Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLGS-007-26Staff Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: General Government Committee Date of Meeting: February 2, 2026 Report Number: LGS-007-26 Authored By: Natalie King, Municipal Law Enforcement Supervisor Submitted By: Rob Maciver, Deputy CAO/Solicitor, Legislative Services Reviewed By: Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO Report Subject: Administrative Penalty System Update and Recommendations Recommendations: 1.That Report LGS-007-26, and any related delegations or communication items, be received; 2. That Council authorize staff to continue with the identified next steps for the implementation of an Administrative Penalty System (APS) including the associated By-law(s) and prescribed policies as identified in Report LGS-007-26, and; 3. That Council authorize staff to initiate procurement of the necessary software solution for the APS to be funded from the General Capital Reserve, and; 4. That all interested parties listed in Report LGS-007-26, be advised of Council’s decision. Resolution #:GG-027-26 Municipality of Clarington Page 2 Report LGS-007-26 Report Overview The purpose of this report is to provide Council with information and recommendations related to Administrative Penalty System (“APS” – also referred to as Administrative Monetary Penalty System or “AMPS”). 1. Background 1.1 On May 5, 2025, Council approved Report LGS-016-25, Administrative Penalty System, authorizing staff to investigate and report back on the requirements of replacing the existing Provincial Offences Act (POA) parking fines with an Administrative Penalty System (APS), specifically the following: a) Identify the Ministry of Transportation Ontario (MTO) requirements, timelines and charges associated with the transition; b) Research ticketing software providers to determine if our current provider is best suited to remain or if an alternate provider is more suitable; c) Explore the financial costs of Licence Plate Recognition (LPR) technology, while garnering an understanding of the benefits of utilizing the technology; d) Forecast potential ticketing efficiencies and generate estimates of possible changes to revenue; e) Determine if the required positions of Screening Officer and Hearing Officer would be better suited as internal staff or as contracted roles; and f) Provide general estimates of overhead costs associated with the transition. 1.2 The findings are provided in section 2 below. 2. Details Overview of Requirements to Replace Current POA System with APS 2.1 The Municipal Act, 2001, provides Municipalities with the authority to implement an APS process and adjudicate parking violations and other Municipal by-laws, with the following requirements that are currently being prepared by Staff to later be enacted by Council: 2.1.1. Adopt policies and procedures that address: Municipality of Clarington Page 3 Report LGS-007-26 a) Undue Hardship; b) Extension of time to request a review; c) Extension of time to pay penalty; d) Financial management and reporting; e) Prevention of Political Interference; f) Public complaints; and g) Conflict of interest; 2.1.2. Procure software for the enforcement and records management of APS; 2.1.3. Enter into a new ARIS agreement with MTO; 2.1.4. Approve APS administrative fees within the Fees By-law; 2.1.5. Create necessary amendments to the Traffic By-law for Council enactment; and 2.1.6. Appoint Screening and Hearing Officers. MTO Timelines and Charges Associated with Transitioning to APS 2.2 The Ministry of Transportation Authorized Requester Information System (ARIS) Division has indicated that upon receipt of a completed application, a Municipality should anticipate a minimum of six (6) to eight (8) weeks processing time for approval of a new agreement. This timeline, however, should be considered a conservative guideline, as other Municipalities commonly encounter significantly longer wait times, with some reporting upwards of thirty (30) weeks for a final approval from MTO. 2.3 A $250 application fee is due to be paid to MTO upon submission of the application for a new ARIS agreement. 2.4 Final operational expenses will be identified and confirmed upon submission and approval of the ARIS agreement application. Software Administration Provider 2.5 To ensure adherence to the Municipality’s Procurement By-law, no determination regarding a preferred software provider can be made at this time. The acquisition will proceed in accordance an appropriate procurement process. 2.6 The procurement will be scheduled for 2026 with the objective to have a vendor selected and implementation completed in time for activation in 2027. Municipality of Clarington Page 4 Report LGS-007-26 Costs and Benefits of License Plate Recognition (LPR) Technology 2.7 Staff have ruled out the use of licence plate recognition technology at this time due to prioritizing regulatory compliance, Officer training, and the stabilizing of Screening and Hearing workflows. 2.8 Implementation of this technology in alignment with the initial phase of APS may divert resources away from core readiness tasks; while deferring a decision to post implementation review, allows for a more appropriate assessment of technology needs and better determine resource and budget capacities. Ticketing Efficiencies and Estimates of Possible Changes to Revenue Municipality of Clarington Page 5 Report LGS-007-26 2.11 A conservative example of additional revenue generation using an estimate of 9,000 penalty notices issued during the first year, using an average penalty amount of $45 produces the following results when considering only the late fee and final notice fees: Estimated Revenue Changes (Per Penalty Notice/Ticket) Without Plate Denial Administrative Fee POA Revenue APS Revenue Set Fine Amount $45 $45 Late Fee (after 15 days) N/A $15 Final Notice Fee (after 36 days) N/A $15 Total per Aged Ticket $45 $75 Example of 20% Penalty Notices age past 36 days (1,800 penalty notices) N/A $54,000 Evaluate Staffing Model for Screening Officer and Hearing Officer Roles 2.12 In accordance with the governing Provincial Legislation, the Municipality is required to establish a two (2) step dispute resolution system by means of appointing a Screening Officer and a Hearing Officer to independently conduct quasi judicial reviews of disputed Administrative Penalties under the APS By-law. 2.13 In considering the appeal process and requirements imposed, it is noted the Screening Officer role necessitates several key qualifications. Some of these include a strong working knowledge of, and ability to interpret and apply, Provincial Legislation and Municipal By-laws, as well as employ proficiency in conflict resolution strategies and effective written (and occasionally oral) communication skills. Municipality of Clarington Page 6 Report LGS-007-26 2.14 The position further entails the capacity to review evidentiary materials, evaluate alleged contraventions, and render determinations to affirm, modify, or rescind disputed penalty notices in accordance with applicable legislation and by-law provisions. 2.15 Screening reviews will be conducted primarily via email, with exception being provided to ensure the screening process remains accessible to everyone. 2.16 As the volume of penalty notices increases, the number of screenings scheduled will also increase, as will the demand for a scheduled Screening appointment. 2.17 The table below illustrates that between January 1, 2025, and December 14, 2025, nine thousand four hundred four (9,404) parking tickets were issued, which resulted in seven hundred thirty-four (734) screenings being scheduled. A noted increase from the same year over year comparison from 2024, whereby seven thousand six hundred ninety-three (7,693) tickets were issued, resulting in six hundred thirty-four (634) scheduled screenings. Year Tickets Issued Screenings Scheduled 2025 January 1 through December 14 9,404 734 2024 January 1 through December 14 7,693 634 2.18 Based on these considerations, it is recommended that the Screening Officer position be established as an internal staff function, initially structured as a part-time contract appointment, with the flexibility to transition to a full-time, non-affiliated role should operational requirements warrant such a change. 2.19 Providing the Screening Officer role as an internal staff function affords flexibility to maintain coverage during absences or vacation periods and facilitates efficient scheduling of hearing appointments. 2.20 Funding for this new Staff position will be included as part of a 2027 Budget request and will be fully funded by projected additional revenues resulting in no increase to the tax levy. Municipality of Clarington Page 7 Report LGS-007-26 Hearing Officer Position 2.21 The second step in the dispute resolution process, is to retain a Hearing Officer to act as an independent adjudicator for disputes and appealed decisions of the Screening Officer. 2.22 This position operates independently from enforcement staff and the Screening Officer to ensure impartiality and fairness of the adjudication process. 2.23 The Hearing Officer has the authority to affirm, modify, or rescind the decision of the Screening Officer. 2.24 Differing from the role of the Screening Officer, the Hearing Officers’ required qualifications include some of the following: 2.25 Strong knowledge of the governing Legislation; 2.26 Prior experience in a quasi-judicial or adjudicative role (e.g., tribunal member, mediator, arbitrator); 2.27 Ability to conduct hearings in accordance with prescribed procedures; 2.28 Must employ a demonstrated ability to make unbiased decisions based on evidence, operating free from political influence or conflict of interest. 2.29 This position will operate on a per diem basis, with scheduled Hearings to be conducted within Council Chambers. 2.30 This position will be funded in the same manner as described for the Screening Officer. 3. Financial Considerations Explain Financial Consideration(s). 3.1 In reviewing the monetary considerations for transitioning to an Administrative Penalty System, items for review include an enforcement software expense, staffing considerations, MTO operational costs, as well as an examination of the sample administrative fee schedule. Software Costs 3.2 The true cost of procuring the necessary software to implement the APS will only be known once a competitive procurement has taken place. Municipality of Clarington Page 8 Report LGS-007-26 3.3 An estimate from 2024 was used to provide a working guideline of the projected cost for planning purposes. This estimate indicates transitionary software costs for the first year of approximately $25K plus individual licensing costs for each Municipal Enforcement Officer that would need access to the system. The cost in subsequent years are estimated at $16K plus licensing costs. 3.4 In order to move forward with the transition to APS, an upfront advance of funds is required to proceed with the software purchase and ensure that product security meets MTO requirements. 3.5 In consultation with the Financial Services Department, the General Capital Reserve has been recommended as the funding source for implementation and the amount needed will be paid back into the reserve account with revenue generated from the APS program, resulting in cost neutrality. Staffing Consideration 3.6 As outlined already in this report, there is a requirement to appoint one (1) Screening Officer position in the capacity of a part-time contractual appointment, and one (1) per diem Hearing Officer appointment. 3.7 Both positions will be required at rollout of the APS program, which has a proposed start time in 2027 Q1. 3.8 Funding for staff considerations will be discussed as part of the 2027 budget process. Revenue Changes with APS 3.9 Under the current Provincial Offences Act (POA) process, unpaid tickets beyond 15 days trigger a Notice of Impending Conviction (NIC), and after 45 days, they are transferred to the Provincial Offences Court System. At this stage, additional fees are applied by POA, and if unpaid, the debt is registered with the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) for plate denial. 3.10 The Municipality does not have authority to apply incremental fees during this aging process, and any fees added beyond the original set fine remain with POA. Upon payment, the Municipality receives only the original set fine amount. 3.11 Transitioning to an Administrative Penalty System (APS) removes the POA court process and allows the Municipality to manage the full life cycle of a penalty notice internally and to recovery the costs accordingly. 3.12 This will enable the Municipality to impose modest administrative fees (e.g. $15) at incremental aging stages and recover actual costs for notices, including MTO search Municipality of Clarington Page 9 Report LGS-007-26 fees and postage. These charges are added to the penalty notice, neutralizing service costs and generating additional revenue. 3.13 The system will also create operational efficiencies through more timely ticket resolution and improved cash flow, while eliminating reliance on the overburdened Provincial Courts. 3.14 A sample administrative fee schedule has been attached as “Schedule A” that makes up part of this Report. These costs are not final and are provided for illustrative purposes only. MTO Operational Costs 3.15 Preliminary operational expenses to be incurred by MTO include pay per use fees as it relates to accessing vehicle owner information and registering any unpaid penalty debts against the registered owner of a vehicle for plate denial. 3.16 As part of the APS process, these fees incurred by the Municipality will be charged back to the registered vehicle owner as an additional fee related to their penalty notice. 4. Strategic Plan Efficient and Effective Service Delivery (Lead) 4.1 APS removes dependence on external courts, streamlining ticket adjudication and accelerating settlement. This enhances internal service delivery standards in line with Council priorities. Financial Stewardship and Long-Term Fiscal Management 4.2 By shifting to APS, the municipality retains previously forfeited incremental fees (e.g., late and final-notice fees), improving revenue retention and supporting sustainable budgeting practices. Municipality of Clarington Page 10 Report LGS-007-26 Technology and Process Optimization 4.3 The move to APS requires implementation of enforcement software, enabling digital workflows, automated aging processes, and data driven performance metrics, all in alignment with this modernization objective. 5. Climate Change Not Applicable. 6. Concurrence This report has been reviewed by the Deputy CAO/Solicitor of Legislative Services and the Deputy CAO/Treasurer of Finance and Technology who concur with the recommendations. 7. Conclusion It is respectfully recommended that Council endorse the implementation of the Administrative Penalty System as identified in Report LGS-007-26, with an implementation goal set for Q1 2027. Additional supporting By-laws and Polices will be brought forward for Council approval as required. Staff Contact: Natalie King, Supervisor, Municipal Law Enforcement, (905) 623-3379 Ext. 2110 or nking@clarington.net Attachments: Attachment 1 – Schedule A – Sample Administrative Fee Schedule Interested Parties: List of Interested Parties available from Department. Attachment 1 to Report LGS-007-26 Schedule A Sample Administrative Fee Schedule Fee Type When Charged Amount Late Fee No payment within 15 days of service $15 Final Notice Fee No payment within 36 days of service $15 Plate Denial Fee No payment - day 58 onwards, penalty notices eligible for plate denial $25 MTO Search Fee Applied at time of late fee application, when search is performed. $14 Convenience Fee Online Payments Only $2 Registered Mail Fee When served a penalty notice by registered mail or courier Actual Cost Screenings Must be Scheduled within 30 days of Penalty Service Screening No Show Fee Fail to Appear for in-person Accessible Screenings $50 Hearing No Show Fee Fail to Appear for Scheduled Hearing $100 Where administrative penalties have been paid, and the penalty is subsequently cancelled by the Screening or Hearing Officer, the Municipality shall refund the fees in full to the person.