4.a CAOR-JMS-16-26 Joint RFP on Insurance
The report recommends receiving a joint Request for Proposal on municipal insurance to explore cost efficiencies amidst rising premiums driven by global markets and climate risks. Staff outline three strategies including proactive risk management, self-insurance through higher deductibles, and evaluating group or pooled procurement models like the Ontario Municipal Insurance Exchange. However, staff recommend against proceeding with joint procurement or pooled insurance currently due to softer market conditions and the lack of guaranteed direct cost reductions.
Joint RFP on Municipal Insurance Procurement
The report recommends receiving a joint Request for Proposal (RFP) on municipal insurance for information to explore cost efficiencies. Municipalities face rising premiums driven by global market conditions, complex liability exposures, and climate-related risks that are largely beyond direct control. The document outlines three primary strategies: implementing proactive risk management to reduce claims frequency, considering self-insurance through higher deductibles for financial resilience, and evaluating group or pooled procurement models. Group purchasing offers limited administrative savings but retains individual risk ratings, whereas pooled risk spreads liability across multiple municipalities like the Ontario Municipal Insurance Exchange.
Analysis of Pooled Insurance Models and Risks
The report analyzes pooled insurance models like OMEX, noting that while they offer risk sharing, they often carry significant administrative burdens and expose members to losses from other participants. Staff recommend against proceeding with joint procurement or pooled insurance currently due to softer market conditions and the lack of guaranteed direct cost reductions.
Agenda item 4.a: CAOR-JMS-16-26 Joint RFP on Insurance
---
Attachment: Joint Procurement of Municipal Insurance - CAOR-JMS-16-26.pdf
Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/1452952fe220970e669fe9f33d9344fe1732517fd9232c61f8b838e24eb62de8/4-a-1-joint-procurement-of-municipal-insurance-caor-jms-16-26-pdf.pdf
Committee Report
To: Chair Boddy and Members of Joint Municipal Services
Committee
Committee Date: September 15, 2026
Subject / Report No: CAOR-JMS-16-26
Title: Joint Procurement of Municipal Insurance
Prepared by: Niall Lobley, DCAO, Marlene McLevy, Emergency Systems
Coordinator/Claims Supervisor
Reviewed by: Randy Scherzer, CAO
Lower Tier(s) Affected: All
Recommendation
1. That report CAOR-JMS-16-26 regarding joint procurement of municipal insurance
be received for information.
Executive Summary
In March 2026, Grey County Council passed the following resolution:
“That staff prepare a report for Joint Municipal Services Committee regarding potential
efficiencies and cost savings for Grey County municipalities as it relates to municipal
insurance including potential options for shared and joint RFP processes.”
Municipal insurance is a core risk management tool that protects taxpayer-funded assets,
stabilizes municipal finances, and helps ensure essential public services can continue when
unexpected events occur.
Municipalities carry increasingly complex and comprehensive insurance programs that respond
to both liability and property risks, protecting municipalities and their tax base from civil claims,
property damage, and asset losses.
Insurance costs are largely beyond direct municipal control. They are driven by global market
conditions, the nature of risks that municipalities are collectively exposed to, and emerging risk
factors. Strong, proactive risk management is therefore an important tool for minimizing losses
and managing future cost increases. While larger urban municipalities often have dedicated risk
management capacity, smaller and rural municipalities frequently rely on insurers and brokers to
provide risk management advice as a value-added service alongside insurance products.
CAOR-JMS-16-26 1 September 15, 2026
Against a backdrop of increasing costs and limited ability to directly influence them, Grey
County municipalities supported the Joint Municipal Services Committee in exploring whether
shared or joint approaches could help member municipalities manage insurance costs.
Background and Discussion
Municipal insurance is specialized insurance designed for local governments to cover the risks
that arise from delivering public services, managing infrastructure, and making regulatory
decisions.
It typically covers:
Liability risks (injury, property damage, lawsuits)
Public assets (roads, buildings, equipment)
Operations and decisions (staff actions, planning/zoning, services)
At a very high level, municipalities need insurance for three core reasons:
1. To protect taxpayers and finances
A single lawsuit, accident, or disaster can create significant and unpredictable costs. Insurance
spreads and absorbs that risk rather than drawing directly on tax-supported budgets.
2. To manage broad and unavoidable liability exposure
Municipalities are responsible for roads, facilities, services, and public safety. They can be held
liable for incidents such as:
Slip-and-falls
Infrastructure failures
Service or regulatory decisions
3. To ensure continuity of essential services
Unlike private entities, municipalities cannot stop operating. Insurance enables continued
delivery of:
Emergency services
Infrastructure operations
Community programs
—even after major losses or claims.
Municipal insurance costs have increased in recent years due to rising claim frequency and
severity, broader and more complex risk exposure, and external market pressures. More
frequent incidents, higher legal awards, and increasing repair and replacement costs have
increased the overall cost of claims, which is the primary driver of premium pricing. At the same
time, Ontario’s liability environment—particularly joint and several liability—can result in
municipalities bearing a disproportionate share of damages. These pressures are compounded
by climate-related events, cyber risks, inflation, and a tighter insurance market with fewer
providers, all of which contribute to higher premiums and reduced flexibility at renewal.
CAOR-JMS-16-26 2 September 15, 2026
Insurance is typically made up of two component parts:
A broker who may, or may not be linked to one or more insurance companies
An insurer or many insurers who will provide the underwriting for insured lines
There are relatively few brokers that specialize in Ontario’s municipal marketplace, and
similarly, a small number of insurers. As both brokers and insurers operate in the same
specialized market and municipal risks are broadly similar, pricing is often relatively comparable.
When municipalities go to market, they are either remaining with the same broker and asking
them to seek revised insurance costs, or seeking both a new broker and new insurer pricing.
These processes can generate initial savings, but those savings are often tied to minimum
premium commitments that offset the insurer’s risk and the higher upfront administrative costs
of new insurance business.
Some of the larger, well-known names in municipal insurance are brokers that sole source their
municipal programs to specific underwriters. Because of the size of the programs they support
and their significant market share, these municipal insurers and brokerage firms are able to
leverage competitive underwriting arrangements.
Independent brokers have access to multiple markets and can shop premiums across multiple
underwriters, building more tailored approaches to meet individual municipal needs. The broker
advises on the insurance products required and then goes to market to seek coverage from a
variety of providers. Brokers are generally reimbursed through commissions from insurers,
although they may also receive direct payments for additional value-added services provided to
clients.
However, while a typical municipal RFP process may draw multiple responses from both
independent brokers and larger broker-insurance companies, it does not necessarily maximize
an independent broker’s ability to provide flexible approaches. An independent broker’s value
often lies in working with a client and insurers to build a tailored program. Because insurers
generally cannot work with multiple brokers for the same insurance RFP, and because brokers
must work with an insurer to respond, the process can limit a broker’s ability to tailor a program
to specific municipal needs.
As a result, a municipality may find that an RFP process does not maximize the competitiveness
of responses. An alternative option for consideration is to split the procurement of broker
services from insurance, identifying a preferred broker to work with and then working with them
to build an insurance program.
Municipalities rarely deal directly with insurers and typically rely on brokers for advice and
insurance purchases. Those that do deal directly with insurers are generally larger, more urban
municipalities with dedicated insurance or risk management departments.
As each municipality in Grey County is relatively small, the impact of isolated claims can be
significant. This can be particularly pronounced after extended periods of few or no claims,
where a municipality’s risk profile may have appeared low, followed by one or two higher value
claims that materially affect the perceived risk of providing coverage.
While insurance costs are driven by complex forces, many of which are beyond the direct
control of individual municipalities, there are ways in which municipalities can seek to manage
costs.
CAOR-JMS-16-26 3 September 15, 2026
Risk Management
Implementing proactive risk management programs is a key way municipalities can manage
risk. Risk management is the process of evaluating risks on a continuous basis across
municipal operations and embedding risk considerations into policy, process, operational, and
financial decisions.
Risk management is sometimes viewed primarily as ensuring adequate insurance is in place.
While this is important, insurance generally responds only once a risk scenario is
occurring or has occurred. Risk management should therefore focus first on reducing
and eliminating risks before they result in claims or losses. Risk management is a process;
insurance is a tool within that process.
Municipalities already undertake risk management in many ways. Climate action planning,
particularly adaptation planning, asset management planning, and annual budget priorities all
create opportunities for proactive risk management. For example, a modern building that is
resilient to climate change impacts and well maintained will provide better protection against
flood damage and reduce the likelihood of public accidents or incidents that may result in a
claim.
A well-managed fleet, a robust approach to cyber security, and well-adopted health and safety
practices all reflect practical risk management. These measures reduce the likelihood of
incidents occurring and, when incidents do occur, help the municipality demonstrate that
reasonable steps were taken to minimize risk and defend claims.
No individual municipality in Grey County, including the County to date, has dedicated and
embedded risk management expertise. There may be value in developing this capacity within
an organization, but if the County were to assume this role on behalf of member municipalities,
additional resources would be required.
However, because insurance costs are primarily driven by external factors, risk management is
more likely to reduce uninsured costs and moderate future premium increases than to
significantly lower insurance costs. Its value is in demonstrating to insurers that risks are being
actively reduced and mitigated.
Self-Insurance
Insurer costs, and therefore premiums, are driven by the frequency and cost of claims.
Municipalities can manage both elements by considering self-insurance, which can affect
premiums. This is a transfer of risk: through self-insurance, the municipality assumes some or
all of the risk that would otherwise be borne by the insurer.
Almost all insurance carries some degree of self-insurance, usually through deductibles. These
are the portions of a claim the municipality must pay before the insurer responds. One way
municipalities can bear more risk and reduce insurer exposure is to review and increase
deductibles. In doing so, the municipality assumes more of the cost associated with frequent
claims and faces greater financial exposure if severe claims occur.
The challenge is budgeting for and ensuring adequate financial resilience to meet unexpected
costs. Insurers invest globally to ensure they have the financial capacity to underwrite their
insureds and protect them in the event of heavy losses; in effect, they pool risks globally. A
CAOR-JMS-16-26 4 September 15, 2026
municipality that self-insures certain lines or accepts high deductibles has no access to this
broader pool and therefore faces greater financial risk if losses occur.
As such, self-insurance tends to be limited to higher deductibles and is usually implemented
alongside robust risk management programs in municipalities with sufficient budgets and
reserves to offset the additional financial risk.
Group Purchasing
Group purchasing of insurance occurs when a number of similar entities come together to
purchase insurance from a single provider, while their risks remain individually rated and
managed. Each member maintains individual premiums and insurance products, but all agree to
work with a single vendor.
There is some potential for efficiencies and savings within this model; however, these are often
offset by complex administration, individual municipal needs, and market conditions. In essence,
the potential savings are largely administrative. These savings can be negligible and may have
limited impact on premiums. The broker may benefit most, as they could secure multiple clients
through one process rather than competing multiple times. As noted above, broker costs are
generally not significant and are usually commission-based. In this model, because each
municipality is still acting independently, the broker must complete much of the same
background work that would be required for individual municipal programs.
In soft markets (such as the current market), there is likely no advantage to be gained from a
group procurement of individual products.
Alongside limited financial advantages, there are administrative concerns with this approach.
For effective group procurement, a lead organization must coordinate information gathering and
procurement. Members must agree to purchase from the same vendor, and renewal timing
would no longer be entirely at local discretion. The direct relationship between insurer and
municipality may also be reduced, as a single lead agency would coordinate the process.
If the County were to assume this role, it would procure services that member municipalities
could then buy into. The County would need to broadly determine the nature of services being
sought and provided for each member, which would require resources. Members would remain
responsible for managing and providing their own data, and because their risks would not be
pooled or reduced, premiums would be unlikely to be significantly reduced.
Pooled Risk
Moving beyond shared procurement, a shared insurance program could be explored. This is not
a novel approach; Conservation Authorities have used a pooled approach to insurance across
many areas for several decades with some success. Municipalities have also pooled risk, most
notably through OMEX, the Ontario Municipal Insurance Exchange.
Pooled risk would see a group of municipalities act, for insurance purposes, as one. All property
owned by the group would be pooled, and the liabilities of the group would be pooled. These
pools would then be insured.
Because these are larger pools, risk is spread across more assets and liabilities. If a single
municipality had 10 buildings and one was damaged by fire, 10% of its buildings would be
impacted. If 10 municipalities each had 10 buildings and one building was damaged by fire, only
CAOR-JMS-16-26 5 September 15, 2026
1% of the pooled buildings would be impacted. Both the frequency and severity of loss are
reduced from the insurer’s perspective, resulting in a stronger risk portfolio and potentially more
competitive premiums.
Further, administratively, this is a simpler model for the Broker; it is a single inventory of
buildings, risks and liabilities and the Broker needs only go to market for a single insurance
product for each insured risk.
Costs could potentially be further reduced through a larger pool of insured assets and liabilities.
A pooled model may also create capacity for higher levels of self-insurance and more effective
shared risk management.
For these reasons, OMEX was established in the 1980’s and provided insurance and risk
management services across the municipal environment for several decades.
However, pooled insurance is not specific to individual needs, and municipalities with strong
loss records do not benefit directly from that experience. Single large losses, or multiple large
losses from other members of the group, affect the risk rating of the whole pool. Pooled
insurance also carries significant administrative burdens, and those costs must be absorbed by
participating municipalities.
Pooling insurance is complex and would undoubtedly involve higher initial costs. For example,
property insurance is driven by insured property values. Each municipality will have made its
own decisions about how to value insured property and adjust those values annually. Some
may use higher values; others may use lower values. Those with lower values would likely see
an increase in insured property value, driving premium increases as the pool levels up. There
would also be significant initial administrative costs associated with pooling assets and liabilities.
In addition, existing claims affecting pooled members would affect the premiums and history of
the whole group. Members with few or no losses could therefore face costs driven by members
with higher loss experience.
For these reasons, pooled programs have struggled. While the Conservation Authority pool has
been effective, it has not been without challenges. One Conservation Authority operates an
active ski centre on one of its properties. Skiing carries inherent liability exposure, and claims,
when made, can be substantial, potentially running into tens of millions of dollars. As a result of
a single incident at the hill, the pool experienced a significant insurance risk that caused
premiums to increase for all members. Members were concerned about paying for an incident
tied to a risk they were not exposed to, and the pool was subsequently amended. Despite the
risk being removed from the pool, because the incident occurred while pooled, all members
remained affected by it for many years.
OMEX was a municipally managed not-for-profit that supported municipal insurance for many
years. Operating from the mid-1980s to 2016, it was created in response to escalating
insurance costs, limited market competition, and a shared desire to take greater control of
insurance costs. Premiums and risks were shared across the pool. As a pool, members were
protected against some external factors beyond municipal control, but they also had greater
exposure to risks within the municipal environment. Grey County was an OMEX member from
the mid-1990s through the 2000s.
CAOR-JMS-16-26 6 September 15, 2026
OMEX struggled in the 2000s. High costs associated with increasing litigation and Ontario’s joint
and several liability framework, rising competition from the commercial insurance sector, and
increasing premiums meant members were increasingly able to secure more tailored insurance
products and better pricing outside the pool. Ultimately, not enough members remained, and the
pool ceased to operate.
Grey County left the OMEX insurance program in or around 2008. One of the costs of insurance
is the requirement to hold reserves adequate to offset potential losses, and the establishment of
these reserves is guided by financial legislation. In OMEX’s early days, before legislation
required such reserves, OMEX was able to reduce member costs by minimizing reserves held.
With changing legislation, these reserves needed to be established and, despite Grey County
having left the OMEX program several years prior, Grey County paid substantial sums to OMEX
to help contribute to reserves required for losses incurred by the pool during Grey County’s time
within the OMEX program. This demonstrates the challenge of shared risk: costs of losses,
direct or indirect, must be met by the remaining pool, even if some members are no longer
participating.
Conclusion
Municipal insurance costs are a key budgetary consideration and have increased as global risks
and loss costs have escalated. This has frequently resulted in municipalities experiencing
insurance increases above inflation, even without direct losses or claims. For municipalities with
recent losses or claims, increases may be even more significant.
The desire for efficient and effective local government services led to a request to consider
whether Grey County municipalities could benefit from a more coordinated approach to securing
insurance.
This report examines several options for collective work to reduce or manage costs. From
shared risk management to pooled insurance, each option may have some potential to
moderate future insurance cost increases; however, few, if any, are likely to drive direct
insurance cost reductions. In all instances, dedicated resources would be required to coordinate
municipal risk and insurance activities.
Many of the models discussed have been tried with some success; however, where success
has occurred, it has generally been associated with hard insurance markets. Current market
conditions are softer, with insurers and brokers competing for business, which reduces the
potential savings that could be realized through most collective procurement models.
Staff recommend that municipalities continue to invest in proactive risk management measures
to manage, mitigate, reduce, and where possible eliminate risks within their operations, but do
not recommend proceeding with joint procurement or pooled insurance at this time.
Financial and Resource Implications
None.
Relevant Consultation
☐ Internal (list)
CAOR-JMS-16-26 7 September 15, 2026
☐ AODA Compliance (describe)
☐ Contribution to Climate Change Action Plan Targets (describe)
☐ External (list)
Appendices and Attachments
None.
CAOR-JMS-16-26 8 September 15, 2026
4.b CAOR-JMS-18-26 Waste Management Services Review Update
Agenda item 4.b: CAOR-JMS-18-26 Waste Management Services Review Update --- Attachment: Waste Management Services Review - Update - CAOR-JMS-18-26.pdf Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/65bfbdd8f206f85c341c49f742975c62faf0187f9e7f5a1da880098f1034657d/4-b-1-waste-management-services-review-update-caor-jms-18-26-pdf.pdf Committee Report To: Chair Boddy and Members of Committee Committee Date: September 15, 2026 Subject / Report No: CAOR-JMS-18-26 Title: Waste Management Services Review - Update Prepared by: Niall Lobley, DCAO Reviewed by: Randy Scherzer, CAO Lower Tier(s) Affected: All Recommendation 1.
Joint Municipal Services Committee Received an Update on the Waste Management Services
The Joint Municipal Services Committee received an update on the Waste Management Services Review project contracted to Dillon Consulting Limited in March 2026. The review assesses current services across nine member municipalities and evaluates three future-state scenarios: Business as Usual, Full County Assumption, and Shared Service Framework. These scenarios will be analyzed using a triple bottom line approach covering social, environmental, and economic impacts. A draft final report with recommendations is anticipated in late 2026 for consideration by the next term of Council.
Agenda item 4.b: CAOR-JMS-18-26 Waste Management Services Review Update
---
Attachment: Waste Management Services Review - Update - CAOR-JMS-18-26.pdf
Source: https://helpos.ca/attachments/65bfbdd8f206f85c341c49f742975c62faf0187f9e7f5a1da880098f1034657d/4-b-1-waste-management-services-review-update-caor-jms-18-26-pdf.pdf
Committee Report
To: Chair Boddy and Members of Committee
Committee Date: September 15, 2026
Subject / Report No: CAOR-JMS-18-26
Title: Waste Management Services Review - Update
Prepared by: Niall Lobley, DCAO
Reviewed by: Randy Scherzer, CAO
Lower Tier(s) Affected: All
Recommendation
1. That report CAOR-JMS-18-26 regarding Waste Management Services Review be
received for information.
Executive Summary
Joint Municipal Services Committee received report CAOR-JMS-27-25 in September 2025
outlining opportunities identified by the Waste Management Community of Practice to improve
the efficiency and effectiveness of waste management services across Grey County.
Opportunities included greater alignment of waste collection services, shared service
arrangements between municipalities, and consideration of a regional waste management
service delivered by Grey County.
This work builds on discussions initiated in 2020 and 2021, when Grey County Council
endorsed exploring regional waste management strategies, service alignment opportunities, and
potential operational efficiencies.
As part of Budget 2026, Council approved funding to undertake an independent review of waste
management services and identify potential future efficiencies, including consideration of
County-led service delivery models.
Following a competitive procurement process, Council awarded the project to Dillon Consulting
Limited (Dillon) in March 2026. The project commenced in April and has included engagement
with all nine member municipalities, site visits, collection of baseline operational data, and
assessment of current waste management practices.
The September 15 update to the Joint Municipal Services Committee is intended to provide an
overview of progress to date, seek Committee feedback, and outline next steps. Committee
discussions will be shared with Committee of the Whole and County Council through the
CAOR-JMS-18-26 1 September 15, 2026
adoption of Joint Municipal Services Committee minutes and will assist member municipalities
in remaining informed throughout the review process.
The Waste Management Community of Practice, comprised of representatives from all nine
member municipalities, continues to serve as the municipal steering committee for the project.
Background and Discussion
In March 2026, Grey County contracted Dillon Consulting Limited (Dillon) to undertake a
Regional Waste Management Service Review and identify potential opportunities to improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of waste management services across Grey County.
Waste collection and management services are currently delivered by the nine member
municipalities using a variety of service models. These range from fully contracted services,
such as Georgian Bluffs, to fully municipal operations, such as Southgate, where collection and
landfill services are provided in-house. These differing approaches result in varying service
levels, operating practices, and costs across Grey County. The Joint Municipal Services
Committee identified waste management as a key area for exploring potential service
improvements and operational efficiencies.
Dillon's work is being completed in two phases:
Review and assessment of current waste management services; and
Evaluation of potential future service delivery models, including a jurisdictional scan and
opportunities for efficiencies.
The September 15 update to the Joint Municipal Services Committee is intended to provide an
overview of progress to date, seek Committee feedback, and outline next steps. Feedback
received through the Committee will assist in informing the ongoing review process. Final
recommendations are anticipated for consideration by the next term of Council.
Since project initiation, Dillon has met with all nine member municipalities, completed site visits,
collected baseline service and operational data, and undertaken interviews and assessments of
existing waste management practices. Regular meetings have also been held with Grey County
staff and the Waste Management Community of Practice, which continues to serve as the
project's municipal steering committee.
During the summer, Dillon prepared draft Current State Analysis and Legislative Review and
Emerging Trends reports. These reports are expected to be presented to the Waste
Management Community of Practice in October and subsequently circulated to member
municipalities for review and feedback. Once finalized, they will establish the foundation for the
second phase of the project.
The second phase will include a jurisdictional scan of comparable municipalities to examine a
range of local and regional waste management models. Dillon will then evaluate three future-
state scenarios for Grey County:
Business as Usual – continuation of existing service delivery models;
Full County Assumption – consideration of a unified regional waste management service
delivered by Grey County; and
CAOR-JMS-18-26 2 September 15, 2026
Shared Service Framework – opportunities for municipalities to share selected services
or operational functions without full regionalization.
Each scenario will be evaluated using a triple bottom line approach:
People (Social) – customer service impacts, accessibility, and service expectations;
Planet (Environmental) – environmental outcomes, legislative requirements, and
alignment with Going Green in Grey commitments; and
Prosperity (Economic) – financial implications, costs, and opportunities for efficiencies.
Both short-term and long-term implications will be considered as part of the analysis,
culminating in recommendations for future consideration by member municipal councils and
County Council.
A draft final report and recommendations are anticipated in late 2026, with consideration by the
next term of Council expected during the first half of 2027.
Legislated Requirements
The collection and disposal of waste is a highly regulated sector. Municipalities that directly
provide waste management services, or contract for those services, are required to comply with
a range of provincial legislative and regulatory requirements. Evolving legislative requirements
and industry trends are being examined as part of Dillon's Legislative Review and Emerging
Trends report.
While municipalities are authorized to provide waste collection services under the Municipal Act,
there is no legislative requirement that municipalities deliver these services. There is also no
legislative or policy requirement prescribing which level of municipal government should be
responsible for delivering waste collection services.
Financial and Resource Implications
None.
Relevant Consultation
☒ Internal (list)
☐ AODA Compliance (describe)
☒ Contribution to Climate Change Action Plan Targets (describe)
Going Green in Grey identifies County wide targets for waste diversion and GHG
emissions reductions from waste management. This work will support meeting
this objective.
☒ External (list)
☒ Dillon Consulting Limited
CAOR-JMS-18-26 3 September 15, 2026
Appendices and Attachments
None.
CAOR-JMS-18-26 4 September 15, 2026