of this transaction. The Seller herein agrees to provide the Buyer with a detailed list of the chattels and fixtures included with the subject property and a detailed list of the chattels and fixtures excluded from the sale of the subject property within ten days of acceptance of this Agreement of Purchase and Sale. Upon acceptance of this Agreement of Purchase and Sale the Seller herein agrees to enter Into a Rental Agreement for approximately 8,000 square feet with the Buyer at terms to be negotiated and subject to the Seller's Lawyers approval. This form must be initialed by all parties to the Agreement of~ Sale. . INITIALS OF BUYER(S):~ INinALS OF SELLER(&):~ m 0 2011, <Warto Real Eilale Aoaoc:latlon rOREA'). All d!l>lo '""""<!. 11'11 lt>nn wao developed by OREA for tho 1118 and JVpn>dudlon offtll1'1lllrilell and llcenoooe ~ only. Anrotheru..,ornrprodu<llon II prohl-...,.pt Yo1th prlorwritton conaent or OREA. Do not•llerwhen p1n1ing or ropnulucfng tho atondlnl .,...at portion. Ponn 1100 Revised 2011 Piigll 7 fllf 7 Real F'omls"' 2012 •· #Geocortex Viewer for Silverlight Page 1 ofl " ~ .. . . ' m ) http://webmap.oxfordcounty.ca/glimr/?Viewer=Tillsonburg_advanced 6/4/2012 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF TILLSON BURG BY-LAW NUMBER 3624 BEING A BY-LAW to confirm the proceedings of Council at its meetings held on the 25th day of June, 2012 WHEREAS Section 5 (1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, provides that the powers of a municipal corporation shall be exercised by its council; AND WHEREAS Section 5 (3) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, provides that municipal powers shall be exercised by by-law; AND WHEREAS it is deemed expedient that the proceedings of the Council of the Town of Tillson burg at this meeting be confirmed and adopted by by-law; NOW THEREFORE THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF TILLSON BURG ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. All actions of the Council of The Corporation of the Town of Tillsonburg at its Special meeting and regular meeting held on June 25, 2012, with respect to every report, motion, by-law, or other action passed and taken by the Council, including the exercise of natural person powers, are hereby adopted, ratified and confirmed as if all such proceedings were expressly embodied in this or a separate by-law. 2. The Mayor and Clerk are authorized and directed to do all the things necessary to give effect to the action of the Council of The Corporation of the Town of Tillsonburg referred to in the preceding section. 3. The Mayor and the Clerk are authorized and directed to execute all documents necessary in that behalf and to affix thereto the seal of The Corporation of the Town ofTillsonburg. 4. This By-Law shall come into full force and effect on the day of passing. READ A FIRST AND SECOND TIME THIS 25th DAY OF June, 2012. READ A THIRD AND FINAL TIME AND PASSED THIS 25th DAY OF June, 2012. MAYOR-John Lessif CLERK-Donna Wilson COUNCIL RESOLUTION AGENDA ITEM NO.: __ _ Date: June 25, 2012 RESOLUTION NO.: MOVED BY: SECONDED BY: __ _____:~======:.._ __ _ RESOLVE THAT the Agenda as prepared for the Open Session of the Council Meeting of June 25, 2012, be adopted) cx..s: rArv"-ervl.Q_J D Carried Recorded Vote D Defeated D Deferred D Tabled Cf\J Mayor's Initials COUNCIL RESOLUTION AGENDA ITEM NO.: __ _ Date: June 25, 2012 RESOLUTION NO.: MOVED BY: SECONDED BY: RESOLVE THAT Town Council move into Closed Session, to consider matters relating to: Matters pertaining to the security of the property of the municipality or local board; Matters pertaining to a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by · the municipality or local board; Matters pertaining to litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board. ~Carried D Recorded Vote D Defeated D Deferred D Tabled L Mayor's Initials COUNCIL RESOLUTION AGENDA ITEM NO.: __ _ Date: June 25, 2012 RESOLUTION NO.: MOVED BY: RESOLVE THAT the Minutes of the Open Council Meeting of June 11, 2012, be approved. ~ried D Recorded Vote D Defeated D Deferred D Tabled ~Mayor's Initials COUNCIL RESOLUTION AGENDA ITEM NO.: _.,:._4 __ Date: June 25, 2012 RESOLUTION NO.: __...;..4 __ MOVED BY: RESOLVE THAT Council receive Report DCS 12-41 Committee/Staff Liaison Policy; FURTHER RESOLVE THAT a by-law to endorse the Committee/Staff Liaison Policy, be brought forward for Council consideration. ~Carried D Recorded Vote D Defeated D Deferred D Tabled ~ayor's Initials O.~tiJbal/~f/uu taxpayers due to the County's careful and deliberate application of optional parameter and exclusion tools, and yet it remains a significant burden on the financial and administrative resources of both the County and local municipalities; Therefore be it resolved that the Town of Tillson burg calls on the Government of the Province of Ontario to Amend Part IX of the Municipal Act, 2001 and supporting regulatory provisions so as to make the entirety of that Part (Business Tax Capping) optional at the discretion of each upper and single tier jurisdiction; and That the Town of Tillson burg calls on the Government of the Province of Ontario to make these changes and amendments effective for the 2013 taxation year to coincide with the pending reassessment and related four-year assessment cycle; and That the discussion paper "Allowing Municipalities to Opt Out of Business Tax Capping" prepared by Municipal Tax Equity (MTE) Consulting Inc., which speaks directly to this subject matter, and which addresses many of this Council's concerns, interests and preferences, shall be attached to, and shall form a part of this motion; and That copies of this motion, along with the above mentioned attachment, are to be sent to: Premier Dalton McGuinty; The Honourable Dwight Duncan, Minister of Finance; Honourable Kathleen O'Wynne, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing; Ernie Hardeman, MPP Oxford; Gary McNamara, President, Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO); Allan Doheny, Assistant Deputy Minister-Provincial Local Finance Division (Acting); Janet Mason, Assistant Deputy Minister -Local Government and Planning Policy Divisio~ Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. ; eov..rrY { Di<Jof2f} kN!O .~ MU'fJ [ ( ( {J fl<t..-{ f7 F] r rJ lbfe f II I) V I r-.\ u2 q {)t-JPt7({() ~ ~ w~~ + ~~ w~......_ .... ""'_ r ~/\.i)P D D Carried Recorded Vote D Defeated D Deferred D Tabled ____ Mayor's Initials COUNCIL RESOLUTION AGENDA ITEM NO.: ---=..::10:...,___ Date: June 25, 2012 RESOLVED THAT By-Law 3625, To Adopt the Committee/Staff Liaison Policy, be read for a first and second time and this constitutes the first and second reading thereof. ~Carried D Recorded Vote D Defeated D Deferred D Tabled ~ Mayor's Initials COUNCIL RESOLUTION AGENDA ITEM NO.: _1=1;,_,__ Date: June 25, 2012 MOVED BY: RESOLVE THAT By-Law 3626, To Authorize an Agreement with J. Kauenhofen, In Trust, be read for a first and second time and this constitutes the first and second reading thereof. FURTHER RESOLVE THAT By-Law 3626, be given third and final reading and the Mayor and Clerk be and are hereby authorized to sign the same, and place the Corporate Seal thereunto. ~arried D Recorded Vote D Defeated D Deferred D Tabled ~Mayor's Initials COUNCIL RESOLUTION AGENDA ITEM NO.: i 1.. Date: June 25, 2012 RESOLUTION NO.: MOVED BY: RESOLVE THAT By-Law 3627, To Authorize an Agreement with Rick's Carpet Ltd., to authorize the sale of 60 Cedar Street, be read for a first and second time and this constitutes the first and second reading thereof. @carried D Recorded Vote D Defeated D Deferred D Tabled *Mayor's Initials COUNCIL RESOLUTION AGENDA ITEM NO.: -=~T---Date: June 25, 2012 RESOLUTION NO .: _'f,_· __ MOVED BY: ~ SECONDED BY: AND RESOLVE THAT By-Law 3624, To Confirm the Proceedings of the Council Meeting of June 25, 2012, be read for a first and second time and t his constitutes the first and second reading thereof; FURTHER RESOLVE THAT By-Law 3624, be given third and final reading and the Mayor and Clerk be and are hereby authorized to sign the same, and place the Corporate Seal thereunto. D Recorded Vote D Defeated D Deferred D Tabled +-Mayor's Initials ' 1 I ·.· -: c.~ . AGENDA Town of Tillson burg Meeting for the Committee "Closed & Open Council" on Monday June 25, 2012 04:30 PM Council Chambers Chair: John Lessif CALL TO ORDER ADOPTION OF AGENDA Councillor Rosehart will read Resolution No. 1 RESOLVED THAT the Agenda as prepared for the Open Session of the Council Meeting of June 25, 2012, be adopted. RESOLUTION-CLOSED MEETING SESSION Councillor~fread Resolution No. 2 RESOLVE THAT Town Council move into Closed Session, to consider matters relating to: Matters pertaining to the security of the property of the municipality or local board; Matters pertaining to a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board; Matters pertaining to litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board. I J }/1( '. { . j J I fv--Yr \J~~ (\_ c/ -cu~vur MOVE INTO CLOSED SESSION ·-~r~ qof-?CAI' s:vt (__ -4() DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST OR THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF ADOPTION OF AGENDA ~v+-councillor ~o read CLOSED Resolution No. 1: RESOLVED THAT the Agenda as prepared for the Closed Session of the Council Meeting of June 25, 2012, be adopted. MINUTES & BUSINESS ARISING OUT OF THE MINUTES Councillor Rosehart to read CLOSED Resolution No. 2: RESOLVE THAT the Minutes of the Closed Session of the Council Meeting of June 11, 2012, be approved. I 3 I ! -.: s; ,, DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST OR THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF MINUTES & BUSINESS ARISING OUT OF THE MINUTES Councillor Stephenson will read Resolution No. 3 RESOLVE THAT the Minutes of the Open Council Meeting of June 11, 2012, be approved. DELEGATIONS 1. Tillsonburg Public Library Summer Reading Program Presented By: Kristina Overbeek, Children's Summer Programme Co-ordinator Terry Pope, Library CEO INFORMATION ITEMS 2. Source Water Protection Program 3. The Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal Program ' CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 4. DCS 12-41 Committee/Staff Liaison Policy Presented By: CAO Councillor Beres will read Resolution No. 4: RESOLVE THAT Council receive Report DCS 12-41 Committee/Staff Liaison Policy; FURTHER RESOLVE THAT a by-law to endorse the Committee/Staff Liaison Policy, be brought forward for Council consideration. · 5. Delegations for AMO August 19 -22, 2012 Staff are seeking direction on which Ministries Council wish to request Delegations for the 2012 AMO Conference August 19-21, 2012. FINANCE 6. Insurance Review Feasibility Study COMMITTEE MINUTES & REPORTS 7. Committees of Council Minutes 8. LPRCA Minutes of May 2, 2012 NOTICE OF MOTION 51 BY-LAWS Councillor Klein to read By-Law Resolutions 10. By-Law 3625 To Adopt the Committee/Staff Liaison Policy Proposed Resolution: ((' RESOLVED THAT By-Law 3625, To Adopt the Committee/Staff Liaison Policy, be read for a first and second time and this constitutes the first and second reading thereof. 11. By-Law 3626, To Authorize an Agreement with J. Kauenhofen, In Trust Proposed Resolution: ·-::r RESOLVE THAT By-Law 3626, To Authorize an Agreement with J. Kauenhofen, In Trust, be read for a first and second time and this constitutes the first and second reading thereof. FURTHER RESOLVE THAT By-Law 3626, be given third and final reading and the Mayor and Clerk be and are hereby authorized to sign the same, and place the Corporate Seal thereunto. 12. By-Law 3624 To Confirm the Proceedings of the Council Meeting of June 25, 2012 Proposed Resolution: 8 AND RESOLVE THAT By-Law 3624, To Confirm the Proceedings of the Council Meeting of June 25, 2012, be read for a first and second time and this constitutes the first and second reading thereof; FURTHER RESOLVE THAT By-Law 3624, be given third and final reading and the Mayor and Clerk be and are hereby authorized to sign the same, and place the Corporate Seal thereunto. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST ADJOURNMENT ~!vAUGHAN Our File No: CV25-12 July 10, 2012 Donna Wilson Clerk Development & Communication Services Town of Tillsonburg 200 Broadway, 2nd Floor, Suite 204 Tillsonburg, ON N4G 5A7 Dear : Ms. Wilson RE: BUSINESS TAX CAPPING REFORM We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated July 6, 2012, with respect to the above noted matter. In accordance with the City's policy your correspondence has been forwarded to the Mayor and Members of Council. A member of Council may request the matter be listed on a Council/Committee agenda for consideration. Should this matter be listed on an agenda, we will advise you of any action taken by Vaughan Council. Yours sincerely, City of Vaughan, Office of the City Clerk, 2141 Major Mackenzie Drive, Vaughan, Ontario L6A 1T1 Tel: 905.832-8504 website www.vaughan .ca email Jeffrey.Abrams@vaughan.ca