This document provides a program evaluation of by-law enforcement in the Town of Innisfil. Surveys were administered to by-law officers and residents to examine the efficiency and effectiveness of enforcement and residents' knowledge and perceptions of by-laws. The analysis found that residents were poorly informed about by-laws and had a somewhat apathetic attitude. This demonstrates that more work is needed to increase awareness and engagement with by-law enforcement in the town. The report includes an introduction, methodology, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and references.

1.
Program Evaluation
By‐Law Enforcement for the Town of Innisfil
3/21/2016
The purpose of this report is to critically examine the efficiency and effectiveness of by‐law
enforcement within the Town of Innisfil and then recommend an appropriate solution. To
aid in the study, 2 surveys were administered to by‐law officers and the residents of the
town. Information was collected both the knowledge and perception of by‐laws in Innisfil.
After the analysis, the findings show that the residents were ill‐informed about by‐laws and
showed a slightly apathetic attitude towards it. This demonstrates that there is much more
work to be done regarding by‐law enforcement in that awareness and care of this topic
must be increased.
Prepared by:
Annamore Kembo
Brian Chu
Lito Alban
Miten Patel
Maureen Max Kizito

2. 2
Contents
Introduction ....................................................................................... p.3
Structure of the Report
Scope
Evaluation Purpose
Stage of Development
Stakeholders
Table 1 Stakeholder Assessment and Engagement Plan pp.5‐6
Logic Model …………............................................................................ p.7
Literature Review ……………..……………………………………………………………. p.8
Methodology ..................................................................................... p.10
Design
Method
Sample …………………………………......................................................... p.12
Target Population / Sampling Frame
Data Collection ……………………….......................................................... p.14
Data Collection Methods
Analysis .............................................................................................. p.15
Methods of Analysis
Table 2 Survey Q.12 p.18
Table 3 Survey Q.10 p.18
Table 3 Survey Q.8 and Q.9 p.19
Anti‐Bias Measures ........................................................................... p.21
Recommendations ............................................................................ p.22
Future Research ................................................................................ p.23
Reference …....................................................................................... p.24
Appendix …........................................................................................ p.25
Survey #1
Survey #2

3. 3
Introduction
This report presents the findings and conclusions from evaluation of the Innisfil’s by‐law
enforcement program. The evaluation was conducted between January 7 and March 21
2016.
Structure of the Report:
This report contains six sections, including the introduction. Section 2 provides the
background of Innisfil’s by‐law enforcement program, describing its structure, resources,
services, and the logic behind its activities, Section 3 describes the methodology used in the
evaluation; Section 4 summarizes the key findings and response; Section5 presents the
conclusions of the report; and Section 6 contains the recommendations and further
research needed.
Scope:
The Municipal Law Enforcement Department is responsible for the enforcement of by‐laws
adopted by Council, various Provincial Statutes and other duties that may be assigned by
Council. The Department is also responsible for the administration of some by‐laws. In
keeping with Inspiring Innisfil initiatives, the Department’s main objective is to gain
compliance with all town by‐laws. As a result, the town created a by‐law enforcement
program in 1991, which oversees the enforcement of 33 by‐laws and is implemented by four
community standard officers. However, since its initial implementation the program has
never been evaluated to measure its effectiveness and efficiency.
Evaluation Purpose:
The purpose of this evaluation was to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of Innisfil’s by‐
law enforcement program in meeting/achieving its goals. The evaluation focused on the
following two by‐laws:
 BY‐LAW NO. 075‐02 – Property Standards
 BY‐LAW NO. 092‐06 – Lot Maintenance
With regard to performance, the evaluation considered effectiveness (i.e., the extent to
which the by‐law have achieved their objectives) and efficiency and economy (i.e., the
degree to which appropriate and efficient means are being employed to achieve the desired
outcomes) and the proactive monitoring system.
The findings are to inform program management at the Innisfil Town Hall on measures of
success, areas of improvement, and a more favourable proactive model related to enforcing
the two by‐laws.

4. 4
The Evaluation addressed the following key Questions:
 Are the by‐law enforcements efficient?
 Is the program cost –effective? Do the benefits outweigh the costs?
 How fast (in units of time) are by‐law violations and complaints responded to?
 Are the by‐laws and enforcements achieving its intended goal(s)?
 Should the program continue, be downsized or expanded to include proactive
monitoring?
Stage of Development:
The by‐law enforcement program has been in place since 1991; it oversees enforcement of
33 by‐laws and is implemented by four full time Community Standards Officers. The officers
are responsible for the enforcement of by‐laws adopted by Council and various Provincial
Statutes. The Community Development Standards Branch manages this program. This
branch was created as the new amalgamated Building and Municipal By‐Law Enforcement
departments to provide a "One Window" approach to meeting the needs of the residents of
Innisfil while the town continues to grow. The department also employs volunteers as part
of high‐school coop program and coop students from the Bachelor of Human Services –
Police Studies program of the Georgian College.
Stakeholders:
These stakeholders will be involved in various capacities to develop this evaluation plan and
is outlined in Table 1.
 The residents of the Town of Innisfil
 The Town Council
 Community Standards Officers
 Management of Community Development Standards Branch

5. 5
Table 1: Stakeholder Assessment and Engagement Plan
Stakeholder
Name
Stakeholder
Category
Interest or Perspective
Role in the
Evaluation
How and When
to Engage
How they
will use the
information
Residents of
Innisfil
Primary
Integral part of the
evaluation. Need to
know if the by‐laws are
effective.
Need to be aware of
the by‐laws and
enforcement
procedures.
Primary
input And
Information
provider
1) Target
Group –
Questionnaire
on residents
that made
complaints
2)
Questionnaire
on by‐law
awareness and
feedback on
the program
Become a
beneficiary
of change
arising from
the
(evaluation)
Town Council Secondary
Funder, decision‐
making authority sets
the goals the program
needs to achieve
Make a
decision in
the findings
of the
evaluation.
Provide
input of the
intended
goals of the
program
N/A
Will use the
results to
expand
program to
proactive
monitoring,
to design
new
programs,
introduce
change, or
develop
future
strategies,
etc.

6. 6
Stakeholder
Name
Stakeholder
Category
Interest or Perspective
Role in the
Evaluation
How and When
to Engage
How they
will use the
information
Community
Standards
Officers
Primary
Employees.
Responsible for
program
implementation,
enforcement results
Data and
information
provider
Questionnaire
on
enforcement
process/
procedures
Will use the
results to
validate the
findings and
to support
the
evaluation
Program
Management
Secondary
Interested and
committed to the
program. Responsible
for overseeing the
implementation/mana
gement of the program
and identification of
issues/improvement
areas
Data and
Information
Provider.
Make a
(decision
judgment
based) on
the findings
of the
evaluation.
Provide/release
Data on
enforcements
completed for
new and repeat
offenders and
complaints
received
Will use the
results for
planning.
Results of
similar
programs in
comparable
towns (Town
of New
Tecumseh)
Secondary
Stakeholder of interest
for comparison of
similar program(town
with similar population
density as Innisfil)
Data and
information
provider
Collect
data/phone
interview on
the program
(Enforcements
and complaints
received –
same type of
data as Innisfil
to compare)
N/A

7. 7
Logic Model

8. 8
Literature Review
Cole et al (2011) evaluated a municipal by‐law for the Greater Toronto Area to reduce
cosmetic and non‐essential pesticide use on household lawn. This follows the study on how
the use of pesticides on lawns and gardens contributes to environmental contamination and
threatens human health. Similar to our group, they chose to use a logic model and conduct
surveys. However, unlike us they did their surveys through the telephone and conducted pre
and post surveys. Our group had also wanted to the same but due to time and procedural
limitations, we could not. Although the authors used the regression models as anti‐bias
measures, we used the chi square to test the relationship between nominal and ordinal
level variables to reject the hypothesis that the data is independent. However, Cole et al,
found that bylaws implemented through education and enforcement are a viable policy
option for the reduction of cosmetic pesticide use and contamination of groundwater
intended for drinking.
Kennedy (2010) in his evaluation of Woodstock outdoor smoking by‐law like us used
qualitative and quantitative methods to address their research objectives. Quantitative
measures were collected using a pre‐post survey design, interviewing smokers and non‐
smokers in the City of Woodstock, and Ingersroll. Kennedy like Cole et al conducted pre and
post surveys using the telephone followed by a face to face survey using smartphones to
target individuals who were observed smoking. Surveying both samples ensured the beliefs,
attitudes, and behavior of those smokers would be more likely to be affected by the by‐law.
The author also used a longitudinal cohort design, whereby respondents from both Wave 1
surveys were re‐contacted by telephone in approximately one year after the ban was
implemented to measure changes in the key outcome variables. We used a cross sectional
design due to the limitations we encountered during our evaluation. However, the second
wave of surveys was conducted entirely by telephone with no replacement. This qualitative
study sought to identify any specific lessons or findings from the process undertaken that
would be applicable or helpful to other communities. The qualitative study involved 6 key
informant interviews who worked within public health, city staff and an elected official. This
provided insight on the different aspects of the by‐law, from development to enforcement
which differs from our group in that we were independent evaluators. The data collected
from the key informant interviews was analyzed using an inductive qualitative method
called the ‘framework approach’. However, Kennedy failed to use anti‐bias measures in his
study which questions the reliability and validity of his findings.
On the other hand, McWilliams et al (2012) evaluated the planning and management
approaches for limiting residential encroachment impacts within forest edges. They also
chose to use surveys by interviewing twenty‐six informants in six municipalities which
included Cambridge, Guelph, Kitchener, Mississauga, Oakville and Waterloo. However, the
sampling was non‐random through a snowball sampling method. Unlike the other two

9. 9
evaluations, this one used experts selected from different municipal department. They also
used open ended and closed questions to avoid bias. The study unlike other the two used a
control group known as Burlington because it was not participating. They also preserved
anonymity by coding the interviewees. Furthermore, Richardson (2013) evaluated the city of
Hamilton by‐law that prohibits smoking within city parks and recreation properties. This
evaluation is somewhat similar to Kennedy’s (2010) Woodstock outdoor smoking bylaw but
there is a key difference. Hamilton’s study was carried out by a medical health officer whose
main objective might be very different from many other independent evaluators. This is
because the Healthcare department’s objectives might be geared towards a health related
outcome. Therefore, the design and survey questions might be biased towards answering a
particular set of health objectives. Nevertheless, she also used education and enforcement
policies by campaigning through the radio, television and the internet. She then later
examined the surveys, observational studies and cigarettes to evaluate the effective of this
by‐law after the educational campaign. Last but not least, we reviewed the evaluation of by‐
laws in Whitehorse city. The main purpose of this evaluation was to determine whether a
course correction is required in order to make by‐law programs and services more relevant
to its clients and stakeholders, while remaining economically feasible. This is quite similar to
our objective in evaluating the town of Innisfil bylaws. The difference is that the Whitehorse
city evaluation was carried out by city officials whilst ours, Kennedy’s and Cole et al’s was
carried out by independent bodies. Like all the evaluations, they all used both qualitative
and quantitative methods in collecting data. In this study, they used random sampling
through the internet and face to face interviews. However, they cite that the use of
qualitative questionnaires as their anti bias measures. We felt that using qualitative
questionnaires alone cannot address all the biases in a research, therefore they should have
used other measures too to combat biases. In conclusion, we gathered that surveys are
popular in evaluating bylaws and that is the reason why we chose to use our methodology in
the collection of data. In addition, we also deduced that bylaws implemented through
education and enforcement are a viable policy option for effective enforcement of city by‐
laws.

10. 10
Methodology: Evaluation Design
Design:
In designing our methodology of collecting data, we had to remember that the purpose of
the evaluation was to determine the efficiency and effectiveness of the by‐law enforcement
in Innisfil. Given this purpose, we decided to use a descriptive design which meant the
environment of the participants was not changed. This design was chosen because we
wanted to accurately assess the knowledge of the residents of Innisfil on by‐laws without
tampering the information they knew beforehand. Another aspect of the design was that it
the surveys were handed out physically. We chose to collect the data this way because
other descriptive methods such as interviews and online surveys did not appear to be a
viable option. With interviews, we thought that the success rate of participants would have
turned out to be low which would lead to a very small sample size. With online surveys, we
did not have access to the emails of the Innisfil residents nor did we think it would be as
effective. Another characteristic of the design was that it was a cross‐sectional study in
which the participants were chosen quasi randomly. Our group faced a limitation in that we
received the permission of administering our surveys late. This mean we only had one
opportunity to collect data in a library which meant the participants were truly random.
Considering that the by‐laws were created in 1991 and have been ongoing ever since, we
would have also liked to administer a posttest if given the opportunity. This design would
allow analytic comparisons to be made within the target population, i.e. causal effect
between residents who have filed by‐law violations and residents who have not.
Method:
Our method consisted of a mixed method in that we collected data both of qualitative and
quantitative nature. In terms of quantitative data, we collected data using the surveys we
administered on the demographic of the participants living in Innisfil. The data we collected
involved the different regions of where the participant lived as Innisfil are separated into
several areas. We also gathered the age brackets of the participants and the outcomes of
the quantitative data can be examined in the sample section. The purpose of collecting this
was to assess if there may have been any pattern or trends depending on the age of the
individual or where they were from.
As for our qualitative data, that was primarily gathered from our surveys as well that we
sent both to residents but also by‐law enforcers as well. Out of our 9 mandatory questions,
7 of them were created to collect qualitative data in the form of yes and no and scaled
questions. The survey's’ purpose overall was the gauge the overall knowledge and
perception of by‐law enforcement within the area. Our initial plan was to gather around 300

11. 11
participants for the survey, however due to the constraints we faced, we were able to
approach 100 instead. Out of the 100, we had a success rate of 38% in individuals willing to
fill out the survey. The method of choosing was that we would ask everyone we saw over
the age of 18. This meant it was each person was quasi‐randomly chosen in that we chose
each one without bias but within the confined area of a library. As for by‐law officers, we
administered the survey to every one of them which was a total of 3.

12. 12
Sample
Target Population:
The target population we based our sample was from all relevant stakeholders which
includes full time Community Standards Officers dedicated to enforcing the town’s by‐laws,
and residents of the City of Innisfil. All participants were over the age of 18 years old. After
the data was collected, we categorized all survey participants into 3 groups: Community
Standards Officers, complainants & non‐complainants of by‐law infractions. Complainants of
by‐law infractions include individuals who have called in to report a by‐law violation and
have dealt with the enforcement process. Non‐complainants have been included in the
sample to gain a better understanding how individuals who are not a part of the
enforcements process perceive the program. The Community Standards Officers are
included in the sample for the main purpose of analyzing an insider’s perception on the
issue.
Sampling method:
A non‐probability sampling
method was used in this
evaluation because we
targeted a specific group
who were the individuals
who are in charge of
enforcing by‐laws. As for
the residents, a probability
sampling method was used
to survey individuals who
called in to report
violations, and individuals
who have not dealt with
the process. Even though a
non‐probability method
will be used, the selection criteria will be randomized. In total 100 people were approached
with a 38% success rate which meant 38 participants filled out the survey. Of the 38
participants, only 3 people actually reported any violations.
Figure 1

13. 13
Figure 2

14. 14
Data Collection
Data Collection Methods:
To answer the questions for this evaluation, both new data as well as secondary data was
collected. The new data was collected from the various questionnaires that were
distributed to:
1. By‐Law Enforcement Officers
2. Residents who have made complaints
3. Non‐complainant residents
The questionnaire that was given to the By‐Law Enforcement Officers will be to ascertain
what the enforcement of a by‐law actually entails. The data gathered from those who made
the complaints provided information regarding the level of satisfaction of the results of the
enforcement as well as towards the procedure. Finally the answers garnered from the non‐
complainants questionnaires will provide a general look to the awareness and support of
the average citizen of Innisfil toward the program.
Secondary data was also gathered from the records that the Town of Innisfil retains over the
course of the year, refer to figure 3. The information from those records gave us sufficient
statistical data as to the type of calls received as well as resolution time. We had originally
planned to get access to similar records from the Town of New Tecumseh and conduct a
comparison between the two towns, as according to Statistics Canada in 2011, Innisfil has a
population of 33,079 and a population density of 116.4 persons per square kilometer.[1]
New Tecumseh for that same year had a population of 30,234 and a population density of
110.3.[2] As these numbers are fairly similar, they could provide an approximate measuring
standard against each other, however we were unable to gain access to this information.

15. 15
Analysis
Public Awareness:
In general, the majority of participants did not consider themselves well‐informed of the by‐
laws of Innisfil (74%). What’s interesting is that 6 participants admitted to calling in to report
a violation but only 3 of those 6 claimed they were well‐informed of the by‐laws. This could
be the result of some by‐laws being more apparent than others, this is consistent with the
call volumes in 2013, and lot maintenance received 226 calls while property standards
received 51 calls (Refer to Figure 3 for full call volume statistics). If an empty lot is not taken
care of and weeds, poison ivy, etc. begin to grow this becomes a hazard for others, for that
reason it can be argued that certain by‐laws like lot maintenance by‐laws have a lot more
public awareness because these have the potential too impact others.
Figure 3
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2013 2014 2015
Call Volumes
Lot Maintenance Property Standards

16. 16
By‐Law Violations
When participants were asked how many violations they assume there are within their
neighborhoods that are currently unresolved, out of the 38 responses there was a total of
138 estimated violations (Refer to Figure 5 for complete response data). This means each
respondent on average reported between 3 to 4 unresolved violations (actual average is
equal to 3.6, refer to Table 2), however a few respondents reported as many as 7 and one
respondent even reported 9. From these findings it can be concluded that many violations
go unenforced, however this could also be due to the lack of reporting on behalf of the
public.
Figure 4

17. 17
Figure 5
The current enforcement model
Currently, the Town of Innisfil uses a reactive model to enforce by‐law violations, where
violations are followed up on if complaints are received. When participants were asked how
they would rate the effectiveness of this method, an average score of 5.68 (refer to Table 3)
was given, which ultimately can be perceived as just satisfactory. This perception could be a
result the failure of enforcement in past experiences; individuals may have lost faith in the
enforcement system. This theory is consistent with the findings from the By‐Law
Enforcement Officer questionnaire; a possible downside exists with the current method of
enforcement which is that infractions often do not escalate into charges. One officer stated
that non‐compliance with by‐laws are resolved 45% of the time before charges are laid.
While another said roughly between 80‐90% of complaints are resolved before a charge is
laid. The findings from the public questionnaire dictate 9 of the 38 participants have been
directly involved with a by‐law violation (either violated or reported a by‐law violation).
While only 3 participants stated that they had been reported for violating a by‐law, of which
only 1 participant claimed the violation escalated into a charge. Thus, infractions do not
often convert into charges unless every avenue has been used to gain compliance with the
property and its owner.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Number of Violations
Participants (1‐38)
9. Are there many by‐law violations around your area
that you are aware of?

18. 18
Table 2 Survey Q.12
12. How likely are you to make a follow up call if the violation is not dealt within
reasonable time?
N Valid 6
N/A 32
Mean 3.667
Median 3.500
In addition, the By‐Law Enforcement Officers also claimed that even if there is an infraction,
fines are usually too small to deter violations. In reality, infractions that are dealt with in
court have greater general and specific deterrent for violating the property standards by‐
law, however court proceedings are often lengthy. Furthermore there is also the issue, of
non‐compliance, a court may make a decision pertaining to a particular property, and the
person whom has been convicted does not follow through with a cleanup of the property.
These examples provided to us by the By‐Law Enforcement Officers backs up why the public
may have lost faith in the system.
Table 3 Survey Q.10
How would you rate the enforcement
service received?
N Valid 6
N/A 32
Mean 4.833
Median 5.500

19. 19
Table 3 Survey Q.8 and Q.9
Are there many
by‐law
violations
around your
area that you
are aware of?
How satisfied are you overall, with the
present by‐law standard?
N Valid 38 38
Missing 0 0
Mean 3.526 5.868
Median 3.500 6.000
Attitudes towards a Proactive Model
The questionnaires which were administered asked both the public and the enforcement
officers if they would like to see a proactive model of by‐law enforcement. The responses
received from the public dictates that a proactive model is desired, as 64% of the responses
opted for enforcement model similar to traffic enforcement. We believe this strong favor for
a proactive model may be due to the failure of the current method to do its job. If
infractions rarely escalate into charges and violations stay unresolved, new charges may
have to issued, and the public feels a proactive model would be the best approach. When it
came to the recommendations made by the enforcement officers, its split 50/50. Two of the
officers were on board with the idea of a proactive model of by‐law enforcement as this
would increase awareness and deter people from violating by‐laws. However the other two
officers claim that the current reactive model of by‐law enforcement is sufficient enough to
meet the needs of the Town of Innisfil.

20. 20
Figure 6

21. 21
Anti‐Bias Measures
During the process of our group collecting data, we made sure we tried our best in
minimizing any form of bias to maintain the purity of the data. One of our primary methods
of data collection was in the form of physical surveys. In an ideal world, we recognize that it
would have been best if each participant of the survey was truly randomized. However, we
were placed with a constraint in that we could only administer our surveys in one location
on one day. This means we had access to a limited amount of participants. To combat the
problem of small sample size, we made the effort approaching every individual over the age
of 18 until we reached 100.
Another potential issue we realized was that the characteristics of individuals who go to a
library may be similar which may skew results. For this issue, the only thing we could have
done was to simply approach everyone we saw in the library without selectively picking
different people. The last anti‐bias measure we did was to ensure that the wording of both
our surveys and how we administered the survey. We were careful with both in that we
never led or encouraged the participant to any particular answer through our phrasing. We
properly explained the scale system in our surveys and gave them adequate time to think of
the response they truly felt.

22. 22
Recommendations
Based on the information garnered from the public surveys we came up with the following
recommendations:
Further education of the public is needed to ensure that they are aware of the various by‐
laws that are pertinent to the Town of Innisfil. The majority of the people that were
surveyed from both the public and the by‐laws officers acknowledged that the public was
largely ignorant of the by‐laws. Although the populace does not necessarily need to be more
than familiar with the definitions and general concepts of property and lot maintenance by‐
laws, they should be cognizant that there are by‐laws that govern those two subjects as well
as many more. The old adage of “lack of knowledge of the law is no defense” is still
applicable and the people of Innisfil will have to still abide by those by‐laws.
Along with the educational recommendation for the townspeople of Innisfil regarding by‐
laws, we recommend that the current fines amounts be reconsidered as they do not appear
to be significant enough to act as a deterrent. A consideration may be instead of simply
increasing the base total, repeated same by‐law violations or repeat offenders would
receive an escalating fine amount much like in other municipalities where enforcement of
particular by‐laws is of utmost importance. I.e. Water conservation during drought seasons.
As the results were slightly in favor of having by‐laws enforcement become a more
proactive activity from the public surveys and split among the officers, further research
must be done in order to determine whether or not to change the current by‐laws
enforcement procedure. Even though public opinion was more in favor for a proactive
model of by‐law enforcement by close to double that of those in favor of a reactive model,
the number of people surveyed was unfortunately not sufficient enough to draw an
appropriate conclusion of this sentiment is shared throughout the Town of Innisfil. To that
end, either surveys must be completed by a significant number of residents from all parts of
the township of even a general referendum among the townspeople must be had to
properly gauge their opinion on how to proceed.

23. 23
Future Research
In order provide a clearer view of the preferences of the populace with by‐law enforcement,
we suggest that further research is performed. This can be performed in any number of
ways: town referendum, having the town council pose questions to the people of their
wards and subsequently reporting to the council or even the same survey being distributed
throughout the entirety of Innisfil rather than a single community center/public library. With
a greater amount of data gleaned from the public, decision makers are able to properly
gauge policy effectiveness and the determination if policy change is required.
Should the decision makers consider the option of changing the existing by‐law
enforcement, possible sources of alternative policies could be the examination of other
municipalities with the same issues or even merely the approximate population size and
demographics? By examining those other regions by‐law enforcement practices and the
effectiveness, policy analysts are able to draw upon existing practices as both as a source of
precedent and inspiration to modify them to be more applicable to the environs that is
Innisfil.

24. 24
References
Heidi McGuire. "Evaluation of By‐law #11‐080 Prohibiting Smoking Within City Parks and Recreation
Properties BOH12004(a) (City Wide)." Web. 21 Mar. 2016.
<http://www2.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/E4939840‐4F3A‐4881‐ABF6‐
421440D18909/0/Nov1871BOH12004a.pdf>
"STAFF REPORT INFORMATION ONLY Interim Evaluation ... ‐ Toronto." Web. 21 Mar. 2016.
<http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2007/hl/bgrd/backgroundfile1671.pdf>.
"SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE FINDINGS REPORT." City of Whitehorse, Apr. 2011. Web. 21 Mar. 2016.
<http://ww3.whitehorse.ca/by‐
law/snowmobile_july_2011/Snowmobile%20Task%20Force%20Report%20Draft%2020110418%2008
36.pdf>
"Environmental Health." Municipal By‐law to Reduce Cosmetic/non‐essential Pesticide Use on
Household Lawns. Web. 21 Mar. 2016. <http://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1476‐
069X‐10‐74>.

25. 25
Appendices
APPENDIX A.
Residents of Innisfil Survey
Please help us improve our service by answering some questions about the service or complaint calls you
made.
1. What part of Innisfil do you reside in?
Alcona Cookstown Stroud Big Bay Point Lefroy Gilford Other
2. How long have you lived in Innsfil?
0 ‐ 6 Months 1 ‐ 2 Years 7‐ 12 Months 3 + Years
3. Would you consider yourself well‐informed on the by‐laws of Innisfil?
Yes No
4. Have you ever reported a by‐law violation?
Yes No
5. Have you ever been reported for violating a by‐law?
Yes No
6. If you have violated a by‐law, did the violation turn into a charge?
Yes No NA
7. Would you like to see a more proactive style of by‐law enforcement, similar to parking enforcement?
Yes No
8. How satisfied are you overall, with the present by‐law standard?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(Very unsatisfied) (Totally satisfied)
9. How would you rate the number of by‐law violations around your area?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(No violations) (Very many violations)
Questions 10 – 12 are directed towards anyone who has either been charged or reported a by‐law violation.
If you have not questions 10‐12 do not apply. Thank You
10. How would you rate the enforcement service you received?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(Very poor) (Outstanding)
11. If you reported a by‐law violation how urgent was your call (circle one):
NA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(Less urgent but needs attention) (Needs attention right away)
12. How likely are you to make a follow up call if the violation is not dealt within reasonable time?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(Will not call) (Will definitely call)
If You Have Any Comments Please Them on the Back of This Sheet

26. 26
APPENDIX B.
Survey Questions for By‐law Officers
1. How would you rate the effectiveness of the enforcement of by‐laws?
Excellent Good Poor Terrible Not Relevant
2. How would you rate the enforcement measures
Excellent Good Poor Terrible Not Relevant
3. How would you rate the effectiveness of the property standards and lot maintenance by‐laws in as far as
keeping up with the environment standards?
Excellent Good Poor Terrible Not Relevant
4. How would you rate the residents of Innisfil in reporting the violations by‐laws
Excellent Good Poor Terrible Not Relevant
5. Please explain how often by‐law infractions actually convert into charges?
6. Please state the shortfalls of this program?
7. In your opinion, are the program fines effective in deterring violation of by‐laws? Please explain
Yes No
8. What months, days and times of the day would you receive complaints most?
9. Would you change anything about the current by‐law enforcement procedure? Please explain your answer.
Yes No