Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Budget-Audit Advisory Board 2012
kk, 01FTHE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY MEETING OF THE BUDGET/AUDIT ADVISORY BOARD #1/12 April 13, 2012 The Budget/Audit Advisory Board Meeting #1/12, was held in Weston Room B, Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, April 13, 2012. The Chair Gerri Lynn O'Connor, called the meeting to order at 10:41 a.m. PRESENT Maria Augimeri 10:41 a.m. 11:21 a.m. Member David Barrow 10:41 a.m. 11:21 a.m. Member Bob Callahan 10:41 a.m. 11:21 a.m. Member Gerri Lynn O'Connor Chair Dave Ryan Member RES.#C1/12 - MINUTES Moved by: Maria Augimeri Seconded by: Bob Callahan THAT the Minutes of Meeting #2/11, held on October 14, 2011, be approved. CARRIED PRESENTATIONS (a) A presentation by Jim Dillane, Director, Finance and Business Development, in regard to item BAAB7.1 -2012 Budget, Operating and Capital. RES.#C2/12 - PRESENTATIONS Moved by: Dave Ryan Seconded by: David Barrow THAT above-noted presentation (a) be received. CARRIED 1 SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION RES.#C3/12 - 2012 BUDGET, OPERATING AND CAPITAL Recommends approval of the 2012 operating and capital budget. Moved by: Dave Ryan Seconded by: David Barrow THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT WHEREAS the Conservation Authorities Act (CA Act) provides that a conservation authority, in establishing its annual levy, shall have the power to determine the proportion of total benefit of any project afforded to all participating municipalities that is afforded to each of them; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT, subject to such regulations under the Conservation Authorities Act as may be approved by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council: (i) all participating municipalities be designated as benefiting for all projects included in the 2012 Operating Budget; (ii) Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) share of the cost of the programs included in the 2012 Operating Budget shall be raised from all participating municipalities as part of the General Levy; (iii) the 2012 General Levy be apportioned to the participating municipalities in the proportion that the modified current value assessment of the whole is under the jurisdiction of TRCA, unless otherwise provided in the levy or a project; (iv) the appropriate TRCA officials be directed to advise the participating municipalities, pursuant to the Conservation Authorities Act and the regulations made thereunder, and to levy the said municipalities the amount of the Total General Levy set forth in the 2012 Operating Budget, including property tax adjustments and non-Current Value Assessment (CVA) levy, and to levy the said municipalities the amount of the Capital Levy set forth in the 2012 Capital Budget and in the approved projects of TRCA; THAT, subject to finalization of the participating municipalities' apportioned levy amounts, the 2012 Operating and Capital Budget, and all projects therein, be adopted; THAT staff be authorized to amend the 2012 Operating and Capital Budget to reflect actual 2012 provincial grant allocations in order to determine the amount of matching levy governed by regulation; THAT, except where statutory or regulatory requirements provide otherwise, staff be authorized to enter into agreements with private sector organizations, non-governmental organizations or government agencies for the undertaking of projects which are of benefit to TRCA and funded by the sponsoring organization or agency; THAT the cost of property taxes imposed by municipalities on conservation lands owned by TRCA be charged as additional levy to the respective participating municipalities; 2 THAT, as required by Ontario Regulations 139/96 and 231/97, this recommendation and the accompanying budget documents, including the schedule of matching and non-matching levies, be approved by recorded vote; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take such action as may be necessary to implement the foregoing, including obtaining needed approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED RATIONALE Enclosed is the recommended 2012 Budget, Operating and Capital. The budget will be presented to the Authority at its meeting scheduled to be held on Friday, April 27, 2011. Municipal Approval Status As the members are aware, staff prepare preliminary estimates in the summer and fall of each year for submission to TRCA's municipal funding partners. Staff meet with municipal staff as required by the budget processes and budget schedules followed by each major participating municipality. Presentations are made to municipal finance staff and the committees and councils of the funding partners as required. In the case of Peel Region, TRCA works closely with staff at Credit Valley and Halton conservation authorities to align budget information and requirements. A similar process occurs with York Region where TRCA works closely with the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority. In Durham Region, the process is more complicated because five conservation authorities work to align budgets and financial submissions to meet the Region of Durham budget requirements. TRCA's submissions to the City of Toronto for capital and operating levy are reviewed with senior Finance and Toronto Water staff. The 2012 Preliminary Estimates were approved by the Authority in October, 2011, as the basis for submissions to TRCA's municipal funding partners. The funding identified in the apportionment of the levy reflects the amounts that the municipal funding partners have approved in their 2012 budgets for capital and operating. The following summarizes the status of the discussions and submissions as of April 2, 2012: City of Toronto The capital and operating funding included in the TRCA budget has been approved by City Council. Regional Municipality of Peel The capital and operating funding included in the TRCA budget has been approved by Regional Council. Regional Municipality of York The capital and operating funding included in the TRCA budget has been approved by Regional Council. Regional Municipality of Durham The capital and operating funding included in the TRCA budget has been approved by Regional Council. 3 Township of Adjala-Tosorontio The Township has been advised of TRCA's levy request. Approval of the TRCA levy is anticipated. Town of Mono The Town has been advised of TRCA's levy request. Approval of the TRCA levy is anticipated. MNR Transfer Payments The provincial funding which is matched with levy has not been confirmed. The Minister of Natural Resources has advised Conservation Ontario that transfer payment funding for all conservation authorities is likely to be reduced. No time line has been given for the announcement of 2012 grants. Provincial Legislation By regulation, TRCA has provided 30 days written notice to its member municipalities of the date of the meeting at which the Authority will approve the municipal levy. At the April 27, 2012, Authority meeting, a recorded vote on the budget recommendation including the non-matching municipal levy is required. The weighted voting procedure prescribed by regulation will be used if necessary. Operating Budget - Overview of Key Issues Salary/Wage Adjustment The largest segment of the operating budget is salaries, wages and benefits, about 76% of gross operating expenditures. The Authority was advised in October, 2011, when the preliminary estimates were approved, that staff was recommending an increase of 3%, effective at the first pay in April, 2012. TRCA salary and wage adjustments over the period 2009 (0%), 2010 (2%), 2011 (0%) and 2012 (3%) will total 5%, or an average increase of 1.25% per year. Staffing The TRCA full time equivilants (FTE) are projected to be 396.6 FTE's for 2012. This is an increase of 8.5 FTE's from 2011. Refer to page 7 of the operating budget document (Attachment 1) for an explanation of the year-over-year changes, by division. Expenditures/Operating Revenues The 2012 operating budget has expenditures of$1.6 million more than 2011, an increase of 4.7%, and additional revenues (non-levy) of$1.4 million, a 6.1% increase. Expenditure increases are mainly due to COLA ($430,000), OMERS ($280,000) and annualizations and increments ($400,000). The Living City Foundation The Living City Foundation (LCF-formerly The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto ) continues to enjoy success in attracting funding and donations for many capital and special TRCA projects. However, the LCF continues to have difficulty raising funds for unrestricted purposes and, therefore, the TRCA budget does not provide for any unrestricted funds 2012. The LCF has embarked on a new door-to-door individual donor acquisition program in 2011 which continues into 2012. Upon completion of this campaign staff will make a determination on whether to continue the program. 4 Deficit Management The 2011 audited financial statements will not be available until the June meeting of the Board. The projected cumulative deficit for the end of 2011 is anticipated to be in the range of$2.1 million, a decrease of about$300,000 from 2010. Of the projected cumulative deficit totalling $2.1 million, about$924,000 relates to the construction of the new Petticoat Creek pool and the balance to past operating deficits. The details of the 2011 net results are available elsewhere on the agenda, in the report titled "2011 Year End Financial Progress Report". In 2012, there is provision for a$75,000 surplus within the operating accounts. This amount is the first installment from Parks and Culture Division for the repayment of the amounts spent over available funding to complete the Petticoat Creek pool. The 2012 capital budget, as recommended, is a balanced budget. Municipal Funding Arrangements Each of TRCA's participating municipalities has its own unique budget requirements and annual budgetary pressures. TRCA has met each the individual participating municipality requirements within the context of the CA Act. In recent years, it has become apparent that TRCA needs to change its funding arrangements to achieve greater flexibility in meeting individual municipal partner guidelines. The preliminary estimates approved by the Authority in effect directed staff to request an average 2% increase in the 2012 general levy from its participating municipalities. The City of Toronto, after considerable negotiation agreed to a 2012 levy which is effectively flat lined at the 2011 level. The Region of York in 2012 approved an increase of 4.5%for "total funding to conservation authorities" including both operating and capital. The Region of Durham approved an envelope of 2.5%for operating funding to the five conservation authorities. In Peel Region, the budget approval for operating for TRCA was at the requested average of 4.6% plus the shift in CVA (current value assessment). In 2012, the operating levy table identifies a column labelled "Non-CVA Levy". Under the provisions of the Act, TRCA makes a general levy against all of its participating municipalities to fund its general operating requirements. For York Region, within its combined operating and capital envelope, TRCA has satisfied the budget approvals of the Region and having allocated the levy funding among the participating municipalities based on the modified CVA formula, a balance of$92,900 remains. In Durham, a similar situation has evolved where there is a balance of$20,400. In Peel Region, the unallocated balance after CVA adjustments and property taxes is $82,000. TRCA has identified these amounts, which total $195,300 in the table on page 1 of the Operating Budget document as "Non-CVA Levy". The emergence of this category of funding recognizes the changing nature of TRCA's funding arrangements with its major municipal funding partners. Increasingly, TRCA is entering into contractual arrangements with its participating municipalities for environmental assessment work, trail development, erosion projects, etc. Property taxes require a different arrangement as well. The traditional notion of TRCA having two sources of municipal revenue (general levy under the modified CVA formula and capital as benefitting levy) is less valid. The Authority recognized this in 2010 and directed staff to look at new funding arrangements. In 2011 and 2012, staff has been meeting with municipal officials to further consider how the funding arrangements should evolve. Staff is scheduled to report to the Executive Committee in June, 2012, on the status of discussions about changes to funding arrangements. 5 Rouge Park Levy Under an agreement signed by TRCA, The Province of Ontario and the Rouge Park Alliance, TRCA levies operating funds for the Rouge Park on the basis of the modified CVA formula. In 2011, total funding levied for the Rouge Park was$168,000. This included some additional funding based on a 2011 request for the Rouge Park. The Rouge Park did not request the additional funding in 2012 because in 2011 the support for the increase from the City of Toronto was turned down and indications were that the City would not support such a request in 2012. Accordingly, in the operating budget levy table on page 1, the column headed "Rouge Park" provides for$134,000 for the Rouge Park from the participating municipalities. The Province of Ontario has served notice of its intention to withdraw from the Rouge Park agreement effective July 31, 2012. The Government of Canada has advised that it is their intention to create the Rouge National Urban Park. It is anticipated that the federal government through Parks Canada will announce funding arrangements for the national park in April, 2012. Until TRCA has more details of the national park and the transition plan associated with it, TRCA will continue to levy funds for the Rouge Park. Property Taxes on Conservation Lands TRCA is required to pay property taxes on its lands except where TRCA has received an exemption or partial exemption under the Conservation Land Tax Incentive Program (CLTIP). In the case of revenue producing properties such as rental houses or leased lands, taxes are covered by the revenues received. For park and conservation lands, where taxes are payable, the rates are generally relatively low. In the City of Toronto, most park and conservation lands are exempt from property taxation because the City (Metropolitan Toronto previously) exercised its ability under the City of Toronto Act to exempt park land from taxes. In the regions of Peel, York and Durham, the Town of Mono and the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio, property taxes are paid on conservation lands not included under CLTIP. In fairness to the City of Toronto which grants exemption, TRCA has long had a practice of allocating the cost of property taxes to the jurisdiction which levies the taxes. This is in addition to the apportionment of the general levy. This has been TRCA's practice for many years and the respective municipal jurisdictions have paid the cost of the taxes. Authority to do this has been included in the budget resolution approved each year by the Authority. For added clarity, included in the budget recommendation this year is a formal statement of the policy. Operating Budget Summary Total gross operating expenditures in 2012 are estimated to be$36,779,000. This is an increase of 4.7% over comparable 2011 budget. Revenues are budgeted to be $24,831,000, an increase of 6.1%. 2011 net expenditures of$11,948,000 are to be funded by municipal levy. This is an increase of$224,000 or 1.91% over 2011. Pages 5 and 6 of the operating budget include brief notes about the reasons for increases/decreases in the various programs. The program descriptions include additional information. 6 Capital Budget Summary The 2012 capital budget is set at$66.4 million, a decrease of$6.1 million from 2011. Most of this change results from the completion of the various infrastructure projects in 2011, such as the Petticoat Creek Pool. Municipal funding pays for$34.9 million of the capital program, of which $24.9 will be raised in 2012 and the balance ($10.0) carried forward from previous years. Funding from all other sources amount to$34.5 million. Refer to the summary on pages 28 and 29 for further details. Capital projects are usually funded by the municipal partners on a benefiting municipality basis. That is, with few exceptions, capital projects funded by a municipality are undertaken within that municipality. These include: • erosion control projects; • Remedial Action Plan program in Toronto; • natural heritage regeneration projects in Peel and York; • regional watershed monitoring; • Black Creek Pioneer Village restoration program (Toronto); • flood control works and flood plain mapping; • watershed management projects; • Peel Region Climate Change Project; • Peel conservation land care and Peel conservation area infrastructure. Some capital programs are generally benefiting. These include: • public use infrastructure - levy based on CVA, used to fund infrastructure needs of parks and education field centres; • information technology - levy based on CVA, used to fund common capital IT needs across the organization; • major facilities retrofit - levy based on CVA, used for major capital expenditures for office buildings and accommodation; • groundwater strategies and management - costs shared by Peel, York, Durham and the City with some provincial support. Certain capital programs are uniquely funded: • land acquisition - major acquisitions leverage funding available from regions of Peel, York and Durham, City of Toronto, local municipalities, Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation, The Living City Foundation and other sources; • the source water protection program is funded entirely by the Province; • Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (TWRC) projects -funded directly by TWRC through delivery agreements, including Port Union, Mimico, Tommy Thompson Park and Lower Don River; • Humber Bay Shores (Etobicoke Motel Strip) - legacy project for which the City of Toronto and Province of Ontario have continuing commitment to finance the final costs of the expropriation process; • The Living City Campus at Kortright - Funding is provided by both York and Peel regions; • in 2012, the City of Toronto added $1.5 million to TRCA capital to enable TRCA to deal with critical erosion and flood control channel projects. 7 Special Project Funding: • TRCA works with its municipal partners to undertake special projects wherein TRCA has significant, specialized expertise. These special projects include erosion work, construction of trails, bridges and wetlands and tree planting. This funding varies from year to year and is completely separate from the municipal operating and capital levy funding. Funding for this category of work is included in the budget only if there is a signed agreement. Capital expenditures can vary significantly from year to year as funding is made available. The budget provides for continuing commitment to capital projects under existing categories. Staff has included the municipal project funding for 2012 in the attached table. This funding reflects the approvals of the funding partners for 2012. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE At the Budget/Audit Advisory Board meeting, staff will make a presentation summarizing the 2012 operating and capital budgets. Report prepared by: Jim Dillane, extension 6292; Rocco Sgambelluri, extension 5232 Emails: jdillane @trca.on.ca; rsgambelluri @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Jim Dillane, extension 6292; Rocco Sgambelluri, extension 5232; Ralph Kofler, extension 5276 Emails: jdillane @trca.on.ca; rsgambelluri @trca.on.ca; rkofier @trca.on.ca Date: April 04, 2012 Attachments: 1 8 Attachment 1 TORONTO AND REGION o nservation for The Living City 2012 BUDGET OPERATING AND CAPITAL As submitted to Budget and Audit Advisory Board, April 13, 2012 9 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2012 BUDGET TABLE OF CONTENTS pages Section 1: Apportionment of Levy 2012 Apportionment of Levy-Summary 1 2012 Apportionment of Levy- Matching/Non-Matching Format 2 Basis of Apportionment- Municipal Levy 2012 3-4 Section 2: Operating Budget Operating Budget Summary 5-6 Full -Time Equivalents of Staffing 7 2011 Operating Budget- Detailed 8-26 Finance and Business Services 8 Watershed Management 12 Planning and Development 15 Ecology 17 Restoration Services 19 Parks and Culture 20 Office of the CAO, Human Resources, Marketing and Communication 26 10 SECTION 1 2012 APPORTIONMENT OF LEVY 11 T O O O O O O O O N O T O O O LO T T 0) O O O O O W m o o N o o ui ui T T IL c a� T L t r O r N r- O O OU M °' °v r 00 00 ri P�: C6 v v r f- Cl) N N r N N LU z 1 00 O I Cl I O I Cl O O O a0 O O r J _ * 1� O O O r P�: O M � OIr M T qF W N W oa � J � r N r r MQ O T T W O 8 , o Z a 4fY 006 r N QS Q Q > cc LU w W a Z O ui; I Lu #f} 0dr - N fi O O o N p it o 0 V CdW 60 LuZ Z W 0 CM 0 J N w 0 cc H D ZQ LV > 't 00 rn C`0') ce) U O N N L6 L6 Z Z' J N 00 O O O z 0 w o 0 � °0 00 00 00 00 00 00 o 0 Z N N LO O O O F- CL Q N Q O N i > XQ 00 0) 0) In In In V W ~ r T N r r J O Q N H W Y Z 0- CO O CO O N Q o°[ _ U) a z z Q = O O Y }0 It It w O } axi Q 0 a >- J 12 Page 2 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY APPORTIONMENT OF 2012 LEVIES ------------ OPERATING LEVY ----------------- MATCHING* NON-MATCHING TOTAL ADJALA-TOSORONTIO 65 800 865 DURHAM 25,276 465,201 490,477 TORONTO 551,034 6,839,087 7,390,121 MONO 74 1,123 1,197 PEEL 97,654 1,391 ,478 1 ,489,132 YORK 171,897 2,404,311 2,576,208 8465000 11 ,102,000 11,948,000 * Based on preliminary estimates of provincial funding. 13 Page 3 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2012 BASIS OF APPORTIONMENT- MUNICIPAL LEVY (BASED ON 2010 MODIFIED CURRENT VALUE ASSESSMENT FIGURES*) %OF CURRENT CURRENT MUNICIP- VALUE POPULATION VALUE ALITY IN ASSESSMENT TOTAL IN MUNICIPALITY ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY IN WATERSHED POPULATION AUTHORITY $(000's) $(000's) Township of Adjala-Tosorontio 1,615,458 4 64,618 9,676 387 Durham, Regional Municipality of 30,808,817 * 25,309,660 199,324 166,006 City of Toronto 551,766,829 100 551,766,830 2,107,595 2,107,595 Town of Mono 1,488,818 5 74,441 6,928 346 Peel, Regional Municipality of 224,082,070 * 97,783,391 1,030,619 468,159 York, Regional Municipality of 188,792,508 * 172,125,375 736,073 663,283 998,554,500 847,124,315 4,090,215 3,405,776 ANALYSIS OF REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES Durham, Regional Municipality of Ajax, Town of 13,398,338 86 11,522,571 95,976 82,539 Pickering,Town of 13,788,288 95 13,098,873 83,988 79,789 Uxbridge Township 3,622,191 19 688,216 19,360 3,678 30,808,817 25,309,660 199,324 166,006 Peel, Regional Municipality of - Brampton, City 70,228,545 63 44,243,983 387,418 244,073 Mississauga, City of 141,272,869 33 46,620,047 589,430 194,512 Caledon,Town of 12,580,657 55 6,919,361 53,771 29,574 224,082,070 97,783,391 1,030,619 468,159 York, Regional Municipality of - Aurora,Town of 10,008,781 4 400,351 45,459 1,818 Markham,Town of 59,066,947 100 59,066,947 245,351 245,351 Richmond Hill, Town of 35,881,390 99 35,522,576 151,802 150,284 Vaughan,Town of 71,916,743 100 71,916,743 244,342 244,342 Wh itch urch-Stouffvil le,Town of 7,231,648 43 3,109,609 30,789 13,239 King Township 4,686,998 45 2,109,149 18,330 8,249 188,792,508 172,125,375 736,073 663,283 *As provided by the Ministry of Natural Resources - - 14 Page 4 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2012 LEVY APPORTIONMENT MODIFIED 2012 GENERAL 2011 GENERAL CURRENT VALUE LEVY LEVY MUNICIPALITY ASSESSMENT PROPORTIONATE PROPORTIONATE IN WATERSHED FACTOR FACTOR $(000's) ADJALA-TOSORONTIO 64,618 0.00763% 0.00772% DURHAM, REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF Ajax 11,522,571 Pickering 13,098,873 Uxbridge 688,216 25,309,660 2.98771% 2.97486% CITY OF TORONTO 551,766,830 65.13410% 65.42885% TOWN OF MONO 74,441 0.00879% 0.00884% PEEL, REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF Brampton 44,243,983 Mississauga 46,620,047 Caledon 6,919,361 97,783,391 11.54298% 11.52289% YORK, REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF Aurora 400,351 Markham 59,066,947 Richmond 35,522,576 Vaughan 71,916,743 Whitchurch- Stouffville 3,109,609 King 2,109,149 172,125,375 20.31879% 20.05685% 847,124,315 100.00000% 100.00000% 15 SECTION 2 2012 OPERATING BUDGET 16 o °o o w m m m v E `o m � v E s Q u) m o > o ° o v o ° _ Y C Q o L N T 00 w O E Q U m � o N r y O N O N m y m N ° j m N N E C d o N N N Y N LL N C N 3 y 0 O TO E N 4 C O O N N O C -6 L o N N ° F U r N '6 N N O 3 LL N 0 O N C C .- N .O- vR > U - N LL N O N U O -O C N EO o E 3 "a a o y v ° - v v o a o m L L O o o o S N a N N .O N N Q N O O N m U 4 U X a v v m ?_ v m E o T CO u) v o ° w m E m ° v a O O '6 O O w O T O N d ° � E v E m ° °°' o _°- ° o v °� E 05 L E ° - o ° E � m v a v v x m o o `o a v o s > ° o m v o v > v v ° = s v m N 3 3 N ° p v O O U O Lu L C N 6 r O O N N j O N O Q O O N O N N Q N - Z U Z m T W Z Q LL 2i m m W LL QO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o Z p O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o _ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O p O N N a N h h h N N a N h V O h S o N O co N a o O o N O (+j L N N V N h N N N O (� O (O (� (� N N o °) r X T o N o N N = _ = a N N N o a h N o m N h h N W r L N o N N o a a N Ih O o N N o = a N h O N 7 N � U Z j o° 0 m o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o V o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o N O N h N h N N N N h N V V (� h o O N h o N h N h N a of N N o N N N (� (� h (� (� N o h o h h o O m N N N Z O 9 V3 (� O V N V N h N O N o N N N N h N N N (� m V V h V (� h o O CO v W O N O r V N O M a V N o O N o (� m (� = N N (� O N (O (� O °1 LL m (O O (O N V N m = N (O V = = O N N (O (� = O N N = _ (� N V = _ O) o h o V O) h N N V N N N o N N O N o a (� O) o V o a N (� N N (� N N o O o O) N O h (O h O) N N (h N O o r N V o N h h o (O (� (� (� N N N N = N V N V V N h V = Z N G U N N = N = N N (� V N N (� _ = V = cm Q M Q N o 0 N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o Z O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O c O ° (� o - N N o V O o o o o a o o N N = a N V (� a (p N N N a a N m V (� h O N N N N V N h O N (2 h V o o N (h 0 = V (O V N h N = M N O m M r U o N (O h N O) O N (� V N o o o o o � � � N N N N N N N N N N N 0 o d N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N a x LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL oo _ N > E c E m p o N O E C o C p N N O C N N G N C V LL N m E ° a v E v N 2 - o LL > > E m d E v ° `°° `° _° o c ° � m o -°o_ w O ° v `m m r v v a c2i °� >, v > m °- d .Z r � °� v o Q9 m y v E e O R LL o > N m 9 o N > O" C U U C G D j C U V .O- o C U LL o o R N p 0 Q o w s D ° m $ cn U m LL� o y d >. °� t N v m 05 °- 4 c U m U a� v Z c ° ° Q °� o r N C N JJ N C U o O� O O N °'S N CC y u) N N O O N O N C o ° E C °' L > C C C O N " i C r Y ° 0 °_i Q Q E Q N 6 C -O O O O R m LLJ O A m C o N R N O O N N {0 0 () IL Q m LL > 3 Z U a d W , 2 CC a LL U Y O CO L°L rC U U = U LL W 0 o � 3 0 a� o O U 2 y 0 C o L O ` U O U 0 z p d m E O y c o s R N V N U O E C T O E N Q L p O Q >. O p O O O Q N 3 E N U O N C N LL U1 N O 2 D O N 3 = 0 y O Q O _ C 0 _6 tOii 0) Q LO U U_ 3 Q O O o tOii O -6 O p Y J Q Y i6 i6 O O N N 0) > O O C C Y C U V T N 0) O Q Q O p O O 2) 6 ` O N -U � C r U1 N N >. T 2 C O 0 N C p_ N N LL1 0 C O E N t6 t6 E LL E '� 0 Y N o c o U E U U O C C J min a � Y m j o Y ac) 0>. C 3 —° o -o a axi > ? -o -o o 0 0 O N �' o p N ° N N m Q r� m m V m m O o d d L z E d E s CE LL Ll H LL LL H (n (n Q fA O O O O O O O O o o 0o0o o 0o 0 0 0 0 o N m n � o 0 0 0 z CD N co O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O c0 In O c0 h h U) O O N In In m h r In m O V 10 V In m m N m N m N O c0 V N N N O N •^..• LL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N p co v v o) LO m m F_ o) v F_ 0 0 0 � O O O N m o) o) co N m (O -q — N O) m O) N h V V c0 o co - (O r- co O V N w T o Z E O O O O O O O O O O O 00 O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O r (0 c0 U O O O O O O O O O O 00 O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O LU O O O O O O O O O O 00 O O O 00 O O O O O O m m c0 N d 0) LO N m (0 c0 m In r O (O V 0) m m c0 (0 c0 (0 c0 (7 c0 L N M O� In N m O h V c0 O (O V h V c0 m h V E m V t Z C O (n (n — O c0 c0 c0 O (0 O n V c0 0 0 O O N m N N - co co r r r r r r R (Q N 'R L v CD W O d m m N (0 m m O O) O) (0 V O h m (0 O) m O c0 ao _ a m O In V (0 0) T h h N O O c0 LO V O) c0 m LO r N N n E 0) 0 — o 0 m v m (0 0) r m (n m v (o (n O m y {p N N a c0 m h O O) (0 c0 O h r m O c0 V m L p � M In r m O) O) O c0 In O) c0 m m m h In m r V T R N c) y V V r O) m c0 r O V (0 r O) N O) n m 0 T h N Z LL D a N N cl) cl) - r r r N Q T N T O N a O O O O O O O O O O 0 00 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 o O o co m — Z o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O 0 (000 O 000 0 0 0 0 0 O d O N Lo O) h (0 h O c0 c0 In 0 0 V m (0 (0 N ' V ON r M O V O h CO N In r (O m h (0 N CO 0) In 00 CO c0 V N N 'O EA V m r O) l0 m 0 O N c0 (O r N V r c0 ^ r OL N m N N m C7 r r r r r Cl) T r N Q O C O O w 5 N O d N C Q N n am o 0 0 o f CO 0 o LL ID a 2 Lu a E 4 m co D a N U (n O N U1 N U O > N N > ~ YO C c J co LL Z F (6 N Y O y CC m m LL O � O 0 C O a _ d X ) � O p (6 O ~ >LL 0 [[ O N ~ LN u 7 C7 7 2 N O O LL N d N O d R LL a_ [) 1 8 OLL � z Ud 2 Z z m W C LL a) W E + U + > } LL m �LL Y �o w 0) 2 LE C + U) c + d V) N O� t � t N a)CIS 0) 'aW � � wLL + U w _ m N m t Q N LL (Ca ULL mLL o E � U) 0 cis t U H o ,O a1 N t p W W O LL N d nj '6 t d N N i W O O-m is U d a) + a) w ai O) O t p 0 Z Q) > C E a) o 'iE E E o f o o m 0 p N 0 U '� N N + t O N a) N Q C N C N W U N N 01 U r- N E A U N LL N a) C's LL N 2 t '6 c H N CES Q) C? O Z (a � 4 E is CS N + ''V U) W a) N d N N O W O U N Z 01 O H 7 CIS 0)c o)-o C a) N N m a U Q O (a LL U n a) C N N N (D N N 0)6 N Y w N C's t N U) + (O C V U D Q N 'fC N U C a) N N a) N N IL X IL ca E W N H O) O U N .. U H N N O N a) H LL C + 0 (O a) CL + Q LL O t a) M O O O C LL + EO O N N 0_ U C 0 w 01+ N O O' O -O N C O t O 01 O J N O N a) N U a) '6 `p W 0) 7 a) '6 D- E U_ LL U C a) 0 Z C Q N oO N O C) O N `� E W � C .� O O U t t N m O N t U . U o� OL~LU (tea O Ec) U m ~ o 0 CIS = H U Q 4 C O)W t O U) LL O N '6 o '6 .- ~ 2 U C LL - `j t '6 (C a) W 0 E W 2 a) 00 (C 0 C V O , N a) CIS O U) - O U O o y U N .0 c g a) N + C t a) U i s N - O N O (O LLi U) LL y O +V co a W N a LL N Z i z N U p W ~ T Q C w 0 r Z E C p 0 W( U . CIS O d N U N Q W . r co O T LL C\j N + + O M CIS C)0 N U o CIS � � Q 2 N ) w -0 m 0)� a) 2 N U m O m > LL - a) E LO— m ^ CIS m m ai a) ai a) m _ LL 'r /1N U 4) ! N U 01-O .C_ U U 0 N U = 01 C 01. U li 0 W = W (is O E LLI W W W c c �_ 0 W ��W/� 0- LL 7 Q N E (~L U U Q L~L U- L~L U U) LL 0 U + U .� m l~L V/ E O M N (D 0) (O M co O 7 O Z W CJ co LO O W N 7 ( T M N O �+ N co U M (Z� W Q O N M M co co N (O N N NI N 7 W O pu O co N cm N cr LL N M LO O O n M O) ^ r N N N W E O O � T 7 co M r M - M N N p LO N1 Z m Q U N M (O co O LO M N M M (O r (p NI O r N 7 (O M L6 C\j t M O O O N I-- ca R N Z a O R O l n O LO C LO M N O 00 N 00 0) O N W (O M O N p N N p 11)) N LO L n W N r r O) n N 00 n (O (p N 00 co W N 7 M (O O M M 7 M 06 7 7 N N M N I H Jn n M O O (O M r N 7 7 N N N (O N M N -LL N LO M M N I N N al al U U al a) a) U) E N U) E N a) Z N O) Z c o � Y Q F c c a) w 3 U U) 3 U 3 U) Q LL LL ca m w r U Y w m 3 a Q °2f at O)o c O °� g U U U) ca c c o a a) Q U O O a t Q Q a) O C y Y U F a5 a) O y Y O F H ii a ¢ a O LL w a Q O O TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2012 OPERATING BUDGET- FINAL DIVISION: Finance and Business Services Page 8 ACTIVITY: Administration 2011 2011 2012 Budget Actuals Budget %Chg. Ch g. Expenditures: Financial Services 1,211,000 1,316,009 1,331,000 9.9% 120,000 Moved to Corporate Secreatariat: Office Services 1,413,387 Information Technology 877,000 699,626 908,000 3.5% 31,000 GIs 520,000 468,448 581,000 11.7% 61,000 Project Surcharge (1,879,000) (1,837,529) (1,911,000) 1.7% (32,000) New:Divisional Administration 454,000 456,000 0.4% 2,000 Expenditure Total 1,183,000 2,059,940 1,365,000 27.3% 182,000 Funding Sources: Program/User fees 15,000 83,383 15,000 Reserves - Interest Earnings 340,000 471,470 525,000 54.4% 185,000 CFGT-Flowthrough - Municipal Provincial Federal Donations/Fundraising Non-Government Grants 115,000 136,502 25,000 -78.3% (90,000) Revenue Total 470,000 691,356 565,000 -23.8% 95,000 Net Expenditures 713,000 1,368,585 800,000 51.2% 87,000 IN PROGRESS: NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION Staff FTEs-Full-time 28.3 31.2 10.1% 2.9 Non-F/T 2.2 -100.0% -2.2 Facilities: #Buildings 5.0 4 5.0 Sq. Footage 46,950 44,750 46,950 $/Sq. Footage 17.0 17 17.4 1.9% 0.3 •Purchase Card Transactions 13,000 12,177 13,000 •Supplier Invoices processed 16,500 14,624 15,000 -9.1% -1,500 •Paycheques issued 18,800 18,817 19,000 1.1% 200 •Phones&Computers 1,310 1,335 1,400 6.9% 90 •GIS jobs for clients 850 925 950 11.8% 100.0 NOTES: 2012 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) Interest revenue up mostly due to cash flow volume($185,000) PST Rebates no longer available($90,000). GIS: Loss of SWP funding ($90,000) partially offset by additional capital recoveries($20,000) FTE Change:+.1 IT TechnicianFTE Change:WM staff utilized in accounting NOTES: 2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Labour in excess of budget due to reclassifications and extra help to handle volume($60,000) Interest revenue exceeded budget($130,000) due to higher rates and volume PST rebates exceeed budget by$20,000 20 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2012 OPERATING BUDGET- FINAL DIVISION: Finance and Business Services Page 9 ACTIVITY: Rental Properties 2011 2011 2012 Budget Actuals Budget %Chg. Ch g. Expenditures: Basic Rentals 537,000 582,372 607,000 13.0% 70,000 ORC Rentals 864,000 812,916 864,000 Special Agreements 142,000 197,963 205,000 44.4% 63,000 Central Services 345,000 418,377 364,000 5.5% 19,000 Expenditure Total 1,888,000 2,011,627 2,040,000 8.1% 152,000 Funding Sources: Basic Rentals 790,000 856,718 876,000 10.9% 86,000 ORC Rentals 960,000 924,553 960,000 Special Agreements 651,000 671,662 723,000 11.1% 72,000 Program/User fees totals 2,401,000 2,452,933 2,559,000 6.6% 158,000 Reserves CFGT- Living City CFGT- Flowthrough Municipal (29,185) Provincial Federal Donations/Fundraising Non-Government Grants 5,155 Revenue total 2,401,000 2,428,903 2,559,000 6.6% 158,000 Net Expenditures (513,000) (417,276) (519,000) 1.2% (6,000) IN PROGRESS: NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION Staff FTEs- Full-time 5.8 5.6 -2.6% (0.2) Non-F/T 0.5 0.5 Facilities: # Buildings Rented 132 129 129 -2.3% (3) Occupancy% 95% 95% 95% #acres Land under lease 2,500 2,554 2,554 2.2% 54 Operations: Days of 365 365 365 Cost/Rentals $ 10,614 $ 10,816 $ 11,403 7.4% $ 789 Revenue/Rental 13,258 $ 13,808 $ 14,233 7.4% $ 975 NOTES: 2012 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) Higher WWK taxes related to the dome. Higher WWK revenue projected 2 part time staff in Central Services for the winter New rental homes in the Brock lands has increased revenue and expenditure for the basic rentals. NOTES: 2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Higher WWK taxes related to the dome. Higher WWK revenue projected 21 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2012 OPERATING BUDGET- FINAL DIVISION: Finance and Business Services Page 10 ACTIVITY: Property&Taxes 2011 2011 2012 Budget Actuals Budget %Chg. Ch g. Expenditures: Property Services 1,719,000 1,004,156 1,707,000 -0.7% (12,000) Conservation Lands- Insurance 239,000 207,224 203,000 -15.1% (36,000) -Recoverable Taxes 409,000 395,444 407,000 -0.5% (2,000) Expenditure Total 2,521,000 1,776,034 2,482,000 -1.5% (39,000) Funding Sources: Program/User fees 1,099 Reserves CFGT-Living City - - CFGT-Flowthrough 133,000 114,080 150,000 12.8% 17,000 Municipal - - Provincial Federal Donations/Fundraising Non-Government Grants 20,000 13,993 -100.0% (20,000) Revenue Total 153,000 129,172 150,000 -2.0% (3,000) Net Expenditures 2,368,000 1,646,862 2,332,000 -1.5% (36,000) IN PROGRESS: NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION Staff FTEs-Full-time 11.7 11.23 -3.7% (0.4) Non-F/T 0.3 0.1 -66.8% (0.2) #ACRES Land in ownership 42,400 43,993 44,500 5.0% 2,100 Cost/acre in ownership $ 41.37 $ 40.37 $ 55.78 34.8% $ 14.41 NOTES: 2012 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) No Insurance premium increase in 2012 Manager,Acquistions and Sales position will not be filled until May 2012 FTE Change: -1.3 retirement, unfilled vacancy NOTES: 2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS No Insurance premium increase in 2011 Reclassification of staff. 22 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2012 OPERATING BUDGET- FINAL DIVISION: Finance and Business Services Page 11 ACTIVITY: Vehicle & Equipment 2011 2011 2012 Budget Actuals Budget %Chg. Ch g. Expenditures: Fuel, Maintenance&Repairs 698,000 890,753 702,800 0.7% 4,800 Vehicle Purchases 300,000 203,463 300,000 Equipment Purchases-New 195,000 208,784 195,000 Equipment Disposal Proceeds (15,000) (15,000) Internal Recoveries (1,178,000) (1,324,953) (1,182,800) 0.4% (4,800) Expenditure Total (21,952) - Funding Sources: Program/User fees Reserves see above CFGT-Living City CFGT-Flowthrough Municipal Provincial Federal Donations/Fundraising Private 55,514 Revenue Total 55,514 Net Expenditures (77,466) - IN PROGRESS: NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION Staff FTEs-Full-time 0.6 0.5 -18.8% -0.1 Non-F/T No.of vehicles 65 65 #of kms driven 975,000 975,000 Number of pieces of equipment 230 230 #hours equipment used 230,000 230,000 NOTES: 2012 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COL Same service level as 2011 FBS FTE Change:-.1 retirementCA's: -.1 less to V&ENo change NOTES: 2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Fewer vehicles replaced Higher Fuel, maintenance costs but higher usage charges 23 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2011 OPERATING BUDGET- FINAL DIVISION: Watershed Management Page 12 ACTIVITY: WM Divisional Management 2011 2011 2012 Budget Actuals Budget %Chg. $Chg. Expenditures: Divisional Management 421,000 483,174 437,000 4% 16,000 Downsview Offices-Corporate 10,000 13,118 10,000 Sustainable Management System 64,000 21,000 -67% (43,000) Expenditure Total 495,000 496,292 468,000 -5% (27,000) Funding Sources: Program/User fees - Reserves CFGT-Living City CFGT-Flowthrough Municipal Provincial 12,000 13,750 12,000 Federal 12,000 13,750 12,000 Donations/Fundraising Non-Government Grants - Revenue Total 24,000 27,500 24,000 Net Expenditures 471,000 468,792 444,000 -6% (27,000) IN PROGRESS: NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION Staff FTEs-Full-time 4.0 80 3.7 -6% -0.3 Non-F/T - Total Divisional Employees managed 75.0 101 101.0 35% 26 #of different departments at Downsview 12.0 12.00 12.0 #meeting rooms 3 3 3 $serviced ($millions) by Budgeting/accoi 25 25 25 NOTES: 2012 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) Sustainable Management System reduced expenditures due to reallocation of staff to other programs Admin FTE Change: -.3 SMS reallocated NOTES: 2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Reductions to offset other operating pressures 24 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2012 OPERATING BUDGET- FINAL DIVISION: Watershed Management Page 13 ACTIVITY: Watershed Strategies 2011 2011 2012 Budget Actuals Budget %Chg. $Chg. Expenditures: Don River 209,000 229,994 212,000 1.4% 3,000 Humber River 203,000 187,521 195,000 -3.9% (8,000) Rouge River 425,000 506,257 425,000 Highland Creek 114,000 108,144 114,000 Etobicoke-Mimico Creek 199,000 190,664 202,000 1.5% 3,000 Duff ins Creek 222,000 235,985 227,000 2.3% 5,000 Oak Ridges Moraine 127,000 97,958 135,000 6.3% 8,000 Waterfront Strategy 81,000 77,920 77,000 -4.9% (4,000) Expenditure Total 1,580,000 1,634,443 1,587,000 0.4% 7,000 Funding Sources: Program/User fees 2,988 - Reserves CFGT-Living City - CFGT-Flowthrough 85,000 102,013 87,000 2.4% 2,000 Other- Municipal 8,907 - Other- Provincial 40,000 43,750 45,000 12.5% 5,000 Other- Federal 40,000 45,972 45,000 12.5% 5,000 Other- Donations/Fundraising 425,000 506,257 425,000 Non-Government Grants 44,000 22,410 52,000 18.2% 8,000 Revenue Total 634,000 732,297 654,000 3.2% 20,000 Net Expenditures 946,000 902,146 933,000 -1.4% (13,000) IN PROGRESS: NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION Staff FTEs- Full-time 9.3 9.4 1.1% 0.1 Non-F/T 0.3 - 0.3 - #public meetings hosted 8 7 12 50.0% 4 •stakeholder/advisory meetings 111 142 98 -11.7% -13 •public events hosted 87 115 82 -6% -5 •technical studies 11 16 8 -27.3% -3 •plans implemented 18 26 21 16.7% 3 •advisory members engaged 163 274 192 17.8% 29 •of projects underway 45 71 59 31.1% 14 •participants at public events 7,152 15,435 15,500 116.7% 8,348 •ha restored 51,500 79,500 66,000 28.2% 14,500 •training days 55 30 118 114.5% 63 NOTES: 2012 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) No significant changes to last year's budget. Strats FTE Change: +.1 more Climate Coordinator to Etob-Mimico DSS FTE Change:No change. NOTES: 2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Reductions to offset other operating pressures TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2012 OPERATING BUDGET- FINAL DIVISION: Watershed Management Page 13b ACTIVITY: NEW:Living City Campus Programming 2011 2011 2012 BUDGET Actuals BUDGET %CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Administration 48,000 60,105 46,000 -4.2% (2,000) Marketing-General 11,000 8,000 -27.3% (3,000) Marketing-Education 3,000 2,206 5,000 66.7% 2,000 Education Programs 408,000 587,335 492,000 20.6% 84,000 Sustainable House Programming 2,806 - Maple Syrup Education 64,000 51,632 72,000 12.5% 8,000 Energy Workshops 122,000 89,983 105,000 -13.9% (17,000) Day Camps 35,000 25,463 30,000 -14.3% (5,000) Expenditure Tota 691,000 819,530 758,000 9.7% 67,000 FUNDING SOURCES: User fees- Education Programs 345,000 371,256 372,000 7.83% 27000 User fees-Sustainable House 33,000 13,276 10,000 -69.7% (23,000) User fees- Maple Syrup 69,000 114,446 72,000 4.3% 3,000 User fees- Energy Workshops 181,000 155,401 158,000 -12.7% (23,000) User fees- Day Camps 50,000 35,285 34,000 -32.0% (16,000) User fees- 458 Program/User fees Total 678,000 690,121 646,000 -4.7% (32,000) Reserves Interest Earnings CFGT-Flowthrough 99,563 70,000 70,000 Other- Municipal Other- Provincial Other- Federal Other- Donations/Fundraising 100 Other- Non-Government Grants 14,000 Revenue Total 678,000 803,784 716,000 5.6% 38,000 Deficit/(Surplus 13,000 15,746 42,000 223.1% 29,000 DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION Staff FTEs-Full-time 3.9 5.1 29.9% 1.2 Non-F/T 6.5 5.6 -13.8% (0.90) •workshops hosted 22 25 42 94.4% 20.40 •students involved 32,400 61,000 61,000 88.3% 28,600.00 •of programs developed/updated 2 6 - 6.00 •brochures and advertisements 12,000 5,674 6,000 -50.0% (6,000.00) •of funded class visits from priority communitie 67 75 75.00 •of school bus grants awarded 50 50 50.00 NOTES: 2012 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) Reduced revenue from Energy Workshops FIT programs uncertainty NOTES: 2011 VA No significant cha 26 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2012 OPERATING BUDGET- FINAL DIVISION: Watershed Management Page 14 ACTIVITY: Conservation Field Centres 2011 2011 2012 Budget Actuals Budget %Chg. Ch g. Expenditures: CFC Program Management 177,000 133,787 189,000 6.8% 12,000 Education Support Services 230,000 265,773 291,000 26.5% 61,000 Mar.3/08 capital moved to own page Albion Hills 768,000 561,097 783,000 2.0% 15,000 Claremont 775,000 736,026 798,000 3.0% 23,000 Lake St.George 994,000 956,571 1,022,000 2.8% 28,000 Education Special Projects 134,599 132,000 - 132,000 Food Equipment 61 Internal Expenditure Total 2,944,000 2,787,914 3,215,000 9.2% 271,000 Funding Sources: User Fees-Albion Hills 546,000 347,608 566,000 3.7% 20,000 Claremont 479,000 394,689 497,000 3.8% 18,000 Lake St. George 805,000 735,636 818,000 1.6% 13,000 All other 11,047 29,000 - 29,000 Program/User fees total 1,830,000 1,488,979 1,910,000 4.4% 80,000 Reserves 61 - Interest Earnings - CFGT-Flowthrough 438,000 567,920 632,000 44.3% 194,000 Municipal 5,000 8,445 5,000 Provincial - Federal Donations/Fundraising 6,195 Non-Government Grants - Revenue Total 2,273,000 2,071,600 2,547,000 12.1% 274,000 Net Expenditures 671,000 716,314 668,000 -0.4% (3,000) IN PROGRESS: NEW DATA/VOLUME 1 PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION Staff FTEs-Full-time 25.6 26.1 1.9% 0.5 Non-F/T 9.8 10.0 2.1% 0.2 Facilities:#Buildings 20 20 20 Sq. Footage 23,713 23,713 23,713 Number of Days Booked (includes weekends and summer and 659 766 760 15.3% 101 Number of Student Participants 8,200 8,977 8,500 Number of Student Days Booked(Average 34.3 students/day) 22,604 26,274 26,068 15.3% 3,464 Number of Teacher P. D. Participants(External) 532 600 Number of Teacher P. D. Sessions(Internal) 105 115 Cost/Student Day $ 130.24 $ 106.11 $ 123.33 -5.3% $ (6.91) Revenue/Student Day $ 80.96 $ 56.67 $ 73.27 -9.5% $ (7.69) NOTES: 2012 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) Reinstated major maintenance funds-$45k(was cut in 2010 to offset revenue shortfalls) Increased CFGT Flow Through funding-Weston FDN, McCutcheon FDN Increase of days of sale from 491 to 506 for school bookings-economic recovery TTP Bird Program(Winged Migration)was in budget twice.$5k impact of removing duplicate Monarch Teacher Network-$5k revenue FTE Change:+1 new self-funded Coordinator,Funded programs net of small reduction in Dorm staff NOTES: 2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Reduced revenue but somewhat offset through expense savings VARIANCE NOTE:TCDSB cancelled bookings at Claremont and Albion Hills-80 days for Sept 2009 to June 2010 VARIANCE NOTE: Economy and funding impacting participation in field trips and smaller groups 27 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2012 OPERATING BUDGET-FINAL DIVISION: Planning& Development Page 15 ACTIVITY: Development Services 2011 2011 2012 Budaet Actuals Budaet %Cha. Ch . Expenditures: Planning Services 1,056,000 943,946 1,121,000 6.2% 65,000 Planning Services-MESPs 37,176 Regulation Services 906,000 906,206 973,000 7.4% 67,000 Solicitor Realty Inquiries - Policy,Research and Special Projects 15,000 3,260 15,000 Hearings 125,000 56,416 125,000 Environ.Assessments-Core 494,000 451,661 570,000 15.4% 76,000 York EA 565,000 556,567 668,000 18.2% 103,000 York Durham Sewer 36,000 40,516 47,000 30.6% 11,000 Central Pickering DP EA 117,000 55,768 126,000 7.7% 9,000 TTC-Spadina Subway EA 191,000 118,819 60,000 -68.6% (131,000) York Rapid Transit 33,172 42,000 Expenditure Total 3,930,000 3,682,870 4,235,000 7.8% 305,000 Fundina Sources: - Fees-Planning 1,544,000 1,460,333 1,734,000 12.3% 190,000 Fees-Planning MESPs 250,000 328,025 250,000 Fees-Regulation Services 973,000 939,846 1,129,000 16.0% 156,000 Fees-Solicitor 156,000 257,775 165,000 5.8% 9,000 Fees: Core E.A. 468,000 298,098 570,000 21.8% 102,000 York EA 12,000 52,137 13,000 8.3% 1,000 Peel EA 8,000 43,190 11,000 37.5% 3,000 Brampton EA 4,000 5,298 4,000 Central Pickering DP EA under municipal-is - TTC-Spadina Subway EA 124,000 5,200 -100.0% (124,000) York Rapid Transit 3,760 Fees-Other(i.e.York Sewer) Contract Services Program/User fees total 3,539,000 3,393,663 3,876,000 9.5% 337,000 Reserves - CFGT-Living City CFGT-Flowthrough - Municipal 1,186,000 1,224,128 1,403,000 34.7% 217,000 Provincial - Federal Donations/Fundraising 1 Non-Government Grants - Peel E.A.via Cap Levy 290,000 290,000 335,000 15.5% 45,000 Revenue Total 4,725,000 4,617,792 5,279,000 11.7% 554,000 Net Expenditures (795,000) (934,922) 650 31.3% (249,000) IN PROGRESS:NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION Staff FTEs-Full-time 37 38 4.0% 1 Non-F/T 4 4 -17.0% (1) Mandated Activity: - Conservation Authorities Act,Planning Act,Environmental Assessment Act •New Planning Applications processed 750 658 650 -13.3% (100) •carry forward Planning Applications 300 175 175 -41.7% (125) •New Development Permit Applications received/processed 1,020 1,020 1,000 -2.0% (20) •carry forward Development Permit Applications 204 100 100 -51.0% -104 •Development Permits Issued 1,025 966 960 -6.3% (65) •Permissions for Minor Works Issued 280 290 280 - #Environment Assessments 125 140 125 - #Environment Master Plan Studies 175 175 -41.7% (125) •Active OMB/Mining&Lands Commissioner Hearings •Active Env.Tribunal Hearings NOTES: 2012 BUDGETCHANGE COMMENTS(excludina inflation/COLA) EAs now completely self-funded with increased revenue. Planning&Permit revenues increased DSS FTE Change:+.5 New Planner&.4 annualizations Ecology portion FTE Change:-.4 less staff to EAs 28 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2012 OPERATING BUDGET- FINAL DIVISION: Planning & Development Page 16 ACTIVITY: Enforcement 2011 2011 2012 Budget Actuals Budget % Chg. Ch . Expenditures: Enforcement 543,000 541,969 557,000 2.6% 14,000 Legal 35,000 109,644 80,000 128.6% 45,000 Expenditure Total 578,000 651,613 637,000 10.2% 59,000 Funding Sources: Program/User fees Reserves CFGT- Living City CFGT- Flowthrough Municipal Provincial Federal Donations/Fundraising Revenue Total Net Expenditures 578,000 651,613 637,000 10.2% 59,000 IN PROGRESS: NEW DATA/VOLUME/ PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION Staff FTEs- Full-time 5.0 5.0 Non-F/T •vehicles 4 4 4 •of violations issued 100 112 100 NOTES: 2012 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) Increased budget for higher legal costs NOTES: 2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Higher legal costs 29 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2012 OPERATING BUDGET- FINAL DIVISION: Ecology Page 17 ACTIVITY : Divisional Summary 2011 2011 2012 Budget Actuals Budget %Chg. Ch g. Expenditures: Program Management 263,000 244,101 283,000 7.6% 20,000 Natural Heritage Management 620,000 595,564 659,000 6.3% 39,000 NHM-Development Serv.support Water Resources 839,000 907,456 851,000 1.4% 12,000 2011 Moved to WM:Sustainable Management System 188 - Flood Forecasting&Warning 346,000 305,681 328,000 -5.2% (18,000) Op.&Maintenance of Dams,Channels and Water 313,000 321,666 313,000 Special Projects 100,000 13,534 100,000 Expenditure Total 2,481,000 2,388,191 2,534,000 2.1% 53,000 Funding Sources: Program/Userfees 25,000 13,891 30,000 20.0% 5,000 Reserves 20,000 -100.0% (20,000) CFGT-Living City CFGT-Flowthrough 2,798 Municipal 25,000 25,000 Provincial 50,000 675 50,000 Federal 25,000 25,000 Donations/Fundraising 2,000 Non-Government Grants 2,500 Revenue Total 145,000 21,864 130,000 -10.3% (15,000) Net Expenditures 2,336,000 2,366,327 2,404,000 2.9% 68,000 IN PROGRESS: NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION Staff FTEs- Full-time 20.7 21.5 4.1% 0.8 Non-F/T 1.4 -100.0% (1.4) #FTE's Divisional Employees managed 75.8 76.9 1.5% 1.2 #of External Technical Training Days Offered 30 24 30 - #of Flood Warning Messages Issued 20 15 20 - #of Number on high alert days(>10mm rainfall) 40 34 40 - #of of Flood Service Municipal Training Days 3 15 10 - #of Media Requests 30 33 30 - NOTES: 2012 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) Increase reliance on operating due to reduced Source Protection funding. Staff reallocated to Development Review NOTES: 2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Ecology Operating revenues lower in 2011 due to delayed projects(CPDP TYSSE)that will be continuing in 2012. Next Page.... 19 30 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2012 OPERATING BUDGET- FINAL DIVISION: Restoration Services Page 19 ACTIVITY: Divisional Summary 2011 2011 2012 Budget Actuals Budget %Chg. Ch g. Expenditures: Program Management 268,000 225,140 231,000 -13.8% (37,000) Inland Fill 250,000 217,940 265,000 6.0% 15,000 Plant Propagation (85,000) (227,376) 25,000 -129.4% 110,000 Planting Projects 470,000 310,335 482,000 2.6% 12,000 Archaeology 248,000 342,002 250,000 0.8% 2,000 Expenditure Total 1,151,000 868,040 1,253,000 8.9% 102,000 Funding Sources: Inland Fill 485,000 365,828 500,000 3.1% 15,000 Plant Propagation 25,000 47,337 25,000 Planting Projects 191,000 105,295 203,000 6.3% 12,000 Archaeology 120,000 289,453 120,000 Other - Program/User fees Total 821,000 807,913 848,000 3.3% 27,000 Reserves - CFGT-Living City CFGT-Flowthrough 5,000 4,327 5,000 Municipal 80,000 58,162 80,000 Provincial 5,000 5,000 Federal 6,000 6,000 Donations/Fundraising Non-Government Grants 12,439 Revenue Total 917,000 882,841 944,000 2.9% 27,000 Net Expenditures 234,000 (14,801) 309,000 32.1% 75,000 IN PROGRESS: NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION Staff FTEs-Full-time 19.2 19.4 1.0% 0.2 Non-F/T 10.4 12.2 16.8% 1.8 Facilities: #Buildings 7 7 7 - Sq. Footage 50,000 50,000 50,000 - #FTE's Divisional Employees managed 103.6 - 103.6 •Plants Produced 230,000 267,463 230,000 •Plants Planted 350,000 396,853 300,000 -14.3% (50,000) •Cubic Meters of Fill 300,000 100,000 200,000 -33.3% (100,000) •Archaeological Project Areas 65 72 80 23.1% 15 #Boyd Arch. Field School Students 40 n/a 25 -37.5% (15) NOTES: 2012 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) Nursery revenues will pay for the nursery irrigation system Nursery revenues will offset higher forest management costs Increased RS Division's budget surplus by$45K,total now$175K NOTES: 2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Nursery revenues were used to pay off the final RSC debt Fill Program was$87K short of net target due to delays by contractors Nursery revenues offset fill program budget shortfall Lower wood revenues but managed by reduced expenditures 31 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2012 OPERATING BUDGET- FINAL DIVISION: Parks and Culture Page 20 ACTIVITY: Divisional Management 2011 2011 2012 BUDGET Actuals BUDGET %CHG. $CHG. Expenditures: PARKS&CULTURE ADMIN. 354,900 370,666 371,000 4.5% 16,100 PARKS&CULTURE SALES 44,900 44,487 20,000 -55.5% (24,900) PARKS&CULTURE CUSTOMER SERVICE 356,200 348,030 376,000 5.6% 19,800 756,000 806,865 767,000 1.5% 11,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Userfees: 24,000 29,905 24,000 Reserves - CFGT- Living City CFGT- Flowthrough 20,000 Other-Municipal Other-Provincial Other-Federal Other-Donations/Fundraising Non-Government Grants 24,000 49,905 24,000 NET EXPENDITURES 732,000 756,960 743,000 1.5% 11,000 IN PROGRESS: NEW DATA/VOLUME/ PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION Staff FTEs-Full-time 7.7 7.0 -9.1% (0.7) Non-F/T 0.5 - 0.5 Total Division Employee FTE's 148.7 156.5 0.1 7.8 Total Division Visitors 740,000 564,000 570,000 14.0% 70,000 Total Division Revenue 6,028,000 5,492,832 6,288,000 4.3% 260,000 Total Division Cost/Visitor $ 1.51 $ 1.43 $ 1.35 -11.0% $ (0.17) Total Division Revenue/Visitor $ 12.06 $ 9.74 $ 11.03 -8.5% $ (1.02) NOTES: 2012 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) Addition of 6 month customer service position FTE Change:-.2 Manager reallocated to Food NOTES: 2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Supplementary staff wages exceeded budget. 32 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2012 OPERATING BUDGET-FINAL DIVISION: Parks&Culture Division Page 21 ACTIVITY: Conservation Areas 2011 2011 2012 Budget Actuals Budget %Chg. Ch g. Expenditures: General Operations 99,000 91,916 99,000 West Zone West Zone Administration 86,000 128,014 72,000 -16.3% (14,000) Albion Hills 812,000 847,363 804,000 -1.0% (8,000) Glen Haffy 212,000 218,856 206,000 -2.8% (6,000) Indian Line 462,000 414,573 472,000 2.2% 10,000 Boyd 249,000 210,576 255,000 2.4% 6,000 Heart Lake 429,000 363,506 452,000 5.4% 23,000 East Zone East Zone Administration 81,000 71,077 67,000 -17.3% (14,000) Bruce's Mill 409,000 384,919 386,000 -5.6% (23,000) Petticoat Creek 157,000 161,144 510,000 224.8% 353,000 Glen Rouge Campground 213,000 209,589 219,000 2.8% 6,000 Land Management: - East Zone 129,000 91,941 124,000 -3.9% (5,000) West Zone 186,000 47,599 185,000 -0.5% (1,000) Major Maintenance 25,000 24,158 25,000 Expenditure Total 3,549,000 3,265,230 3,876,000 9.2% 327,000 Funding Sources: User Fees-Bruce's Mill 536,000 482,518 536,000 User Fees-Petticoat Creek 141,000 96,761 566,000 301.4% 425,000 User Fees-Heart Lake 426,000 342,410 426,000 User Fees-Albion Hills 1,005,000 932,469 895,000 -10.9% (110,000) User Fees-Glen Haffy 181,000 138,637 181,000 User Fees-Indian Line 730,000 588,190 710,000 -2.7% (20,000) User Fees-Boyd 324,000 316,715 324,000 User Fees-Glen Rouge 214,000 258,129 250,000 16.8% 36,000 User Fees-Rentals/Other 24,662 - User Fees Total 3,557,000 3,180,490 3,888,000 9.3% 331,000 Reserves 5,000 -100.0% (5,000) CFGT-Living City CFGT-Flowthrough Municipal Provincial Federal 6,464 Donations/Fundraising 1,465 Non-Government Grants 44,585 Revenue Total 3,562,000 Net Expenditures (13,000) 32,225 (12,000) -7.7% 1,000 IN PROGRESS:NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION Staff FTEs-Full-time Non-F/T 32.8 38.193 16.6% 5.4 Facilities:#Buildings 20.0 20 20 - Acres Managed 12,000 12,000 12,000 Operations:Days of 240 240 240 Number of Visitors 500,000 355,000 400,000 -20.0% (100,000) Cost/Visitor $ 7.10 $ 9.20 $ 9.69 36.5% 2.59 Revenue/Visitor $ 7.11 $ 8.96 $ 9.72 36.6% 2.61 NOTES: 2012 BUDGETCHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) Petticoat Creek pool operations budget reinstated. Camping Revenues adjusted in line with actuals. FTE Change:-.2 staf reallocationFTE Change:+5 re:PC pool re Administration wages reallocated to other programs. PC Supervisor&BM Asst.Supervisor FT position unfilled for fo Winter revenue reduced NOTES: 2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Expenditures: Expenditures reduced to offset unrealized revenue Revenue: Unrealized camping and day use revenue. TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2012 OPERATING BUDGET-FINAL DIVISION: Parks and Culture Page 22 ACTIVITY: Kortright Centre for Conservation 2011 2011 2012 BUDGET Actuals BUDGET %CHG. CHG. Expenditures: ADMINISTRATION 3,427 GROUNDS 133,000 144,687 133,000 BUILDINGS 191,000 175,362 182,000 -4.7% (9,000) LIVING MACHINE 5,000 4,639 5,000 GENERAL PROGRAM 66,000 66,197 67,000 1.5% 1,000 DAY USE 77,000 54,940 78,000 1.3% 1,000 PUBLIC PROGRAMS 36,000 34,849 31,000 -13.9% (5,000) EDUCATION PROGRAMS 1,055 KCC:DU WETLAND CREATION-OTHER No activity KCC:EDUCATION PROG.DEVELOPMENT CAFE 80,000 95,776 73,000 -8.8% (7,000) GIFTSHOP 98,000 73,883 99,000 1.0% 1,000 CAFE-MAPLE SYRUP 39,000 45,113 43,000 10.3% 4,000 CORPORATE FUNCTIONS 89,000 56,608 47,000 -47.2% (42,000) GIFT SHOP-MAPLE SYRUP 78,000 67,430 75,000 -3.8% (3,000) SUSTAINABLE HOUSE OP/PROGRAM 15,116 11,000 11,000 PUBLIC MAPLE SYRUP 63,000 68,710 86,000 36.5% 23,000 MAPLE SYRUP EDUCATION - ENERGY WORKSHOPS 539 CORPORATE PROGRAMS COMMERCIAL FILMING 1,098 KITE FESTIVAL - KCC:MAPLE SYRUP EVENING PROGS. No activity WEDDINGS 245,000 262,525 304,000 24.1% 59,000 KORIGHT:ENERGY THEMED PROGRAMS KORTRIGHT FOOD RESRVE ACTIVITY (860) - Expenditure Total 1,226,000 1,198,695 1,260,000 2.8% 34,000 Funding Sources: User fees by program Component: PUBLIC PROGRAMS 56,000 20,939 53,100 -5.2% (2,900) EDUCATION PROGRAMS CAFE 33,000 56,081 33,000 GIFTSHOP 75,000 54,825 75,000 CAFE-MAPLE SYRUP 55,000 55,000 GIFT SHOP-MAPLE SYRUP 130,000 130,000 PUBLIC MAPLE SYRUP 113,000 316,665 124,000 9.7% 11,000 WEDDINGS 430,000 477,531 450,000 4.7% 20,000 CORPORATE FUNCTIONS 104,000 57,340 104,000 ENERGY WORKSHOPS - SUSTAINABLE HOUSE OP/PROGRAM 1,065 DAY CAMPS - ALL OTHER USER FEES 9,000 2,550 9,900 10.0% 900 1,076,000 1,059,811 1,105,000 19.2% 29,000 Reserves (1,720) - CFGT-Living City CFGT-Flowthrough Municipal Provincial Federal Donations/Fundraising 169 - Non-Government Grants (64) - - 1,076,000 1,058,195 1,105,000 2.7% 29,000 Net Expenditures 150,000 140,500 155,000 3.3% 5,000 IN PROGRESS:NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION Staff FTEs-Full-time 4.4 4.2 -4.3% (0.2) Non-F/T 8.6 9.4 9.5% 0.8 Facilities:#Buildings 20 20 20 Acres Managed 20,000 20,000 20,000 Operations:Days of 240 240 240 Number of Public Program Visitors 45,000 109,000 110,000 144.4% 65,000 Number of Education Visitors 130,000 -100.0% (130,000) NOTES: 2012 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) Wedding revenue &expenditures increased to reflect increased business. Maple Syrup program revenue and expenditures increased to reflect acutuals NOTES: 2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Expenditures: Wedding expenditures increase to reflect increase business Revenue: Wedding revenue exceeded projected budget. TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2012 OPERATING BUDGET- FINAL DIVISION: Parks and Culture Page 23 ACTIVITY: Oak Ridges Corridor Park 2011 2011 2012 BUDGET Actuals BUDGET %CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: BATHURST GLEN GOLF COURSE-ADMINISTRATION 420,000 353,992 314,000 -25.2% (106,000) Oak Ridges Corridor Park 374,000 364,181 363,000 -2.9% (11,000) BATHURST GLEN GOLF COURSE-PRO SHOP 152,000 159,699 165,000 8.6% 13,000 BATHURST GLEN GOLF COURSE-SNACK BAR 103,000 91,595 108,000 4.9% 5,000 BATHURST GLEN GOLF COURSE-DRIVING RANGE 58,000 62,443 69,000 19.0% 11,000 OAK RIDGES PARK 264,000 188,422 252,000 -4.5% (12,000) 1,371,000 1,220,332 1,271,000 -7.3% (100,000) FUNDING SOURCES: User fees by program Component: 1,040 BATHURST GLEN GOLF COURSE-PRO SHOP 917,000 819,228 847,000 -7.6% (70,000) BATHURST GLEN GOLF COURSE-SNACK BAR 110,000 93,000 100,000 -9.1% (10,000) BATHURST GLEN GOLF COURSE-DRIVING RANGE 240,000 179,205 220,000 -8.3% (20,000) OAK RIDGES PARK 104,207 User fees Total 1,267,000 1,196,679 1,167,000 -7.9% (100,000) Reserves CFGT-Living City CFGT-Flowthrough Other- Municipal Other- Provincial 104,000 104,000 Other- Federal Other- Donations/Fundraising Non-Government Grants 7,563 1,371,000 1,204,242 1,271,000 -7.3% (100,000) NET EXPENDITURES 16,090 Staff FTEs-Full-time 4.8 3.5 -28.6% (1.4) Non-F/T 11.6 11.6 0.0% Facilities: #Buildings 5 5 5.0 Acres Managed 20,000 20,000 20,000 Operations: Days of 240 240 240 Number of Visitors 55,000 43,000 44,000 -20.0% (11,000) Cost/Visitor excluding Park) $ 20.13 $ 24.00 $ 23.16 15.1% $ 3.03 Revenue/Visitor $ 23.04 $ 27.83 $ 26.52 15.1% $ 3.49 NOTES: 2012 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) Revenue&expenditures reduced to be in line with actuals. FTE Change: -1.5 Project Coordinators NOTES: 2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Expenditures reduced to offset revenue shortfall. 35 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2012 OPERATING BUDGET- FINAL DIVISION: Parks and Culture Page 24 ACTIVITY: Black Creek Pioneer Village 2011 2011 2012 Budget Actuals Budget %Chg. Ch g. Expenditures: Program Management 227,000 256,327 362,000 59.5% 135,000 Curatorial 231,000 305,422 280,000 21.2% 49,000 Photography 9,000 - 9,000 Interpretative Programming 1,302,000 1,290,754 1,224,000 -6.0% (78,000) Special Events 227,000 58,698 241,000 6.2% 14,000 Heritage Education 343,000 309,641 296,000 -13.7% (47,000) Building Maintenance 1,155,000 1,083,717 1,121,000 -2.9% (34,000) Admissions 195,000 207,895 219,000 12.3% 24,000 Giftshop 320,000 290,709 315,000 -1.6% (5,000) Marketing and Sponsorships 203,000 196,095 203,000 New: Brewery Operations 105,000 94,799 105,000 Expenditure Total 4,308,000 4,102,112 4,375,000 1.6% 67,000 Funding Sources: Curatorial 5,000 8,886 5,000 Photography 50,000 114,149 100,000 100.0% 50,000 Interpretative Programming 20,000 10,284 20,000 Special Events 97,000 77,165 97,000 Heritage Education 542,000 542,057 552,000 1.8% 10,000 Admissions 559,000 532,370 559,000 Parking 365,000 449,281 335,000 -8.2% (30,000) Giftshop 410,000 359,655 410,000 New: Brewery Operations 54,000 45,209 54,000 Other 95 - Program/User fees Total 2,102,000 2,139,152 2,132,000 1.4% 30,000 Reserves - Interest Earnings CFGT-Flowthrough 75,000 22,179 75,000 Municipal Provincial 240,000 220,744 220,000 -8.3% (20,000) Federal 22,408 Donations/Fundraising 11,000 (2,101) 11,000 Non-Govt.Grants 1,571 - Revenue Total 2,428,000 2,403,953 2,438,000 0.4% 10,000 Net Expenditures 1,880,000 1,698,159 1,937,000 3.0% 57,000 IN PROGRESS: NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION Staff FTEs-Full-time 17.9 n/a 16.6 -7.3% -1.3 Non-F/T 37.5 n/a 39.4 5.1% 1.9 Facilities: #Buildings 50 50 50 - Sq. Footage 170,000 170,000 170,000 Site Hectares 31 31 31 Operations: Days of 246 250 246 Number of Non-paying Visitors 32,000 24,418 32,000 Number of Paying Visitors 109,000 110,290 109,000 - Cost/all visitors $ 29.46 $ 30.45 $ 31.03 5.3% $ 1.57 Revenue per paying visitor $ 19.28 $ 19.40 $ 19.56 1.4% $ 0.28 NOTES: 2012 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) CMOG Grant reduced to actual Transfer of two FT positions from Communications Maintenance and utility expenditures reduced to reflect warmer winter season Filming revenue increase to be n line with actuals FT&Supplementary Staff reductions including Exhibit Coordinator, Interp FTE change: +.6 net re: NEW Fundraising position NOTES: 2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Filming and Parking revenue exceeded projected budget. TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2012 OPERATING BUDGET-FINAL DIVISION: Parks and Culture Page 25 ACTIVITY: Food Services 2011 2011 2012 Budget Actuals Budget %Chg. $Chg. Weddings:Sales Costs&Revenue 254,000 284,349 307,000 20.9% 53,000 Corporate Events:Sales Costs/Revenue 334,000 323,749 275,000 -17.7% (59,000) Banquet Costs&Internal Functions 158,000 133,923 142,000 -10.1% (16,000) Visitor Services 254,000 220,689 227,000 -10.6% (27,000) Equipment 276 Program Management 41,000 41,000 Adjust for Internal charges (115,000) (117,153) (115,000) FOOD:CENTRAL PURCHASING 30,222 Expenditure Total 925,000 876,055 917,000 -0.9% (8,000) Funding Sources: Weddings 331,000 406,382 380,000 14.8% 49,000 Corporate Events 362,000 369,930 355,000 -1.9% (7,000) Internal&Lunchroom 43,000 under exp. 43,000 Visitor Services-Brew Pub 109,000 103,997 105,000 -3.7% (4,000) Pavilion Snackbar/BBC 52,000 49,562 51,000 -1.9% (1,000) Thanksgiving 14,000 17,042 14,000 March Break 19,000 5,147 19,000 Mothers Day 4,000 475 4,000 Christmas Dinners 14,000 13,293 7,000 -50.0% (7,000) Christmas by Lamplight 27,000 25,340 25,000 -7.4% (2,000) Lunch with Santa 6,879 Other(Rides etc) Total Program/User fees 975,000 998,046 1,003,000 2.9% 28,000 Reserves 155 CFGT-Living City CFGT-Flowthrough Municipal Provincial Federal Donations/Fundraising Non-Government Grants Revenue Total 975,000 998,201 1,003,000 2.9% 28,000 Net Expenditures (50,000) (122,146) (86,000) 72.0% (36,000) IN PROGRESS:NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION Staff FTEs-Full-time 6.0 6.7 11.8% 0.7 Non-F/T 6.8 7.1 4.7% 0.3 Facilities:Sq.Footage 3.00 3.00 3.00 - Operations:Days of 240 240 240 Number of Clients-Weddings 4,500 2,666 4,500 Number of Clients-Corporate 10,400 9,915 10,400 Number of Clients-Internal 7,800 6,554 7,800 - Cost/Visitor $ 38.99 $ 45.78 $ 40.40 3.6% $ 1.41 Revenue/Visitor $ 41.19 $ 52.16 $ 44.19 7.3% $ 3.00 NOTES: 2012 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) FTE Change:-.2 FTE less SupervisorFTE Change:+1.2 Coordinator position restored NOTES: 2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Wedding and Corporate revenue exceeded projected revenue. 37 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2012 OPERATING BUDGET- FINAL DIVISION: Office of the CAO, Human Resources, Marketing and Communications Page 26 ACTIVITY: CAO's and Other Programs 2011 2011 2012 Budget Actuals Budget %Chg. $Chg. Expenditures: Corporate Management 411,000 573,239 405,000 -1.5% (6,000) Corporate Secretariat 264,000 419,107 233,000 -11.7% (31,000) Human Resources 442,000 496,159 492,000 11.3% 50,000 Corporate Communications 1,264,000 1,284,365 1,317,000 4.2% 53,000 Professional Access 763,000 716,537 758,000 -0.7% (5,000) Expenditure Total 3,559,000 3,489,408 3,689,000 3.7% 130,000 Funding Sources: Program/User fees 4,500 6,639 5,000 11.1% 500 Reserves - Interest Earnings 1,133 CFGT-Flowthrough 1,000 Municipal Provincial 703,000 672,722 707,000 0.6% 4,000 Federal Donations/Fundraising Non-Government Grants 2,500 112,986 1,000 -60.0% (1,500) Special Programs Revenue Total 710,000 794,480 713,000 0.4% 3,000 Net Expenditures 2,849,000 2,694,928 2,976,000 4.5% 127,000 Comments: NOTES: 2012 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) Decreased expenses where could to offset COLA,benefits and incremental increases. Ended the Honour Roll program for expenditure reduction. FTE:-.75 less PAIEE staff. +.4 HR annualization CC: +.6 Website IntemRSS portion FTE Changes: none Reallocation of portion of Office Services from F&BS&some items moved to F&BS NOTES: 2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Corporate Management under budget due to gapping;delay in Honour Roll tree plantings&new event software provider. Corporate Secretariat over budget due to legal fees. Partially offset in savings in members expenses. HR over budget because of absorbing expenses from another division. Corporate Communications under budget due to gapping. PAIE-new account not previously in the budget but does not affect variance. 38 Attachment 2 SECTION 3 2012 CAPITAL AND OTHER PROJECTS BUDGET 39 N -O p 0 O N O N 6 O N N N C N N oO, U C E fn 0 p T m m U U O N N O Q'.. O C O N O N Y Y 3 O U v W-i j v > :o i o 2o 2o O v o',, Y' N N r o o o 0 3 ! a 0.. U U T S N 0 ; 0:m O !O v O Y O N O 4 O Mi > a N m W W >Lj - 0: o m°C O a a ' N y-0 6 F-O 6 w' � N o Q o O F O W N N N O O ° 0 p A E y O O O p O U c N O C J N U p 4 m y 0 N O U m - 3 0 ° : p p N o y a m N U O a O O W O 6 C m .r m° ° O U C x 6 v 6 v O E o t U 3 O: >O w O aLL N > Y N N C v m N � 0 C E. E , . o p 0 U ° N Y - N p ow° a w O 5 w 0 E :v L°C u ,'''.O� 0:C O 0 C 6 O Eimi � NM p¢ N 05 :N O a W. . mo N'o 0 0 m LLm LL a6i a',E o o ma U.O � � p�� °. U O N. .N N � Q.,O > J C �: N �!N � O O O)� N N: N N O N a-6 m >:N 3 N m 0 3 3 N O y 3 E v a N:a N (gyp ° -6 N N `o O o m: °' v o o O',, ° E ° v v v o o v v E ' E ' ° � ' ° 0 M (n � E:N E. O''. (nN J (n Z LL'.J Z 3 Z M.F (n:-(n .--.LL U.- I.L O O: O:O O .O O O:O O 0 0 O O 07 O m 0 0N 0 0N O a 0O 0 0 O O .0 0O m .O N O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O 0.0 O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O 0.0. O O O N O :O O O m 0 O O � O :O V N N O N a � z N . 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o F p� O O N �.m m :7 O N:O (� N O N O O m O r �..N m O:O O O (� m LLI _L 00 O (� O h O 7 O N N (n O :7 a O (�''.(� O O a N O O Na �0 m O 0 O O O OO O O' O' O 00 O'O O O'O O O O O O �O 'O (7 h :.0.0.0 . O O O O O OO O O.O O O O .O O O O: 0 O :O O OW O OO O .0.0 0.0.0.0 O .O O O O'O O O'0.0.0. O .O O W �O O Cl) N O O m N N 7 O N N 0.0 0 0 0 N O O O O O N 7 m O m N O O 0:t Z W O O 0.t N. h O O O U a R m O: O N O O Z :O O Om.:O O O N NO 7 7 0.O O m O h O O O m N. N N .a O W O - N m q:m O O h O O O O N 7 m O O � N (� O 0 N O O N N O ON O N a 7 N O O m 7 N m N O V(h� m v O O N V O (O N 7 N /W o a I.L a J z F O a L a U F o o;o O :o O O:o o O O :O o o 00 o O.o o O O :o O :.:O O O O 0 0 0 0 0.0.0.0 0 0 0.0.00.0 0.0.0. O; O;o O :o OO;o O OOO O O OO o OO O O O o O O O W m O 7 O O N m N O O O N h o N 7 O s O N O O O m m N o O h 0 m O N dN O O O h 0 7 7 N N O O N O O O r a m /O LL 4 4 4. 4 :O O m O O O O O O O O O O O 7 a a a a a a a a a a 7 N N 7 O O v v vv v.vvv v vvvvvv vvvv. v v v v v mm m m :m m m m m m m m m m m :m m :m m a: a:a :a a:a. a:a:a:a. 0- a a:a:a.a:a :a.a W t Z v � O a O Z LU N N m N z 0 0 v Q O F ._ z ° m ° O a Q z �z m N U C) W W v v W p z E W p�( n N m O z g Q 2 v v z m a m Q a o z o a W Tn z °- z W 3 O a` ° y U) O m ¢m ` j ° o O E O O a v a Z o~ 0 o m n o- o 6 o F w o E C7 w m v g o v 0 a p O w zQ M2 o v 2 O 2 °Lu 0 vo o o O F a m F"o LU o o s o N E (7 m a 2 Z E E E m o v 0 v v 0 o Z Q � v O p S y x 3 Q Q Z6 E E E 2 S p v Co -- o m v 2 ° a ° W m°E o z o v U O v aD m n m z 0 m a oo 2 y >x N N m O 0- ` y °Q [ O v O v -p ° O E U H 0 Z Z W H O v -M 0m m °U U w M v E w v o ° v ` v ° v o W W W a 0 U) F-- x � ao `m E°E o � Q3S 3 n W N a s ° N v o= OU N T E 0 3 Y E N 6 N O 7 N 0 081 O O N C Q m Q.., '6''.. O 0, N Z n N O .,. 0 N N Y °. 01 N C N. 0)., °.N,.. ° O 1010 01 H N N _ >O, 0. O W O. N 0. N LL C(n ° ° N Q LL t _ N w NoN N E O E 3 v s v °N 0 - ° v o o v °L, v. °x o v',,3 o ax°I,., :Oo 00 Y s y r °',. -0! E o,.,, v v :v3 a s v U m E a o v, o ° ' o v °�v ar T w a v v s i i 3 ` rn° x o m ° U'� o Qvas. -a m v..Eai,-0 m: -0 o z U v o,2. wi j E 0 o _o 0 v 0 0 a v o Ti & E E i op o O o a 2S> > �• $ a z c U v o f ° v o -o -o -o v v rn a W UQ 0 0 oO''.o 00'0. o0 O 0. 00 OO v O O O O'0.0. O O.00O O O O=O O mO;rn O N O NO ginO: N N O OO n 0 0 0 00 0 m O.0!OO 0 0 m,O O mO rn(O v N 0 i0 \J V V n N.I. N m o O m o n m n Wm ''.o min� �N p O N m. O 0 N O m N n N m v m o m o ry p m O a N U „ V'.V W N N N V O N V n in O N V N V O N V m in O m N fV m N N N o m I o 0 0 0 0 0 M o 0 M 0 0 0 0 CO 0 0 0 0 0 N o I I 'T: 0 0 0 0 L - N m W m M.I. V V W V 10 O V V V m o N Co� in m N O N O m N O o m 0 co N N n n O n O N O F L O O 6.Co co.W CO.O 4.Co m O V pp n in Lo.m Ih n m O n O N O O m O m O n m O O O O O S W U N N, N W n O m N N m N N W N W N N m N N V V N N m OI N o N o r a m o 0 (F U� 0W l o oo'0.0-0.0'0.0 0 o?o o o o?o oo0000 m o 0 00'o mvrnM.—rnro O N W o00 O O O O 0.0. O 0.0 O O O O 0 n O V N O N O O O O N N N N O N O O O O O N 0 0 0 0 m N O N of (O N V n n n N N N m m m O N N(j O m.O O O N o W N N ..N O 7 N N m (p W m y m rn N m m V V V O 0 m N C) C) N C) L Ul a cc(� m U uJ fA N m O m V V N in m N N N N N O N n N n mrn m'm N m O nm m rn V n v O" !Vm� R N N ry R 1. N On VO O n W O N W O m mv,n D N V m m N N V V N W o m N O m N N rn O W m m 6 6 10 6 6 O O v m n O V W"i 'n N d co N n 0.1 In N 0 N 0 C N Q aD N C O Z a J UI Q O O 0.00.0. -.0.0 O!O O OO O OO 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 O,O 0 0 0 O O m V N OO O O O O O,O O O O N O ! : N O O O O.O O O O O N N m n n m O N m 0 O O O O O O O p °j V W U O❑ (p N O O m n 0.0 N m m Co N OJ N a C O M.0 0 N m n 0.0 n I V R O n O v N O n N v m m O V m° N m N m V^ O I m m m N o m-m V N In m W R O N N ton (n O z Nm ^ N M N C LL '.. N 01 N N'.. N NIN NON N N'..Oslo N. M'_.m m'.M L C', IL rn rn'. a ar rn ax rn ax ar'.ax ar'.ax a rn ar'.ax m'. m'. a a'..a.a.a a a.a.�a.a. O_ ~ w 0 °C d � H N IL U Z ❑ 7 w O O N LL Z W O Z � w (7 W Z v m 0 G O n o o ti Z N O L TY N W T US 9 ❑ LL-6 ON d Q N \J v O O O ❑ lA LL ` ' 5 O m 0 co 6 '0 E a co co 'O W W v �D O u 0 N N Q 0 o Fv >c d v d v v 2. S o o v o w m a o o m m o c J � o N (0 3` ff .❑S J°, I Z O` O 2 O A U A° O F N L C7 a N LL o C 0 E� t Z �� c t n c O C c'o E o E O u r rnyQ > Q o O o m v < ` s s o a o s 0 v o o- UU � Z W .. o _UOOOOz cc Z d�LL}(] F Q N U}(]FQ N J N H 41 O C� C�. cq,. OU C� C�. C�. C�. C� C�. C�. C�. C�. C� C� C�. ll� C�. C�. C� 04 O 0 Z_ a) Go O. Go co m rl Lo co rl N rl rl rl cl) -tr C6 0 cl) a) o o L6 Lc) Lo Do Lc) Lo -tr. N. rz IT. N. o co (D m -tr. c�. O. cl) c�. N Lo m c%l tc� r- r- 0 z QcT -tr- Lo Go a). a) IT. N. N cc a. LL m P, (D o o o. o. o. o o. o. o. o o o o o O (D 0 I- o o o. o. o. o o o. o. o o o o O o N 0 O o o W 0 o o o o. OD. In o o. o. o. o o 0 O o Lu z m 0 OD o a) c\j c\j c\j Lo o D (D Lo �S S co Cl) o. a). CO. In (D. r— In D r- clj O a) OD (D a). Lo D Cl) D N LO 0 F- z In clj. r- clj. N W 0 LL co to N o o o o. o. o o. o. o . o o o o. co o. o. o S) M c� Lo c c c c c c c c o o o P, 04 W N o. In w. cl) _j F- r- r- a) N r- r- In ;;. c) In -e r- (D. IT. N r— r— o IT. (D N e. o. r- 'T N co -e m N r— -e (0 04 0 Lo a� tc� a� N (n c�. F-I J O c6, OF Lo Do o o o. o. o o. o . o o . o o o o. o ol o o 1 o 0 0 0 �D. 0 0. 0. 0. 0 o. o. o . o o o o. o o o 0 0 o o o o o. o. o. o o o o o o o o o o. o 0 clj Lo. Lo. c\J m: (D. ;f. r--� 0J. ;f. c\j m LO: In : : O. a) clj. Lo. Cl) a). a). clj o Cl) clj (D clj c\i O oz r- ED co t. -t clj. clj. clj a): In LU 0 0 (D _j clj. 0 N LU LU co o. o o N o 00 (0 S) c�. c%L. c� c�. c� c�. c�. c�. c� c� c� c Lo o. o. c� (0 04 N. N. r- N a). co. Go IT. r- N N. co cl). cl) a) o) w. Lo o) o. 00 C6 N. c%L e. r— c) q Cl) (D Lo -e m -e Lo o. Lo F- o ED OF Ir m co 00 0 W c%l _j 04 04 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o (D LO o o o o o o o o o o o o o. o o. o. oc) D -t o. o o. o. o. o o. o. o o o Lo o. o o o 0: OD OD Lo Lo o L�2 Lo r� o clj clj (D c\J Ci Ci . �: co -t In oc) 0 cl) clj c c c c) cr N (7 l) (7 clj clj C\j O 0 W(7) O C\j o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o. o. o o o o (D o o o 0 0 o o clj o o o o o o o o o Lo o. o. o Lo 6 -q7 -t -t (d o LLI _j D o. clj. cl) a). c\i. c\i -;f o. r--� C\! C\! In a) o clj a) -t: r- D co -t cl) D U) LLI 41 (08) (D cl) (D. clj. co o z LU C\j LO 0 C\j (D In clj N (D C9 r 0 C\j 0 0 Z v, LLI 0 cc CM o o o. o o. o. o. o o. o. o o o o. o. o 0 0 . o o o. o o. oo. o o. o. o . o o o o o o 0 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o. o. o Z 0 cl) clj o. L�o co a). a). In cj. In o o o 06 V. o. o (D (D Lo z a) Lo Lo r� r� OD. co -t (D. co cl) LO LO r- clj -t cl) (7) Lo -t cl) clj. co -t c) 0 . F clj - cc (Q OF 0 oc) Lo o o o o o o o o o o C\j Z LU Lo o o o o o o o o o o Lo cl, 0-:) LO o o a) 0 -t o o. o o o o o o a) co cm (D -t Lo 0J. m 0J. Lo-. (7 o. Lo Lo o D 0. C\! rl� Lo -t N (D N Lo N 0 0 O z cc co co 0)co c\j Lo 0) � 6 or- co Z 0 0 cc z 0. 0 cc LU z LU 2. cc LU LU <i zi 0 0 CC 1 01 i cc . 0 LU u- LU 0 a. Lzu r- LU . 0 0. u- Lu 0 z z 0 LU LU cc 0 W cc cc 2 Lnu Lnu c a. LU LU 0. 0 1 1 i i Lu Lu cc 0 0 cc 1 cc a. Z CC i LU -j m LU z LU i C� m 0 cc Lmu 0 i Lu i ou z a i - < -j z 1 Lu z z Lu i 0 (Lu Lu cc cc >. cc cc < LU 0 (n a.: cc LU z z = LU 0 <i 0 1 0 i a. (n (n I I LU 1 0 a 1, CC LU a.i =i I - a I a.I 1 0 z CC :2 u- z LU (n LU 1 cc 1 1 1 Lu 0 LU z Lu i 0 i 1 a. -j 0 -j i 0 Z. 0 z 0 < 0. LU z z _j cc. < 0 cc LU _j _j a. cc a. m z (n oz 1 (Lnu LU u x cc a.I Z 1 z 1 0 a- Lu w >. (n . cc z cc 0. cc 0 1 0. o 1 Lu 1 CC 0 w LU LU LU 0. �151 0 i 0 -j Z 0. LU cq _j -j m m (n m m LU 2. _j LU 1 10 1 N Lu 0 1 c Lu cc Lu < 0. m j i x I LU m 0 > a. Z Lu x a 0 z (n cn42 co N TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2012 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Ecology Page 31 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Regional Monitoring Program 2011 2011 2012 BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET %CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Project Management 204,000 155,370 166,000 -19% (38,000) Aquatic 469,000 464,971 484,500 3% 15,500 Terrestrial 138,000 133,383 152,000 10% 14,000 Water Quality 184,000 203,109 178,000 -3% (6,000) Flow&Precipitation 139,000 136,167 140,000 1% 1,000 GIS&Database 21,000 20,291 36,000 71% 15,000 West Nile Virus Monitoring 61,000 46,549 50,000 -18% (11,000) Fixed Plot Monitoring 40,000 41,246 42,000 5% 2,000 Other related Special Projects SEATON MONITORING - - - Groundwater/Well Installations 38,000 43,531 41,000 8% 3,000 Moe West Nile Virus Monitoring 9,000 10,831 - -100% (9,000) SP:VOLUNTEER AQUATIC MONITORNG - - - SP:MNR-Stream Training 13,000 13,779 42,000 223% 29,000 SP:MOE Bethic Algal Assessment 82,000 30,584 2,500 -97% (79,500) SP:Duffins Heights Monitoring 79,000 13,396 36,000 -54% (43,000) SP:Nobleton Phosphorous Offset 100,000 6,882 95,000 -5% (5,000) SP:WaterQ MOE Biomonitoring 25,000 13,000 20,000 -20% (5,000) SP:Caledon East Water Taking 10,000 24,556 22,000 120% 12,000 Unspecified 2010 adjustment - - - 1,612,000 1,369,356 1,507,000 -6.51% (105,000) FUNDING SOURCES: - - - Program/User fees 113,000 52,964 188,500 67% 75,500 Reserves - - - Interest Earnings - - CFGT-Flowthrough 1,000 1,000 - Other-Municipal 9,000 53,500 494% 44,500 Other-Provincial 233,000 137,560 83,500 -64% (149,500) Other-Federal 62,000 59,113 41,500 -33% (20,500) Other-Donations/Fundraising - - Other-Non-Government Grants 90,000 23,360 20,000 -78% (70,000) 508,000 272,996 388,000 -24% (120,000) Capital levy - - - Peel 370,000 370,000 387,000 5% 17,000 York 315,000 315,000 315,000 - Durham 65,000 65,000 65,000 Toronto 330,000 330,000 330,000 Adjala/Mono - - - Carryforward levy-Peel 6,000 (2,183) 8,000 33% 2,000 York 6,000 6,181 5,000 -17% (1,000) Durham 6,000 6,181 4,000 -33% (2,000) Toronto 6,000 6,181 5,000 -17% (1,000) Adjala/Mono - - Deficit/(Surplus) - - IN PROGRESS:NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION Staff FTEs-Full-time 7.7 7.0 (0.1) (0.7) Non-F/T 7.8 6.7 (0.1) (1.1) #of Sites Monitored 645 627 645 Completion - #of Acres/Ha Inventoried 1,000 1,047 1,050 0 50 Completion - #of WNV Sites Monitored 45 45 45 Completion - - - NOTES: 2012 BUDGETCHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) Additional data analysis and reporting required in 2012 Less special Provincial funding for some initiatives Increase from municipal funders for higher work load and more monitoring opportunities FTE Change:-1.7 FTE of unfilled vacancies NOTES: 2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS 2011 Program Completed with small carry-forward Funding will be used to support additional data analysis early in 2012 in preparation for the Watershed Report card Process,and to suppliment the establishment of additional terrestrial fixed plots that have been underfunded(unfunded)in 2011. TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2012 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Ecology Page 32 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Peel Water Management 2011 2011 2012 BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET %CHG. $CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Planning/Integration: Project Management-Subwatersheds 107,000 66,949 124,000 16% 17,000 Surface Flow: Fluvial Geomorphology - Aquatic:Aquatic Systems Priority Planning 45,000 38,380 40,000 -11% (5,000) Clmate Change - Regulation Line mapping Update Funding 196,000 130,908 155,000 -21% (41,000) 2011 out of Sust Tech:Sustainable Neighbourhood Retrofit in Peel Region 239,000 189,449 15,000 -94% (224,000) 587,000 425,686 334,000 -43% (253,000) FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees 404 - Reserves Interest Earnings CFGT-Flowthrough Other-Municipal Other-Provincial Other-Federal 56,008 Other-Donations/Fundraising 20,000 10,000 - 10,000 Other-Non-Government Grants 121,000 -100% (121,000) Internal - 121,000 76,412 10,000 (111,000) Capital levy - Peel 284,000 284,000 319,000 12% 35,000 York - Durham Toronto - Adjala/Mono Carryforward levy-Peel 182,000 65,274 5,000 -97% (177,000) York Durham Toronto - Adjala/Mono Deficit/(Surplus) 0 - IN PROGRESS: NEW DATA/VOLUME 1 PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION Staff FTEs-Full-time 1.0 -1.0 -1.0 Non-F/T - #of Reg Maps under review 132 132 132 NOTES: 2012 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) Sustainable Neeighborhoods Retrofit program moved NOTES: 2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2012 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Ecology Page 33 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: York Water Management 2011 2011 2012 BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET %CHG. $CHG. $ $ $ GROSS EXPENDITURES: Clmate Change Adaptation/Research 62,000 20,922 33,000 -47% -29,000 Planning/Integration: Project Management 3,000 3,008 -100% (3,000) Groundwater Flow Model Deveolpment - Surface Flow: Regulation Lines 169,000 126,697 177,000 5% 8,000 Headwaters Drainage Study 51,000 46,830 54,000 6% 3,000 Sustainable Neighbourhood. Retrofit 223,000 153,345 280,000 26% 57,000 Sustainable Greenfields Development - Surface Water Q: Rural Water Q - Aquatic:All 45,000 38,380 47,000 4% 2,000 553,000 389,182 591,000 7% 38,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees - Reserves Interest Earnings CFGT-Flowthrough Other-Municipal 3,000 40,000 40,000 Other-Provincial Other-Federal 55,199 Other-Donations/Fundraising Other-Non-Government Grants 100,000 132,000 32% 32,000 100,000 58,199 172,000 72,000 Capital levy Peel - York 338,000 338,000 338,000 Durham Toronto Adiala/Mono Carryforward levy-Peel - York 115,000 -7,017 81,000 -30% (34,000) Durham - Toronto Adiala/Mono - Deficit/ (Surplus) - IN PROGRESS: NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION Staff FTEs-Full-time Non-F/T #of maps under revision TED TED NOTES: 2012 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) More Headwaters funding from other sources for additional research and monitoring. York capital funds used to leverage other funding partners NOTES: 2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS 45 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2012 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Ecology Page 34 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Durham Water Management 2011 2011 2012 BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET %CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Other: Floodwarning Flood Control Capital(WAS STOP 5,000 38 4,000 -20% (1,000) Report Cards&other projects 76,000 63,575 75,000 _1% (1,000) Surface Flow:Stream Gauges 42,000 41,069 43,000 2% 1,000 Aquatic: Durham Fish Plan 25,000 7,564 10,000 -60% (15,000) Flood Warning Systems&Flood Control Capital - Regulation Line Mapping Update 94,000 40,920 83,000 -12% (11,000) Durham Waterfront&Watershed Water Quality Studies 55 - Clmate Change 242,000 153,220 358,000 48% 116,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees 55 - Reserves Interest Earnings CFGT-Flowthrough Other-Municipal Other-Provincial Other-Federal Other-Donations/Fundraising Other-Non-Government Grants 143,000 143,000 55 143,000 143,000 Capital levy Peel York Durham 162,000 162,000 162,000 Toronto Adjala/Mono Carryforward levy-Peel - York Durham 80,000 (8,836) 53,000 -34% (27,000) Toronto - Adjala/Mono Deficit/(Surplus) IN PROGRESS:NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION Staff FTEs-Full-time 0.3 0.3 Non-F/T 0.2 -1.0 -0.2 #of Reg Maps under review 132 132 NOTES: 2012 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) 2012 funding to go to continued flood mapping updates relative to regulation mapping requirements NOTES: 2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS 46 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2012 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Ecology Page 34b GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Water Management portion of Toronto Remedial Action Plan Project 2011 2011 2012 BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET %CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: WMan.:Planning&Integration - Water Balance 22,000 (1,446) 23,000 5% 1,000 Sust.Neighbourhoods Retrofit Plan 249,000 169,073 184,000 -26% (65,000) WMan.:Water Budgets - Highland Creek Valley&Stream Greening Program 128,000 42,688 154,000 20% 26,000 Reg Line Mapping,Growth Management 156,000 105,908 128,000 -18% (28,000) WMan.:Riparian Zone Survey/Aquatic Priorities 45,000 38,380 40,000 -11% (5,000) WMan.:Climate Change 44,000 26,368 74,000 68% 30,000 644,000 380,971 603,000 -6% (41,000) FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees - Reserves Interest Earnings - CFGT-Flowthrough 28,000 83,896 70,000 150% 42,000 Other-Municipal - Other-Provincial Other-Federal Other-Donations/Fundraising - Other-Non-Government Grants 112,000 -100% (112,000) 140,000 83,896 70,000 -50% (70,000) Capital levv Peel York - Durham - Toronto 367,000 367,000 373,000 2% 6,000 Adjala/Mono - Carryforward levy-Peel York Durham - Toronto 137,000 (69,926) 160,000 17% 23,000 Adjala/Mono Deficit/(Surplus) - IN PROGRESS:NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION Staff FTEs-Full-time 1.2 1.2 0.0 0.0 Non-F/T - #of Projects -SNAP 1 1 1 NOTES: 2012 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) Funding lower than in 2011,will continue to support ongoing projects into 2012 Partners continue to fund and TRCA continuing the ongoing work in consultation with our partners NOTES: 2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS 47 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2012 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Ecology Page 35 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Water Cost Centres 2011 2011 2012 BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET %CHG. $CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Watershed Plan/Integration Projects 227,400 142,658 233,000 2% 5,600 Growth Management Policy Projects 477,000 328,833 533,000 12% 56,000 Flood/Groundwater Projects 400,000 361,209 274,000 -32% (126,000) Aquatic Projects 287,000 237,152 202,000 -30% (85,000) Climate Change Projects 690,000 491,375 479,000 -31% (211,000) Other:Trail Plans - Other:Cultural Heritage Master Plan 52,000 55,327 56,000 8% 4,000 Covered from Water Funding projects (1,234,400) (798,844) (1,369,000) 0 (134,600) 899,000 817,710 408,000 -55% (491,000) TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2012 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Watershed Management Page 35a GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Water Cost Centres 2011 2011 2012 BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET %CHG. CHG. FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees 240,000 238,058 154,000 -36% (86,000) Reserves - Interest Earnings - CFGT-Flowthrough - Other-Municipal 40,000 13,742 11,000 -73% (29,000) Other-Provincial 268,500 318,977 71,500 -73% (197,000) Other-Federal 151,500 163,649 17,500 -88% (134,000) Other-Donations/Fundraising - Other-Non-Government Grants 195,000 70,484 154,000 -21% (41,000) 895,000 804,910 408,000 -54% (487,000) Capital levy - Peel 7,471 - York Durham Toronto Adjala/Mono Carryforward levy-Peel - York 4,000 4,414 -100% -4,000 Durham - Toronto Adjala/Mono Deficit/(Surplus) 915 IN PROGRESS:NEW DATA VOLUME PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION Staff FTEs-Full-time 7.0 6.8 (0.0) (0.1) Non-F/T 2.3 2.7 0.2 0.4 #of Watershed Plans Complete #of Guidelines/Studies in Progress 4 15 #of Guidelines/Studies Complete 5 NOTES: 2012 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) Ontario Regional Adaptation Collaborative project nearing completion. IFTE Change:+1 new Climate Change Proj Man.,+.75 Sediment Control FTE Change:+2.7 of NEW Flood Tech,NEW Field Tech,plus more staff allocated here NOTES: 2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Final draft of the SWIM Criteria Document was completed LID workshop for our municipal partners and the industry was carried out Floodplain Management Guidelines and an LID Guide updated began - - - 2011 Carryfonward dollars for ongoing projects into 2012 - - 48 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2012 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Ecology Page 35b GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: CTC Source Water Protection Plan 2011 2011 2012 BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET %CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: SOURCE PROT:MNR/CO BASE FUNDS 478,000 151,731 478,000 CTC-GIS Mapping 46,000 56,435 13,500 -71% (32,500) CTC Assessment Report 130,000 49,938 130,000 CTC:SOURCE PROTECTION PLAN 115,000 193,719 115,000 CTC;CVC Transfer 432,000 265,792 432,000 CTC:CLOCA Transfer 258,000 297,617 258,000 CTC Communications 212,000 244,012 234,000 10% 22,000 Water Budget Peer Review 76,941 - Source Protection Committee 154,000 108,803 154,000 SPP:L.Ontario Collaboration 20,000 19,845 -100% (20,000) CTC Project Management 220,265 16,400 - 16,400 SPP:TRCA PROJ.MANGMENT - CTC Technical Support 14,000 14,000 CTC Admin.Support 51,000 65,231 73,600 44% 22,600 TRCA Admin.Support 64,000 13,434 20,000 -69% (44,000) SPP:TRAINING COSTS 2,340 1,500 - 1,500 SWP:SW MONITORING 117 - Data Management 28,000 24,448 29,000 4% 1,000 GIS/Mapping 46,000 33,832 48,000 4% 2,000 SPP:Preliminary Water Budget 150,000 -100% (150,000) TRCA Project Management 185,000 151,846 126,000 -32% (59,000) TRCA Technical Support 20,000 14,074 16,000 -20% (4,000) CTC:CLOCA CONTINGENCY - 2,403,000 1,990,420 2,159,000 -10% (244,000) FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees - Reserves Interest Earnings 25,054 - CFGT-Flowthrough Other-Municipal Other-Provincial 2,403,000 1,966,078 2,159,000 -10% -244,000 Other-Federal Other-Donations/Fundraising Other-Private - 2,403,000 1,991,132 2,159,000 -10% -244,000 Capital levy Peel - York Durham Toronto Adjala/Mono Carryforward levy-Peel York Durham Toronto Adjala/Mono Deficit/(Surplus) (712) - IN PROGRESS:NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURE! Staff FTEs-Full-time 6.3 2.0 4.6 -0.3 -1.7 Non-F/T 0.4 4.0 0.6 0.4 0.2 #of SPC meetings 10 10 10 #of Public Consulting Meetings 10 10 10 #of Assessment Reports 3 3 1 -0.7 -2 NOTES: 2012 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(exclud -.15 CFC vacant Pro'Manager small amount of staff to here FTE change:-.8 GIS moved out of closing project-.5 staff allocated to other program! NOTES: 2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2012 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Ecology Page 36 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Floodplain Mapping Program 2011 2011 2012 BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET %CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Project Management Etobicoke-Mimico Flood Plain Mapping No activity - Mimico:Hydraulics/Floodline Update 11,000 20,994 -100% (11,000) Frenchmans B:Hydrology Update - Core Flood Plain Mapping Program 315,000 300,606 219,000 -30% (96,000) 326,000 321,600 219,000 -33% (107,000) FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees - Reserves Interest Earnings CFGT-Flowthrough Other-Municipal Other-Provincial Other-Federal Other-Donations/Fundraising Other-Non-Government Grants Capital levv Peel 100,000 100,000 70,000 -30% (30,000) York 60,000 60,000 60,000 Durham 20,000 20,000 20,000 Toronto 65,000 65,000 65,000 Adjala/Mono - Carryforward levy-Peel 28,000 28,275 -100% (28,000) York 18,000 17,529 -100% (18,000) Durham 18,000 17,529 -100% (18,000) Toronto 17,000 13,267 4,000 -76% -13,000 Adjala/Mono Deficit 1(Surplus) IN PROGRESS:NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION Staff FTEs-Full-time 0.8 0.2 -0.7 -0.6 Non-F/T 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.1 #of Flood Plain Maps Maintained 754 679 484 0 -270 #of Flood Plain Map Updates Complete 75 2 75 -.4 FTE less Water Analysts NOTES: 2012 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) 2012 will have continued Flood Plain Mapping and Staffing requirements NOTES: 2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Remaining funds to be carry forward for work in 2012 on the Humber River Hydrology Update and Mimico Creek Floodlline Mapping 50 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2012 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Ecology Page 37 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: York/Peel/Durham/Toronto Groundwater 2011 2011 2012 BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET % CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Groundwater Studies 604,000 543,940 618,000 2% 14,000 604,000 543,940 618,000 2% 14,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees 3,675 - Reserves Interest Earnings CFGT-Flowthrough Other-Municipal Other-Provincial Other-Federal Other-Donations/Fundraising Other-Non-Government Grants Capital levy Peel 125,000 125,000 130,000 0 5,000 York 125,000 125,000 125,000 Durham 125,000 125,000 125,000 Toronto 125,000 125,000 130,000 0 5,000 Adjala/Mono - Carryforward levy-Peel 26,000 10,066 27,000 4% 1,000 York 26,000 10,066 27,000 4% 1,000 Durham 26,000 10,066 27,000 4% 1,000 Toronto 26,000 10,066 27,000 4% 1,000 Adjala/Mono Deficit/(Surplus) IN PROGRESS:NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION Staff FTEs-Full-time Non-F/T #of Water Resource Management Reports 4 2 -1 -2 #of Technical Papers at Conferences 2 1 4 1 2 NOTES: 2012 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) Lower carry-forward from 2011 due to work being completed. All municipal funding attached to 2012 deliverables NOTES: 2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Caryforward to 2012 for deliverables attached to model applications and peer review 51 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2012 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Ecology Page 38 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Terrestrial Natural Heritage 2011 2011 2012 BUDGET Actuals BUDGET %CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Terrestrial Natural Heritage Program 554,000 586,325 479,000 -14% (75,000) Pickering Terrestrial Natural Heritage - Sp:Research Aqua/Terr.Study 12,000 12,000 New:Roads&Wildlife Analysis 97,000 65,554 31,000 -68% (66,000) Project Management 40,000 40,000 663,000 651,879 562,000 -15% (101,000) FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees 25,113 - Reserves Interest Earnings - CFGT-Flowthrough 60,000 56,500 3,000 -95% (57,000) Other-Municipal 23,000 8,000 -100% (23,000) Other-Provincial 21,400 7,841 40,000 87% 18,600 Other-Federal 24,600 35,716 25,000 2% 400 Other-Donations/Fundraising - Other-Non-Government Grants 27,000 46,316 32,000 19% 5,000 156,000 179,487 100,000 -36% (56,000) Capital levy Peel 183,000 183,000 144,000 -21% (39,000) York 127,000 127,000 127,000 Durham 50,000 50,000 50,000 Toronto 100,000 100,000 110,000 10% 10,000 Adjala/Mono - Carryforward levy-Peel 15,554 31,000 -34% (16,000) York - Durham Toronto (3,162) Adjala/Mono Deficit 1(Surplus) - IN PROGRESS:NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION Staff FTEs-Full-time 7.2 5.2 -27% (2.0) Non-F/T 1.8 2.6 44% 0.8 #of Reports Completed 8 1 - 01-Jan-00 #of Reports in Progress 20 7 20 #of Ha Inventoried 1,000 1,000 1000 NOTES: 2012 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) Carry forward to assist with 2012 ongoing projects -1.2 e:staff allocated to other projects NOTES: 2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Roads and Wildlife initiative delayed. TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2012 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Restoration Services Page 39 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Toronto Remedial Action Plan Project-Regeneration items 2011 2011 2012 BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET %CHG. $CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Etobicoke:Etobicoke Mimico HIP 32,000 32,000 33,000 3% 1,000 All Toronto Plant Projs 30,000 31,569 30,000 Humber:Claireville Trail TO 37,000 3,138 35,000 -5% (2,000) Don:Don HIP Funds 55,000 47,668 60,000 9% 5,000 Humber:Eglinton Flats Pond 2,000 1,485 -100% (2,000) Etobicoke:South Mimico Barrier Mitigation 68,000 24,121 43,000 -37% (25,000) WF:Toronto Islands Beach Restoration Projects 4,000 1,724 -100% (4,000) SP:T.O.H I STOR.PARK-SIGN/PLANTS 132,957 - Rouge Watershed Plan Implementation 47,000 26,072 75,000 60% 28,000 Canada Goose Management 30,000 30,000 32,000 7% 2,000 49,808 25,000 25% 5,000 Waterfront:Habitat Implementation 91,000 76,925 104,000 14% 13,000 Humber:Habitat Implementation Plan 45,000 45,000 50,000 11% 5,000 Etobicoke:Toronto Golf Club Barrier Mitigation 28,000 1,522 66,000 136% 38,000 Humber:Lower Humber Weir Mitigation 47,000 71522 71,000 51% 241000 538,000 513,743 624,000 16% 86,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees 49,645 - Reserves Interest Earnings CFGT-Flowthrough 31,047 - Cther-Municipal 4,000 83,796 -100% (4,000) Other-Provincial 32,000 - 32,000 Other-Federal Cther-Donations/Fundraising Cther-Non-Government Grants 4,000 164,489 32,000 700% 28,000 Capital levv Peel - York Durham - Toronto 357,000 357,000 415,000 16% 58,000 Adjala/Mono - Carryforwardlevy-Peel York Durham Toronto 177,000 (7,000) 177,000 Adjala/Mono - Deficit/(Surplus) (746) NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION in development Staff FTEs-Full-time 0.6 1.3 1.4 0.8 Non-F/T 0.4 0.1 -0.9 -0.4 #of trees/shrubs planted 30,000 34,257 30,000 #of hectares wetlands restored/created 2 4 3 1 1 #of hectares riparian restoration 0.1 1.0 9 0.9 #of metres of stream restoration 100 (1) (100) NOTES: 2012 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) Increase in Toronto capital levy NOTES: 2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Toronto Golf Club&Lower Humber Barrier Mitigation have carry forwards due design&approval delays VAP%9 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2012 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Restoration Services Page 40 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Peel Natural Heritage Pro'ect 2011 2011 2012 BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Regeneration: Humber:Claireville Restoration 48,000 52,533 50,000 4% 2,000 Humber:HIP Funds 71,000 67,357 87,000 23% 16,000 Arsenal Lands Park Development 22,000 22,000 Mimico:Upper Mimico Crk Habitat Restoration 70,000 35,952 54,000 -23% (16,000) Humber:Oak Ridges Moraine CPA2 156,000 140,870 182,000 17% 26,000 Multi W:Canada Goose Mngt. 33,000 37,720 34,000 3% 1,000 Multi W:Managing Hazard Trees-Peel 17,000 9,628 18,000 6% 1,000 Humber:Centreville Crk Stewardship Multi-Watershed:Children's groundwater Etobicoke:Stormwater Etobicoke:Pratt&Whitney Renaturalization Etobicoke:Heart Lake Naturalization Humber: Caledon East Community Action Site Humber:Taylor Pond Humber:Indian Line Claireville Reservoir Naturalization 716,000 590,687 746,000 4.2% 30,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees - Reserves Interest Earnings CFGT-Flowthrough 379 Other-Municipal Other-Provincial Other-Federal 3,197 Other-Donations/Fundraising Other-Non-Government Grants 3,000 6,577 - Capital levv Peel 637,000 637,000 613,000 4% (24,000) York Durham Toronto Adjala/Mono Carryforward levy-Peel 79,000 (52,927) 133,000 68% 54,000 York Durham Toronto ,Adjala/Mono Deficit 1(Surplus) 36 NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION in development Staff FTEs-Full-time 0.8 1.8 1.3 1.0 Non-F/T 1.2 0.1 -1.0 -1.1 #of trees/shrubs planted 10,000 11,830 10,000 #of hectares wetlands restored/created 1 3 -1 -1 #of hectares riparian restoration 2 3 3 1 1 #of metres of shoreline restoration 200 51 330 1 130 NOTES: 2012 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) Similar service levels NOTES: 2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Hazard Trees Mngt has carry forward funds for emergency tree removals 54 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2012 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Restoration Services Page 41 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: York Natural Heritage Project 2011 2011 2012 BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET % CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Regeneration: Humber: Lake Wilcox CAS 10,000 10,000 10,000 Humber: Eaton Hall Wetland Duffins: Robinson Crk#1 -Restoration 17,144 44,000 44,000 SP:ROBINSON CRK#2-MONITORING 1,814 Humber: Richmond Hill Riparian 18,000 23,278 36,000 100% 18,000 Duffins: Stouffville Greenways 70,000 70 -100% (70,000) Reforestation/Plant Propagation 105,000 105,124 105,000 Managing Hazard Trees-York 30,000 1,729 38,000 27% 8,000 16th Avenue construction 169,688 SE Collector 2,419,000 1,270,348 2,951,000 532,000 Oarticipation by other Capital Project (26,182) - 2,802,000 1,728,635 3,351,000 20% 549,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees 2,317,000 1,136,896 2,205,000 -5% (112,000) Reserves - Interest Earnings CFGT-Flowthrough 441 - Other-Municipal 96,000 49,000 690,000 619% 594,000 Other-Provincial - Other-Federal 15,000 15,000 Other-Donations/Fundraising Other-Non-Government Grants 40,000 251,507 81,000 103% 41,000 2,453,000 1,437,844 2,991,000 22% 538,000 Capital levy Peel - York 311,000 311,000 311,000 Durham Toronto Adjala/Mono Carryforward levy-Peel - York 38,000 (16,645) 49,000 29% 11,000 Durham - Toronto Adjala/Mono Deficit/(Surplus) (3,564) NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION in development Staff FTEs-Full-time 1.9 1.9 0.0 0.0 Non-F/T 0.1 0.2 2.0 0.1 #of trees/shrubs planted 80,000 77,479 80,000 - #of hectares wetlands restored/created 8.0 - #of hectares riparian restoration 9.5 21.0 21.0 NOTES: 2012 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) Increased budgets for South East Collector paid by York Region non levy NOTES: 2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS SEC project will have carry forwards to continue ongoing work SS TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2012 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Restoration Services Page 42 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Durham Natural Heritage Project 2011 2011 2012 BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET %CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Watershed Trail Implementation 78,000 68,495 101,000 0 23,000 Duffins: Fish Plan Implementation 38,000 22,953 38,000 Transport Can.Lands 150,566 72,000 - 72,000 Duffins:TNH Implementation 42,000 25,438 44,000 5% 2,000 Durham-Managing Hazard Trees 20,000 1,198 38,000 90% 18,000 Durham Goose Management 7,000 7,000 7,000 Seaton Trail#1:Planning 55,014 - Seaton-Green River Trailhead - Seaton Trail#5:lmprovements 243,000 50,534 185,000 -24% (58,000) Seaton Trail#6:Site Securement 17,000 15,198 -100% (17,000) Seaton Trail#7:Nat.Heritage Regeneration 25,000 2,475 -100% (25,000) Seaton Trail-Signage 8,000 1,031 -100% (8,000) Seaton Trail-Community Outreach 5,000 -100% (5,000) Seaton Trail#10:Proj.Management 16,000 6,652 -100% (16,000) SP:Brock N&S Restoration Planning 118,397 - Brock North&South Proj.Management 2,956 15,000 15,000 Brock Rd North&South Master Plan 62,768 137,000 137,000 MTO 407 Red Side Dace Compensation 24,033 355,000 355,000 499,000 614,708 992,000 99% 493,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees 294,110 152,000 - 152,000 Reserves Interest Earnings CFGT-Flowthrough 48,091 Other-Municipal 2,980 - Other-Provincial 314,000 154,937 540,000 72% 226,000 Other-Federal 72,000 - 72,000 Other-Donations/Fundraising Other-Non-Government Grants 1,000 - 314,000 501,118 764,000 143% 450,000 Capital levy Peel York Durham 158,000 158,000 158,000 Toronto Adjala/Mono Carryforward levy-Peel - York Durham 27,000 (44,410) 70,000 159% 43,000 Toronto - Adjala/Mono Deficit/(Surplus) - NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION in development Staff FTEs-Full-time 1.1 1.9 0.7 0.8 Non-F/T 2.6 2.8 0.1 0.2 #of trees/shrubs planted 7000 24807 20000 1.9 13000.0 #of hectares wetlands restored/created 0.0 0.5 2.0 199.0 2.0 #of hectares riparian restoration 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 #of metres of shoreline restoration 200.0 470.0 600.0 2.0 400.0 NOTES: 2012 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) New funds from Transport Canada for work on their lands New non levy funds from York Region for Brock S lands NOTES: 2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Watershed Trail carryforward for ongoing trail construction Managing Hazard Trees carry forward for emergency use Received MNR and CFGT funds for Species at Risk Glen Major Project Seaton project funds carry forward to complete trai bb TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2012 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Restoration Services Page 42b GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Regeneration Cost Centres 2011 2011 2012 BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET %CHG. $CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Habitat Implementation Projects 466,000 497,257 498,000 7% 32,000 Reforestation/Planting Projects 364,000 273,099 340,000 -7% (24,000) Special Habitat Restoration Projects 1,324,000 1,145,274 1,197,000 -10% (127,000) Environmental Services-Other 2,589,000 1,767,756 2,289,000 -12% (300,000) Habitat/Monitoring Internal Cost Centres 15,000 12,395 10,000 -33% (5,000) Covered by other Capital projects (836,000) (738,472) (841,000) 1% (5,000) 4,492,000 3,124,578 3,868,000 -14/ (624,000) FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees 2,629,000 1,568,958 2,433,000 -7% (196,000) Reserves (56) - Interest Earnings 135 - CFGT-Flowthrough 122,000 245,811 10,000 -92% (112,000) Other-Municipal 168,000 183,250 104,000 -38% (64,000) Other-Provincial 288,000 332,561 321,500 12% 33,500 Other-Federal 694,000 654,537 574,500 -17% (119,500) Other-Donations/Fundraising - Other-Non-Government Grants 591,000 206,499 422,000 -29% (169,000) 4,492,000 3,191,695 3,865,000 -14% (627,000) Capital levv Peel York Durham Toronto Adjala/Mono Carryforward levy-Peel York Durham Toronto 3,000 Adjala/Mono Deficit/(Surplus) (67,117) - - - NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION in development Staff FTEs-Full-time 16.3 20.7 0.3 4.4 Non-FIT 9.8 8.5 -0.1 -1.3 #of trees/shrubs planted REM 20,000 10,965 6,600 -1 -13,400 #of hectares of wetlands restored/created 6 3 2 -1 -4 #of hectares riparian restoration 5 3 3 0 -2 #of metres of stream restoration 100 40 20 -1 -80 EBUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) with non levy funding from Toronto&York Regior Regen Sp.ProjectsFTE Change:-1.9 to Stewardship projectsFTE Change:-1.6 Urban Canopy project fnishedFTE change:-1 Technician moved from Seaton work NOTES: 2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Stouffville Greenway Trail did not proceed,new project to be developed with T of Whitch-Stouffvilli 57 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2012 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Restoration Services Page4 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Projects 2011 2011 2012 BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET °fo CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Erosion:Planning&Design 94,000 77,466 97,000 3% 3,000 Eastville Office 40,000 50,247 30,000 -25% (10,000) Erosion Control Planning 59,000 14,958 69,000 17% 10,000 EC:PARADISE PARK SURVEY SERVIC (120) - EC SURVEY SERVICE:DOGS OFF LSH 606 - ErosionControlMajorMaintenance 632,000 56,751 1,600,000 153% 968,000 Portico Drive Major Maintenance 5,657 154,000 - 154,000 BEAUCOURT RD.WALL/SLOPE RETROS 130,216 - Troutbrook Dr.Slope Failure 1,250,000 607,651 465,000 -63% (785,000) Troutbrooke-Project Management 199,869 - Monitoring&Maintenance:WF 333,000 303,812 420,000 26% 87,000 EC:TROUTBROOK DR.SLOPE(C13601 - EC:Denison Dr.Slope Stabilization 40,000 -100% (40,000) EAST DON R./FINCH AVE. 2,852 - ERSION STUDY 3030,WESTON ROAD 2,296 - Highland CN Bridge Revetment 24,000 -100% (24,000) Springbank Ave. 2,000 -100% (2,000) 30-48 Royal Rouge Trail 147,000 56,230 92,000 -37% (55,000) Meadowcliffe Drive 3,924,000 2,560,473 2,512,000 -36% (1,412,000) MEADOWCLIFFE-PROJ.MANAGEMENT 16,457 - MEADOWCLIFFE COMPLIANCE MONITR 3,791 - Toronto Islands-Gilbraltor Point 110,000 3,891 265,000 141% 155,000 Birkdale Ravine 9,000 -100% (9,000) Toronto Parks Sites 288,000 47,891 223,000 -23% (65,000) EROSION:BRUCE FARM DRIVE 11,530 - Toronto Emergency-345 Riverview 8,000 -100% (8,000) SPECIAL T.O.EC-21 SUNNYBRAE CR 78,838 - 16-18 Hardwood Gate 2,000 -100% (2,000) Military Trail 1,000 1,004 -100% (1,000) T.O.Works Funded:E/C Inventory 41,000 136,541 64,000 56% 23,000 Black Creek Stabilization Keelesdale Park 84,000 16,273 68,000 -19% (16,000) Toronto Parks Storm Damage Program 118,000 120,000 2% 2,000 Wlket Creek Restoration 1,000 -100% (1,000) SP:Wlket Crk.Geomorphology Study 292,000 881,639 1,212,000 315% 920,000 Toronto Islands Marina Seawall Repairs 1,000 533 -100% (1,000) Toronto Nursery Relocation 50,000 395,552 -100% (50,000) Glen Stewart Ravine 333,519 370,000 - 370,000 Chesteron Shores Ouffall 65,000 -100% (65,000) Warden Woods Park Trails 10,000 36,935 5,000 -50% (5,000) Warden Woods Park Culvert Replacement 155,000 171,883 -100% (155,000) Rouge Beach Trail Improvements 25,000 20 -100% (25,000) Bluffers Park Dock Wall Repairs 114,000 114,553 -100% (114,000) West Humber Trail 4,874 7,000 - 7,000 East Point Trail Improvements 49,735 5,000 - 5,000 Toronto Parks-Additional Sites 272,000 12,718 162,000 -40% (110,000) T.O.Parks EC#2:Brooks Park 18,307 - Bluffer's Park Dredging 1,000 263,423 6,000 500% 5,000 EROSION:GULLY DRIVE 7,005 - EROSION:BURNVIEW CRESCENT 157,032 - EROSION:ROYAL YORK ROAD 77,145 - SCARLETT ROAD UNDERPASS 17 - HIGHLAND/MORNINGSIDE BRIDGE 5,375 - 195 Hudson Drive Slope Repair 63 - 8 Lakeside Ave Slope Failure - Cherry Beach Sand Placement 1,800 - 1,800 Eastern Beaches Shore Stabilization Study 58,000 52,000 -10% (6,000) 8,250,000 6,915,509 7,999,800 -3% (250,200) FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees 1,397,000 2,752,467 2,337,800 67% 940,800 Reserves - Interest Earnings - CFGT-Flowthrough - Other-Municipal 19,000 19,789 -100% (19,000) Other-Provincial 69,085 154,000 - 154,000 Other-Federal - Other-Donations/Fundraising - Other-Non-Government Grants 27,000 21,998 -100% (27,000) 1,443,000 2,863,338 2,491,800 73% 1,048,800 Capital levy Peel - York Durham - Toronto 6,250,000 6,250,000 2,750,000 -56% (3,500,000) Adjala/Mono Carryforward levy-Peel - York Durham Toronto 557,000 (2,197,945) 2,758,000 395% 2,201,000 Adjala/Mono - Deficit/(Surplus) 115 NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION in develoumeM - Staff FTEs-Full-time 15.9 26.1 0.6 10.2 Non-FTT 3.7 2.6 (0.3) (1.1) Facilities:#Buildings/Sq.footage n/a n/a #of metres of erosion control completed 900.0 3,000.0 #of erosion control studies tbd 9.0 NOTES: 2012 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) Less Troutbrooks&Meadowcliffe work&funding Decrease in Toronto levy funding Increase in non levy funding from Toronto for various projects FTE Chan e:+1.2 construction staff for Toronto Works/arks Drois.FTE Chan e:+.3 Clerk time NOTES: 2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Increased non levy funding from Toronto for projects eg Wlket Creek Troutbrooke,Meadowcliffe,Major Maintenance,Toronto Parks,Royal Rouge projects had scheduling delays. TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2012 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Restoration Services Page 44 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Other Erosion Control Projects 2011 2011 2012 BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET %CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: York Region Erosion Monitoring&Maintenance 136,000 98,073 286,000 110% 150,000 SP: Ladies Golf Club(Markham) 216,000 223,379 -100% (216,000) Peel Region Erosion Monitoring&Maintenance 139,000 130,450 158,000 14% 19,000 Durham Region Erosion Monitoring&Maintenance 12,000 8,806 15,000 25% 3,000 503,000 460,707 459,000 -9% (44,000) FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees 216,000 241,378 -100% (216,000) Reserves - Interest Earnings - CFGT-Flowthrough - Other-Municipal - Other-Provincial - Other-Federal - Other-Donations/Fundraising - Other-Non-Government Grants - 216,000 241,378 -100% (216,000) Capital levy Peel 140,000 140,000 150,000 7% 10,000 York 130,000 130,000 230,000 77% 100,000 Durham 12,000 12,000 12,000 Toronto - Adjala/Mono - Carryforward levy-Peel (1,000) (9,550) 8,000 -900% 9,000 York 6,000 (49,926) 56,000 833% 50,000 Durham (3,194) 3,000 - 3,000 Toronto - Adjala/Mono - Deficit/(Surplus) NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION in development Staff FTEs-Full-time Under T.O. Erosion Under T.O. Erosion Non-F/T Under T.O. Erosion Under T.O. Erosion #of metres of erosion control protection in York Region 200 80 155 -45 #of erosion control studies in York Region NOTES: 2012 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) Non-levy funded Markham Golf Course finished bur more York levy for other works Increase in capital levy from Region of Peel Less non levy funded promects NOTES: 2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Lower York Region expenditures-delays approval for the LangstFA rks Yard site TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2012 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Restoration Services Page 45 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: City of Toronto Waterfront Project 2011 2011 2012 BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET %CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Waterfront Administration 82,000 56,168 82,000 Eastville Office 10,000 10,000 10,000 Long Range Waterfront Planning 164,000 160,527 164,000 Scarborough Shoreline Protection&Public Access 141,000 44,279 165,000 17% 24,000 Scarborugh Waterfront Cycling Trail 22,760 9,000 - 9,000 Keating Channel Dredging 523,000 466,414 324,000 -38% (199,000) Keating Channel#1 Env.Monitoring 36,000 34,479 39,000 8% 3,000 Keating Channel#2 Auditing 8,000 893 9,000 13% 1,000 TTP-Cell 1 Capping 203,000 93,958 226,000 11% 23,000 TTP Embayment D Wetland Project 679,000 - 679,000 Tommy Thompson-Int.Mgt. 228,000 230,366 238,000 4% 10,000 TT PARK:MEDIA-WEB CAMERA PROJ 2,907 - Ashbridge's Bay Dredging 239,000 240,825 240,000 0% 1,000 ASHBRIDGE'S BAY DOCK REPAIR 252,360 - Marie Curtis Park 548,518 466,000 - 466,000 Arsenal Lands Park Development 1,195,000 848 669,000 -44% (526,000) Arsenal Long Term Monitoring 20,000 13,361 20,000 Environmental Monitoring 217,000 186,782 255,000 18% 38,000 MNR-Fish Community Toronto AOC - Waterfront Parks Major Maintenance 90,000 74,181 245,000 172% 155,000 Waterfront G.I.S. 25,000 25,000 25,000 Special Projects 189,000 251,277 180,000 266% (9,000) Mississauga Waterfront 79,984 206,000 206,000 3,370,000 2,795,888 4,251,000 26% 881,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees 51,000 968,344 962,000 1786% 911,000 Reserves - Interest Earnings 1,397 - CFGT-Flowthrough - Other-Municipal - Other-Provincial 4,420 - Other-Federal 163,000 210,004 136,000 -17% (27,000) Other-Donations/Fundraising - Other-Non-Government Grants 747,000 83,491 747,000 961,000 1,267,655 1,845,000 92% 884,000 Capital levy Peel - York Durham Toronto 1,523,000 1,523,000 1,552,000 2% 29,000 Adjala/Mono Carryforward levy-Peel - York Durham Toronto 886,000 30,603 854,000 -4% (32,000) Adjala/Tos - Deficit/(Surplus) (25,369) NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION in development Staff FTEs-Full-time 6.1 9.7 0.6 3.6 Non-F/T 3.5 2.8 -0.2 -0.7 Facilities:#Buildings/Sq.footage - Keating Channel Dredging cubic metres 60000.0 59688.0 60000.0 Ashbridges Bay Dredging cubic metres 4250.0 2500.0 2500.0 -0.4 -1750.0 TTP Event attendance 2400.0 1500.0 1000.0 -0.6 -1400.0 TTP Cleanup cubic metres 500.0 -1.0 -500.0 #of active projects 18.0 21.0 16.0 -0.1 -2.0 NOTES: 2012 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) New-Lakeview Waterfront funded by Credit Valley CA/Region of Peel New-TTP Embayment D funded by Toronto Port Authority -1.3 RSS staff shifted re:smaller 2011 projsFTE Change:+.3 New Durham Waterfront Stew Coord. NOTES: 2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Arsenal Lands underspent-started design work by consultants for Marie Curtis section TTP Cell 1&2 underspent due to delay in Embayment D work schedule Scarborough Shoreline Protection&Access project has been delayed due to insufficient funding Waterfront Major Maintenance was under spent,held for Royal Rouge Trail 60 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2012 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Restoration Services Page 46 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Region Of Durham Waterfront Project 2011 2011 2012 BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET % CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Rouge Gateway - OPG Naturalization 27,000 11,047 41,000 51.9% 14,000 Frenchman's Bay Restoration Management Plan 14,000 3,329 20,000 42.9% 6,000 SP:MOE Algae Cldphra Analysis 15,000 4,016 -100.0% (15,000) SP: Durham Wft Study Review 16,000 25,000 -100.0% (16,000) Frenchman's Bay Watershed Stewardship 55,000 53,734 56,000 1.8% 1,000 Pickering Harbourfront Restoration 19,000 16,471 23,000 21.1% 4,000 Pickering Waterfront Trail Securement 97,000 79,557 61,000 -37.1% (36,000) Durham Waterfront Monitoring 12,000 14,386 12,000 Duffins Marsh Restoration 30,000 61,236 45,000 50.0% 15,000 SP:DUFF-LAMPREY BARRIER FENCE 868 - SP:AJAX WATRFRNT WATER Q STUDY 16,045 285,000 285,689 258,000 -9.5% (27,000) FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees 5,000 22,412 -100.0% (5,000) Reserves Interest Earnings CFGT-Flowthrough 300 - Other-Municipal 36,000 42,234 41,000 13.9% 5,000 Other-Provincial 15,000 28,858 9,000 -40.0% (6,000) Other-Federal Other-Donations/Fundraising Other-Non-Government Grants 37,000 26,500 35,000 -5.4% (2,000) 93,000 120,305 85,000 -8.6% (8,000) Capital levy Peel York Durham 145,000 145,000 145,000 To ro nto Adjala/Mono Carryforward levy-Peel York Durham 47,000 20,384 28,000 -40.4% (19,000) To ro nto Adjala/Tos Deficit/(Surplus) - NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION: Staff FTEs-Full-time Under T.O.Waterfront Under T.O.Waterfront Non-F/T Under T.O.Waterfront Under T.O.Waterfront •of active projects 12 10 10 -16.7% -2 •of completed projects 4 1 -100.0% -4 NOTES: 2012 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) Less non levy funded projects FTE Change:+.3 New Durham Waterfront Stew Coord. NOTES: 2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Waterfront monitoring over spent due to additional completed work 61 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2012 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Watershed Management Page 47 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Waterfront Revitilization Corporation Projects 2011 2011 2012 BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET %CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project 1,589,000 1,055,489 1,438,000 -9.5% (151,000) Mimico Waterfront Linear Park 4,186,000 1,258,262 1,695,000 -59.5% (2,491,000) Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan Implementation 3,737,000 2,608,004 2,305,000 -38.3% (1,432,000) Western Beaches Watercourse Facility 55,000 667 -100.0% (55,000) T.O.Waterfront Aquatic Habitat Restoration 65,000 45,000 -30.8% (20,000) CWF Monitoring 45,000 0 47,000 4.4% 2,000 9,677,000 4,922,422 5,530,000 -42.9% (4,147,000) FUNDING SOURCES: Program/Userfees Reserves Interest Earnings CFGT-Flowthrough Other-Municipal Other-Provincial Other-Federal Other-Donations/Fundraising Other-Non-Government Grants 9,677,000 4,922,422 5,530,000 -42.9% (4,147,000) 9,677,000 4,922,422 5,530,000 -42.9% (4,147,000) Capital levv Peel York Durham Toronto Adjala/Mono Carryforward levy-Peel York Durham Toronto Adjala/Tos Deficit/(Surplus) NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION For 2011 to 2012 and on Staff FTEs-Full-time 13.1 9.2 (0.3) (3.9) Non-F/T 2.8 2.6 (0.1) (0.2) #public meetings hosted 7 2 4 (0.4) (3) #stakeholder/advisory meetings 24 27 22 (0.1) (2) #public events hosted 14 42 22 0.6 8 #technical studies 7 7 2 (0.7) (5) #plans implemented 6 7 7 0.2 1 #advisory members engaged 35 61 42 0.2 7 #of projects underway 9 9 9 #participants at public events 1000 1995 1600 0.6 600 Restored land(m2) - #training days 13 14 14 NOTES: 2012 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) NOTES: 2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Western Beaches-Project substantially complete,only Crown land transfer remain. Tommy Thompson Park-Project complete Mar 31,2012. Mimico Park-Phase 2 construction is expected to be substantially completed in Fall 2012. TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2011 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Finance and Business Development Page 48 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Humber Bay Shores Waterfront Park 2011 2011 2012 BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET % CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Humber Bay Shores Etobicoke Motel Strip Expropriation/Mediation 100,000 19,003 100,000 100,000 19,003 100,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees 100,000 -100% (100,000) Reserves 13,507 - Interest Earnings 5,496 CFGT-Flowthrough Other-Municipal (14,016) Other-Provincial Other-Federal Other-Donations/Fundraising Other-Non-Government Grants Land Sales proceeds 100,000 100,000 100,000 4,987 100,000 Capital levy Peel York Durham Toronto Adjala/Mono Carryforward levy-Peel York Durham Toronto Adjala/Tos Deficit/(Surplus) 14,016 NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION Staff FTEs-Full-time Non-F/T #of Expropriations still pending 1 partial 1 NOTES: 2012 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS lexcludina inflation/COLA) The settlement of the final expropriation will not be pursued. NOTES: 2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS The expenses relating to the final expropriation settlement was less 63 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2012 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Watershed Management Page 49 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Stewardship Community Programs 2011 2011 2012 BUDGET ACTUAL S BUDGET %CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Regeneration: Project Management 40,000 42,910 5,000 -88% (35,000) Family Nature Events 38,000 38,000 39,000 3% 1,000 Palgrave Church Environmental Community Project 26,500 17,000 - 17,000 ORM Foundation Tool Kit(GW) 6,000 6,000 Peel Children's Water Festival(VD) 50,000 47,332 45,000 -10% (5,000) Sherway Trail&Restoration 40,000 39,000 -3% (1,000) Valleybrook Community/Trillium 82,000 65,131 92,000 12% 10,000 Source Protection Outreach 93,000 44,255 49,000 -47% (44,000) Moved here Rouge:York Children's Water Festival 36,000 33,813 36,000 Moved here Humber:Community Env.Projects 67,000 48,753 75,000 12% 8,000 Moved here Etobicoke:Riparian Zone Restoration Strategy 40,000 42,104 40,000 Moved here Etobicoke:South Mimico Community Action Site 15,000 15,087 2,000 -87% (13,000) Moved here Etobicoke:Etobicoke Mimico Community Env.Pr 50,000 49,606 112,000 124% 62,000 Community Environmental ProjectE 557,000 453,492 557,000 Waterfront Community Outreach 27,000 23,709 -100% (27,000) Stew:Highland Community Outreach 50,000 42,975 5,000 -90% (45,000) Community Outreach Stewardship Program(Formerly Multicu 98,000 76,489 127,000 30% 29,000 Don Watershed Community Stewardship Projects 10,000 24,309 104,000 940% 94,000 Port Union Stewardship 21,000 14,695 -100% (21,000) Port Union Eco Action 3,000 -100% (3,000) StewSP-Ecoaction:Don R Waterwise 25,000 6,853 -100% (25,000) Stewardship:Tnllium-Highland 31,375 - ORM Community Development:Ecologist - ORM#7-CPA 2&11 Land Ownership - Rouge Park Watershed Stewardship Program 30,000 28,675 35,000 17% 5,000 Rural Clean Water Program 177,000 148,766 286,000 62% 109,000 Stew/Rural:Healthy Fam/Horses 10,000 8,538 -100% (10,000) Source Protection-Early Action 116,000 107,358 9,000 -92% (107,000) Moved here:Etobicoke Mimico Conservation Forests 18,000 21,077 2,000 -89% (16,000) Moved here:Humber:York Community Environmental Enhance 73,000 36,702 72,000 -1% (1,000) Community Stewardship Projects 658,000 571,521 640,000 -3% (18,000) Malton Enviro Stewardship 25,000 24,395 16,000 -36% (9,000) Stew:Petticoat HW-Eco Action (5,000) -100% 5,000 Duffns Equine Stewardship 44,000 - 44,000 Healthy Yards 98,000 96,791 119,000 21% 21,000 Duffns Stewardship 53,000 59,934 53,000 Environmental Youth Corps 10,000 - 10,000 Humber:Granger Greenway 16,000 5,540 20,000 25% 4,000 Moved here:Humber:West Humber Valley&Stream Regener 201,000 42,950 263,000 31% 62,000 Moved here Humber:Peel Community Enviro.Enhancement 1 52,000 49,293 51,000 -2% (1,000) IMoved here:Etobicoke:West Etobicoke Creek Regeneration 159,000 158,046 256,000 61% 97,000 Upper Don Program 21,000 15,250 18,000 -14% (3,000) Internal No activity 1,835,000 1,477,212 2,047,000 12% 212,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Program/U ser fees 2,000 25,844 127,000 6250% 125,000 Reserves - Interest Earnings - CFGT-Flowthrough 38,000 79,353 64,000 68% 26,000 Other-Municipal 8,000 10,000 - 10,000 Other-Provincial 379,000 252,294 294,000 -22% (85,000) Other-Federal 14,000 10,000 19,000 36% 5,000 Other-Donations/Fundraising - Non-Government Grants 11,000 11,875 58,000 427% 47,000 444,000 387,366 572,000 29% 128,000 Capital levy Peel 481,000 481,000 607,000 26% 126,000 York 221,000 221,000 248,000 12% 27,000 Durham 45,000 45,000 45,000 Toronto 303,000 303,000 279,000 -8% (24,000) Adjala/Mono Carryforward levy-Peel 229,000 62,433 168,000 -27% (61,000) York 50,000 (14,242) 59,000 18% 9,000 Durham 35,000 34,957 -100% (35,000) Toronto 27,000 (42,092) 69,000 156% 42,000 Adjala/Mono - Deficit/(Surplus) (1,210) NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION For 2011 to 2012 and on Staff FTEs-Full-time 8.0 12.1 51% 4.1 Non-FTT 5.7 1.7 -70% (4.0) #workshops hosted 250 250 133 -47% (117) #volunteers involved 11,700 11,700 12,715 9% 1,015 #APP restoration sites 10 10 #brochures and advertisements 100 100 41 -59% (59) #students 31,000 28,700 -7% (2,300) #Citzenship ceremonies 1 100 NOTES:2012 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excludina inflation/COLA) Implementing grants received from COA,OTF,EcoAction,Markham Sustainability FTE Change:+2 NEW Aquatic Plants,+1.45 Strats to Community Projs-.15 CFC va NOTES:2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS JImplemented a number of grants on behalf ofthe Province. These accounts have a year end carry forward to match the March 31 st year end at the province. Significant carry forward in account 126-55 due to a mat leave and a staff resi nat 64 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2012 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION Watershed Management Page 49b GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Education Programs for Schools 2011 2011 2012 BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET %CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Yellow Fish Road Program(JJ) 83,000 66,449 73,000 -12% (10,000) EcoSchool Water Conservation Guide(DG) - Knowing Nature,Staying Safer(DG) Educational Exploration of the Living City(DG) - Watershed on Wheels Program(JJ) 164,000 154,707 169,000 3% 5,000 Aquatic Plants Program(JJ) 85,000 77,499 83,000 -2% (2,000) 332,000 298,655 325,000 -2% (7,000) FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees 4,000 (3,808) 7,000 75% 3,000 Reserves - Interest Earnings - CFGT-Flowthrough 31,000 21,042 6,000 -81% (25,000) Other-Municipal 3,000 -100% (3,000) Other-Provincial 20,000 16,948 19,000 -5% (1,000) Other-Federal 20,000 14,473 23,000 15% 3,000 Other-Donations/Fundraising - Other-Non-Government Grants 78,000 48,655 55,000 -29% (23,000) Capital levy Peel 115,000 115,000 122,000 6% 7,000 York 55,000 55,000 55,000 Durham - Toronto 88,000 88,000 89,000 1% 1,000 Adjala/Mono - Carryforward levy-Peel (4,000) (8,000) 4,000 -200% 8,000 York - Durham Toronto Adjala/Mono Deficit/(Surplus) NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION For 2011 to 2012 and on Staff FTEs-Full-time see stewardship see stewardship Non-F/T see stewardship see stewardship #workshops hosted 250 250 133 -47% (117) #students involved 11,700 11,700 12,715 9% 1,015 #restoration sites 10 11 10% 1 #brochures and advertisements 100 100 41 -59% (59) #students 31,000 28,700 - 28,700 #Citizenship ceremonies hosted 1 1 #people involved in ceremonies 100 NOTES: 2012 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) Implementing grants received from COA,OTF,EcoAction, Markham Sustainability Funds NOTES: 2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Implemented a number of grants on behali TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2012 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Watershed Management Page 49c GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Community Transformation Partnerships 2011 2011 2012 BUDGET Actuals BUDGET %CHG. CHG. Expenditures: Energy Projects 402,000 282,318 383,000 -68% (19,000) Sustainable Community Projects 182,000 88,891 67,000 -464% (115,000) Partners in Project Green Projects 1,247,000 556,163 1,001,000 -20% (246,000) Expenditure Total 1,831,000 927,394 2,013,000 10% 182,000 Funding Sources: Program/Userfees 245,000 262,387 -100% (245,000) Reserves - Interest Earnings - CFGT-Flowthrough 26,000 10,750 -100% (26,000) Other-Municipal 312,000 64,410 121,000 -61% (191,000) Other-Provincial 42.000 63.760 301.000 617% 259.000 Other-Federal 3.000 131.000 4267% 128.000 Other-Donations/Fundraising 93,000 39,317 84,500 -9% (8,500) Other-Non-Government Grants 907.000 334.094 1.161.500 28% 254.500 Revenue Total 1,628,000 774,719 1,799,000 11% 171,000 Capital levy - Peel 12,000 12,000 7,000 -42% (5,000) York 46,000 46,000 46,000 Durham - Toronto 108.000 108.000 110.000 2% 2.000 Adjala/Mono Carryforward levy-Peel 3,000 3,436 -100% (3,000) Carryforward levy-York 3,000 3,436 16,000 433% 13,000 Carryforward levy-Durham - Carryfoiward levy-T.O. 31,000 (20,218) 35,000 13% 4,000 Adjala/Mono - Deficit/(Surplus) 22 - IN PROGRESS:NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION Staff FTEs-Full-time 5.7 8.9 56% 3.2 Non-F/T #of Projects in Progress 21.0 21 %Completion 25.0% 40.0% 60.0% 0.2 #of Projects Complete 10 10 %Completion - GHC-#hospitals 40 0 60 1 20.0 MMC-number towns&cities 9 15 1 6.0 District Energy:#municiplaities&organizations 20 -1 (20.0) Corporate Social Responsibility: 2 - Maior 2011 over 2012 Changes(in addition to economic factors): Reduction in FTE's in the Community Transformation Program Increase in number of external partners FTE Chan e:+.3 KCC Mana erFTE Change:-.4 Energy staff moved NOTES: 2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Many projects are either ongoing or multi year programs 66 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2012 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Watershed Management Page 50 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: 2011 moved to WM from Ecology:Sustainable Technologies 2011 2011 2012 BUDGET Actuals BUDGET %CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: 2011 moved to Ecology Peel Water Man:Sustainable Neighbou - Living City Report Card 182,000 90,604 97,000 -47% (85,000) SP:Sediment Awareness 33,000 - 33,000 Natural Channel Design 56,000 66,540 57,000 2% 1,000 Black Creek Urban Farm 14,000 29 14,000 Urban Agriculture-Growing Local Food 165,000 81,674 183,000 11% 18,000 Spills Database Program 63,000 7,993 55,000 -13% (8,000) PV Performance Verifications 67,000 - 67,000 Humber 10th Anniversary 13,000 9,421 4,000 -69% (9,000) Lot Dev.Impact Cost Tool 44,000 24,403 41,000 -7% (3,000) Soakaway/Soil Amend.Evaluation 147,000 110,401 108,000 -27% (39,000) SP:INFILTRATION LITERATURE REV 492 Terraview Filtration - STEP:Roof Infiltration Tank 45,000 64,367 -100.0% (45,000) S.T.E.P.Air Quality Items 119,000 144,640 121,000 1.7% 2,000 CSO Workshop - SUSTAINABLE COMM COSTS Permeable Pavement 93,000 83,752 47,000 -49.5% (46,000) Sustainable Technology Evaluation Program-Water 186,000 99,974 126,000 -32.3% (60,000) S.T.E.P.:Rain Water Harvesting 14,000 17,176 -100.0% (14,000) Greenroof Costs 9,000 6,396 3,000 -66.7% (6,000) Education:Web Based Learning - Tech:WaterManPracticesTraining 19,000 96,550 157,000 726.3% 138,000 S.Tech:Bioretention Evaluation 35,000 18,064 28,000 -20.0% (7,000) SUSTNBLE COMMUNITS TECH.SERIES Toronto Sustainable Community Technology Funds 114,000 114,000 114,000 SP:Certified Sediment Erosion 93,000 - 93,000 Kortright Park Lot Retrofit&Evaluation 155,000 - 155,000 Low Impact Dev-OP 1Maintenance 65,000 - 65,000 SP:Home Energy Display Evaluation 18,000 - 18,000 Soil Depth&Quality 7,136 22,000 - 22.000 Detention Chamber Evaluation 1,433 69,000 - 69,000 SP:SoIar City Assessment TAE 25,000 - 25,000 Climate:Evapotranspiration Monitoring - Internal Municipal (25,000) -100.0% 25.000 1,293,000 1,045,045 1,702,000 32% 409,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees 42,000 155,663 434,000 933.3% 392,000 Reserves - Interest Earnings - CFGT-Flowthrough 200 - Other-Municipal 16,000 17,993 8,000 -50.0% (8,000) Other-Provincial 50,500 52,576 248,000 391.1% 197,500 Other-Federal 148,500 58,600 126,000 -15.2% (22,500) Other-Donations Fundraising 31,000 - 31,000 Other-Non-Government Grants 285,000 206,620 164,000 -42.5% (121,000) 542,000 491,653 1,011,000 86.5% 469,000 capital lev Peel 271,000 271,000 185,000 -31.7% (86,000) York 112,000 112,000 85,000 -24.1% (27,000) Durham Toronto 231,000 231,000 225,000 -2.6% (6,000) Adjala Mono - Carryforwardlevy-Peel 70,000 (59,804) 133,000 90.0% 63,000 York 35,000 779 35,000 Durham - Toronto 32,000 (2,553) 28,000 -12.5% (4,000) Adjala Mono Deficit/(Surplus) 970 IN PROGRESS:NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION Staff FTEs-Full-time 5.6 8.2 47.7% 2.7 Non-F/T 2.0 2.8 40.6% 0.8 Facilities:#Buildings;Sq.footage n n n #VALUE! #VALUE! #of Projects in Progress 20.0 20 20 Completion - #of Projects Complete 6 6 6 %Completion NOTES: 2012 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excludina inflation/COLA) in additional funding from the Ministry of the Environments'Showcasing Water Innovation Program The funds are to be spent over a 2.5 year period,ending March 31,2014. The additional funding is being used to initiate 4 new pro ects in 2012. NOTES: 2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS There was no major variance from 2011. Projects were completed on schedule. TGRONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2011 CAP11TAL BUDGET DIVISION: A111 Page 51 GROUP: capital) ACTIVITY: Peel Climate clianige Miltigation 2011 2011 2012 BUDGET ACTUIALS BUDGET CHG. CHG., GROSS EXPENDITURES Ecology Division iI WM Nater Reoponce Pllan ECOIL) 10,00 1,50E, 9,000 �2,000� fflwt Nater aalanre Cu ld Pines(EGOL) 10,00 1,98e 7,000 39II6 (3,000� M HandwateraWSmaillTrdbuitarVCiiiiidellinea(ECL)L) 1.09"00 38.341 94,500 -131,6 (I 4,500) Peel Hydrology S.Flux]Lirp Mapo 57.663 212,000 - 212,000 Rood Remedial'Wori,,o(EGGIL) 255,00 25,5ar 756,000 12r,6 423,000 WM:Hydromeir=Gaugev,ECOL) WtA Clairevillp Wingwall(EGOL) 15,003 3,C43 12,000 WtA Pord (EC L) 210,003 1 1,G95 8,000 -6l f12,OCX,3( Stoirmwalpr Marragemem Pond Retrofts rECOLI, 629,00 8,8155 320,000 -49% pog'acq ='Gorporate Soil ReoponalloHy(20T 1 WOVIM1177"") - Su-2t NRightbourrhoad RetrcAb(EIDOLj 273,00 248,480 400,000 4716 127,000 Suet Comm,Sunfanable 7e,rh Evniluerflon,Pim[eotn-Air 12011 is WM from EGOL) Suet Comm, Suctalnable Tech Evaluation Projects-WRipr�2011 to I&M from E =1#2:Design Tool,(,1721DI 1 to WM froiniif ECOL) 7RCA Energy Management Plan(20111 To INM FRIDU ECOLG'T) MA:Oairervd Ile Rezerooir Woe-Study IEICCL"p V,0c0 11,000 PD.-,",,-TNH:TEF,R RECOVERY PLANS Nat Hpr:Urban ZAnclay(ECOL) 94,00 5.174 79,000 -18116 WIV:Flood I.-,[Tannel Rpatorallion&I Works(EGlDQ 290,000 1 Q.874 405,000 40% 115,000 CTP#3:Gevihermat IE nerg y;201 T to WM,from Ecology - CTP#MUeodhermat IE nergy;201 T to WM,from ECOL) CTPI#5 Renewable Energy Roadmap 1;2011 to WM from ECOW OTP1#161:Greening IPetad I 200 1 to WM fricing,I Green ISuilld ingu#1:P.B Gaunolu/Se retfayiat iTo WM trorn ECOL) CTP#7:1PC,�SM,Mun.Carlmn N,eutiR]Guide P1291 1 to WM from EC,01-1 Green Buildings#3:VvQrII 01,aen I Secfetariiat(wClr 1 to WIM fronin,EC4DL CTP#8:Green Retail,Guidplinec(2011 to'004 from Ecology) CTP#9:Solar Root ad Blaok.Greek(2011 to M1 I Eaolp CTP#1:CommurvtV Traireforrination(2f]Ir 1 to WIM from ECOLd CTP'Gorporate Soil Responsibility(20t'1 Climate Change So-,Aplol-rion&TrainiiN IEC'CL( 196,000 r04,425 252,000 2996 56,000 Suet,.Neighilbourrhood Retrofits(EGOL1 273,000 248,490 400,000 47% 127,000 SUZt COMM'SLIfanable 7e,rh Ewnluerfion Pim[pobn-Air 12011 is WM from EGO - Suet Comm, Suctainable Tec-h Evaluation Projects-Water J2011 to 10WIM ftom E C7P'#2:Design Taal,?721D 11 do WIM fromin,EC,01-) 7RCA Energy Management Plan(20111 To INM FRIDU ECOLG'T) E.&I.gy Diwil Ilot.1 2,255,000 800,189 2,956,500 31%" 701,500 Nad Her I r-harnei Hall Restoration I a58,000 26,72,2 FCC:A.Kuehne N21uraJI,Clhannel Restofottioin 2,813 SI'MINANIS PARK BANK STABiLIZN 14,094 EC 60 ANNIE ST.BGLTON(IDIESIGN) 7,226 ErasionDeeir Valley Drive 423,0,97 POC Erosion-Makon GreeinwRy Stream Restoiravan PICC EfoGion-'Ne)dcfd Park Strucwire REP1120aiment 35,72:2' 1A1 11,cw6Prk Trptl Chgninelf Ren2turatization 140,965 'Afill,cwbank Trad Chaninelf Renaturahz2flan 186,641 POC-Erosion&Remedial CapitajIftirks(RS) 813,000 53;,0(791 600,000 -2,Fi. pio,00cfp Nat Her:Welland Managenreirit(RS( 125,000 1367,92 169,200 3 5% 44,200, Nat Her:Riparian Planding(93) 104,000 94,226 160,000 54% 56,0C* Nat Her:(Enhancements I Habitat I arprovenrent Fjanw(IRS) 376,000 207,730 439,000 17% 63,0081 Nat Her Enhancement Existmg 019M(RS) 1w,000 60,911 159,000 .59% 59,000, Nat Her:indii,gen,01LIs Flant Frolpagaton(RS) 109,000 106,CG2 63,000 -4271m (46,00D� Nat Her:Reforestavon Iflil I(RS) 125,000 125,567 125,000 N.,.v Her-I Man,;germ ent-7ROA Lands(RS) 145,000 129,756 115,000 -21% (30,000� Nat Her:I Management-Private Lands(IRS) 102,000 59,074 143,000 40% 4 ,000, Nat Her:GerAreville Creek HIP)9S) 949 - Nat Her Upper I Aquatic Restoration(RSI - Nat Her Claireville Eco-sfywem lmpiovemenw(9S) 100,00101 117,062 75,000 -2 5% (1 Internal - Restofatron serwices items 2,457,000 1,958,745 2,048,200 -17% f4l)8,8009 68 IlWatershed Management Division items: West Humber Stewardship 92,000 84,127 106,000 15% 14,000 Kennedy Valley Restoration 76,000 11,357 65,000 -14% (11,000) WM:Spills Prevention&Response(WM) 50,000 18,893 34,000 -32% (16,000) Channel Naturalization-Etobicoke Mimico(WM) 106,000 2,597 153,000 44% 47,000 Nat Her:Watershed Communication for Transformation-Changing Behaviours 20,000 3,671 17,000 -15% (3,000) Nat Her:Stewardship Partnership Services(WM) 160,000 164,545 155,000 -3% (5,000) Nat Her: Etobicoke-Mimico Stewardship(WM) 171,000 104,615 166,000 -3% (5,000) Nat Her:Etobicoke Headwaters Subwatershed Regeneration(WM) 10,000 13,273 27,000 170% 17,000 Education:Albion CFC Renovations(WM) 390,000 13,413 902,000 131% 512,000 Education:Albion Hills Environmental Weeks(WM) 89,000 97,166 95,000 7% 6,000 Education:EcoSchools Water Guide(WM) (10,000) -100% 10,000 Education: Knowing Nature,Staying Safer Ed Program(WM) 11,000 18,295 18,000 64% 7,000 Sust.Comm:EcoSchools Program Expansion(WM) 298,000 267,784 222,000 -26% (76,000) Web Based Learning,Carbon Calculator(WM) 3,319 - Sust.Comm:Communications&Social Marketing(WM) 146,000 221,000 51% 75,000 Living City Report Card(WM) 50,000 57 50,000 Sust.Comm:Pearson Eco-Park(WM) 450,000 525,000 450,000 CTP#10:Eco-Industrial Network(WM) 1,279 - CTP#2:Design Tool(??2011 to WM from ECOL) 111,000 30,351 7,000 -94% (104,000) SP:SITHE GLBL.AQUTC REST(11776 245,953 - CTP#3:Geothermal Energy(2011 to WM from ECOL) 15,000 2,448 13,000 -13% (2,000) CTP#5:Renewable Energy Roadmap(2011 to WM from ECOL) 143,000 77,084 229,000 60% 86,000 CTP#6:Greening Retail(2011 to WM from ECOL) 30,000 48,037 -100% (30,000) Green Buildings#1:GB Councils/Secretariat(To WM from ECOL) 61,000 59,489 72,000 18% 11,000 Conservation Youth Corps 25,000 20,443 87,000 248% 62,000 CTP#7:PC/BM:Mun.Carbon Neutral Guide(2011 to WM from ECOL) - Green Buildings#3:World Green Building Secretariat(2011 to WM from ECOL 95 - CTP#8:Green Retail Guidelines(2011 to WM from Ecology) 30,000 44,982 198,000 560% 168,000 CTP#9:Solar Roof at Black Creek(2011 to WM from Ecol) - CTP#1:Community Transformation(2011 to WM from ECOL) 48,000 84,568 32,000 -33% (16,000) Sust.Comm: Sustainable Tech.Evaluation Projects-Water(2011 to WM from E 50,000 57,351 48,000 -4% (2,000) Sust.Comm:Sustainable Tech.Evaluation Projects-Air(2011 to WM from ECO 112,000 114,250 113,000 1% 1,000 TRCA Energy Management Plan(To WM????) - CTP:Corporate Soil Responsibility(2011 to WM????????) 65,000 -100% (65,000) Climate Consortium 105,000 105,000 150,000 43% 45,000 Internal (75,000) - Watershed Management Division items: 2,904,000 2,144,442 3,630,000 25% 726,000 Parks&Culture Division items: WM Clairevile Programs and Infrstructure(P&C) 150,000 109,736 115,000 -23% (35,000) Nat Her:Audubon Certification for CAs(P&C) 306,000 249,577 356,000 16% 50,000 Green Buildings#2:Sus House Archetype/LCC Campus Programming(P&C) 85,000 85,593 70,000 -18% (15,000) Parks&Culture Division items: 541,000 444,906 541,000 F&BS Division items: Nat.Her:Claireville Restoration#3:Plantings(F&BS) 20,100 - 20,100 Nat.Her:Claireville Restoration(F&BS) - F&BS Division items: 20,100 20,100 8,1575000 553485282 951955800 0 150385800 69 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2011 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Watershed Management Page 51a GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Peel Climate Change Mitigation 2011 2011 2012 BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET CHANGE CHANGET FUNDING SOURCES: Program/Userfees 95,000 5,269 69,000 -27% (26,000) Reserves Interest Earnings - CFGT-Flow[hrough 73,000 3,641 105,500 45% 32,500 Other-Municipal 28,000 135,000 382% 107,000 Other-Provincial - Other-Federal 20,000 23,000 15% 3,000 Other-Donations/Fundraising 10,000 - 10,000 Other-Non-Government Grants 83,000 97,000 17% 14,000 299,000 8,910 439,500 47% 140,500 Capital levy Peel 5,600,000 5,592,529 6,192,200 11% 592,200 York Durham Toronto Adjala/Tos - Carryforward levy-Peel 1,985,000 (465,785) 2,455,100 24% 470,100 York Durham Toronto 1.147 - Adjala/Tos - Deficit/(Surplus) (288) - NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION(2011 still under development) Staff FTEs-Full-time 18.8 27.1 8.4 Non-F/T 11.1 8.1 (3.0) •of trees planted in Peel Region •of aquatic/herbaceous planted in Peel Region 20,000 25,854 20,000 •of Flood remedial projects 1 1 7 6 •of erosion control studies 302 3.047 3.783 3.481 •of SNAP Projects 362 356 367 5 •of hectares of forests managed 68 68 100 32 •of hectares Managed Forest Tax Incentive Plans 90 86 75 (15) •of private landowners given assistance on forest management 15 6 8 (7) •of hectares wetlands restored/created 5 5 4 (1) •of hectares riparian restoration 8 6 4 (4) NOTES: 2012 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) Funding increased for erosion,floodworks. Funding increased for Climate Consortium,Pearson Eco-Industrial Park,Environmental Youth Corps. Balance of increase relates to work still in progress from 2010. FTE Change:-1.7 mostly Headwaters Small tributaryFTE Changes:+.6 net re:New Humber Stewardship CoordinatorFTE Change:+.4 mostly Natural Channel HIPFTE Change:+.4 Claireville work NOTES: 2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Work in progress carried forward to 2011:$1.2 million for Floodworks&Erosion, $400k for Habitat Restoration&Claireville.$300k for Eco-Schools roll-out 70 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2012 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Watershed Management Page 52 GROUP: Flood Control ACTIVITY: Lower Don 2011 2011 2012 BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Don Mouth:TRCA Proj.Man.-E.A. 93,000 50,930 -100% (93,000) Don Mouth:External/Public Cons. 15,000 -100% (15,000) Don Mouth:Facilitator 12,000 -100% (12,000) Don Mouth:Gartner Lee 157,000 140,991 -100% (157,000) Don Mouth:Gardiner Roberts 2,000 -100% (2,000) Don Mouth:IDC-GILL - Don Mouth:DCS Technical Oversight - DonMouth-TPLC Holding Account 50,593 160,000 - 160,000 DON MOUTH RESTOR:VAC/HOLIDAYS 15,111 - Lower Don Imp:Detail Design - LDRW Phase 2:TRCA Internal 94,000 14,721 -100% (94,000) Lower Don Imp:ORC/FPL Coordination 4,211 14,000 - 14,000 LDRW PH 2:Peer Review of Flood Landform 9,000 7,347 9,000 Lower Don Imp:TWRC/Park Coordination 99,000 21,449 4,000 -96% (95,000) LDRW PH 2:Gardiner Roberts 43,000 5,297 45,000 5% 2,000 LDRW PH 2:Hydro One 31,000 2,544 38,000 23% 7,000 LDRW PH 2:UMA Engineering LDRW PH 2:Acquisition/Agreement 67,000 38,000 -43% (29,000) TWRC:ASHBRIDGES EA-ARCHAEOLOGY LOWER DON:VAC/HOLI DAY TIM E 8,118 - LDRW Enbridge Detail Design - Ashbridge's Bay TRCA PM - Ashbridge's Bay Coastal Engineering - Ashbridhe's Bay Vac/Holiday Time - CHERRY BEACH SAND PLACEMENT 62 - EASTERN BCHS SHORE STAB STUDY 6,650 622,000 328,023 308,000 -50% (314,000) Program/User fees 6,711 Reserves - Interest Earnings - CFGT-Flowthrough - Other-Municipal - Other-Provincial - Other-Federal - Other-Donations/Fundraising - Other-Non-Government Grants 622,000 321,312 308,000 -50% (314,000) 622,000 328,023 308,000 -50% (314,000) Capital levy Peel York Durham Toronto Adjala/Mono Carryforward levy-Peel York Durham Toronto Adjala/Mono Deficit/(Surplus) NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION For 2009 to 2010 and on Staff FTEs-Full-time 1.1 0.6 -44% (0.5) Non-F/T - #public meetings hosted 2 -100% -2 #stakeholder/advisory meetings 50 30 30 -40% (20) #technical studies 9 -100% (9) #plans implemented 4 -100% (4) #advisory members engaged >200 #of projects underway 3 -100% (3) #of Projects Involved with Project Partners 15 -100% (15) #participants at public events 150 -100% (150) #on distribution lists(including WT distributions) 11,000 -100% -11,000 NOTES: 2012 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS fexcludina inflation/COLAI Don Mouth Phase 1:Stilll on Port Lands Protocol until Sept 2012-Probably$21 OK for TRCA/AECOM including costs from July 18 2011-then new budget will be Lower Don Phase 2:Still waiting from WT to approve AFEs for 195 accounts.Still waiting for HONI easement completion.Still waiting for FPL/DR Park to complete. FTE Change:-.5 less staff for smaller project NOTES: 2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS For 191-02-Delays in final submission to address OPA and pre-submission concerns-City directed HOLD-July 18,2011-Reevaluate direction of Port Lands For 191-06-Delays in final submission to address OPA and pre-submission concerns-City directed HOLD-July 1£ For 191-50-NEW HOLDING Account created for costs starting July 18,2011 and include TRCA and AECOM fees for the Port Lands Acceleration Protocol works. For 195-20-(legal fees on FPL easements with ORC/City/ 71 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2012 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Ecology Page 53 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Flood Control Projects 2011 2011 2012 BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET %CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Flood Warning Equipment&Models 291,000 164,986 303,000 4% 12,000 Flood Protection&Remedial Capital Works 672,000 200,007 911,000 36% 239,000 Small Dams&Flood Control Facilities Capital Works 182,000 31,331 203,000 12% 21,000 Large Dams Capital Works 75,000 23,233 126,000 68% 51,000 Black Creek Channel Maintenance 16,000 -100% (16,000) York Stormwater Management Program 190,000 27,754 263,000 38% 73,000 YONGEfYORK MILL CHANNEL REPAIR 39,320 - Stouffville Dam-Structural Study - Claireville Dam-Mechanical Repairs 12,536 - Claireville Dam-Safety Repairs - Claireville Dam-OMS Review 14,000 -100% (14,000) WEC12010:ALBION HILLS DSR 48,890 - WEC109:G.RSS LORD HYDROG.STUDY 4,070 - WEC109:G.RSS LORD HYDROG.STUDY 103,643 - WECI 09:Secord Dam DSR G.Ross Lord Dam-Study to Review OMS Manual - G.Ross Lord Dam-Safety Boom&Signage G.Ross Lord Dam-Electrical Repairs - WECI 08-Milne Dam OMS Manual - WECI 08-Claireville Dam Wngwall Repair-Phase 2 - WECI 08- Pickering Ajax Flood Control Dyke Repair - WECI 08-Secord Dam Culvert Repair - WECI 08-Stouffville Dam OMS Manual 11,000 -100% (11,000) WECI 08-West Don Hoggs Hollow Channel Study 250,000 18,568 240,000 4% (10,000) 1,701,000 674,337 2,046,000 20% 345,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Program/Userfees 42,000 182,272 -100% (42,000) Reserves - Interest Earnings - CFGT-Flowthrough - Other-Municipal - Other-Provincial 41,000 86,349 -100% (41,000) Other-Federal - Other-Donations/Fundraising - Other-Non-Government Grants - 83,000 268,621 -100% (83,000) Capital levy Peel 233,000 233,000 244,000 5% 11,000 York 175,000 175,000 375,000 114% 200,000 Durham 43,000 43,000 43,000 Toronto 439,000 439,000 442,000 1% 3,000 Adjala/Mono Carryforward levy-Peel 213,000 (106,318) 297,000 39% 84,000 York 203,000 (90,913) 293,000 44% 90,000 Durham 48,000 (13,210) 61,000 27% 13,000 Toronto 264,000 (273,842) 291,000 10% 27,000 Adjala/Mono - Deficit/(Surplus) - IN PROGRESS:NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION Staff FTEs-Full-time 4.9 6.2 0.3 1.3 Non-F/T 0.6 2.1 2.7 1.5 #of Studies in Progress 7.0 4.0 4.0 (0.4) (3.0) #of Studies Complete 5.0 4.0 6.0 0.2 1.0 #New Stream and Precipitation Gauges 1.0 (1.0) (1.0) #Snow Course sites monitored and maintained #Low Flood Indicator sites monitored #Flood Infrastructure sites repaired/maintained NOTES: 2012 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) 2011 carry-forward for further work on Flood Protection projects Continued hydrometrics program&maintenance on small dams,flood control channels,sediment and vegitation removal at Yonge and York Mills -1.2 e:staff allocated to other projectsFTE Change:+.3 for Hoog's Hollow construction NOTES: 2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2012 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Parks&Culture Page 54 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Public Use Infrastructure 2011 2011 2012 BUDGET Actuals BUDGET %CHG. $CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Retrofits/Construction 262,000 173,778 268,000 2% 6,000 PUB USE: NEW SIGNAGE - - PUB USE:COMMUNICATION UPGRADES 39,253 - LAKE ST.GEORGE CFC:DAVIES HALL 26,178 - HEART LAKE:GATE HOUSE REPAIRS - - HEART LK:INFRA STIMULUS ITEMS - - BM:CHALET REPAIR/SUGAR SHACK - - ALBION H: CHALET REPAIRS - - CA Planning 62,000 61,320 59,000 -5% (3,000) SP:RICHMOND H.LAND MNGMNT.PLAN 67 - CA PLAN:BRUCE'S MILL MAN PLAN - - CA PLAN:GLEN MAJOR MNGMNT PLAN 1 - CA Planning-Altona Forest 10,000 2,237 10,000 Humber Arboretum - - 334,000 302,835 337,000 1% 3,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees - Reserves - Interest Earnings - CFGT-Flowthrough 1,681 - Other-Municipal 1,000 978 1,000 Other-Provincial - Other-Federal - Other-Donations/Fundraising 424 - Other-Non-Government Grants 9,000 850 9,000 10,000 3,933 10,000 Capital lew Peel 34,000 34,000 34,500 1% 500 York 59,000 59,037 60,500 3% 1,500 Durham 8,951 9,000 8,951 - Toronto 198,000 197,500 198,000 - Adjala/Mono 49 49 49 - Carryforward levy-Peel 3,300 393 2,900 -12% (400) York 4,700 (215) 4,900 4% 200 Durham 700 (36) 796 14% 96 Toronto 15,300 (826) 16,400 7% 1,100 Adjala/Mono 0 4 - 4 Deficit/(Surplus) - IN PROGRESS: NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION Staff FTEs-Full-time - - Non-F/T 0.6 0.5 -0.2 (0.1) #of Roof&Other repairs 2 2 #of Pool Projects 2 2 #of Mnagement Plans underway 5 5 %Completion TBD TBD - NOTES: 2012 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) No change. Pub Use:+.2 Proj. Manager, +.4 Pool staff,-1.1 no longer going to KCC retrofit NOTES: 2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS 73 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2012 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Parks&Culture Page 55 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Other Facilities Retrofits 2011 2011 2012 BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET %CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Peel Campgrounds 241,600 24,995 473,000 95.8% 231,400 Peel Campground:Albion Hills 43,400 67,489 45,000 3.7% 1,600 Peel Washroom Upgrades 105,000 102,422 113,000 7.6% 8,000 Peel Energy Efficiency Retrofitting 113,000 76,791 111,000 -1.8% (2,000) Kortright Centre Campus Development 305,000 181,276 540,000 77.0% 235,000 808,000 471,481 1,282,000 58.7% 474,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees - Reserves Interest Earnings CFGT-Flowthrough 18,508 Other-Municipal Other-Provincial Other-Federal Other-Donations/Fundraising Other-Non-Government Grants 18,508 - Capital levy Peel 630,000 630,000 685,000 8.7% 55,000 York 127,000 127,000 242,000 90.6% 115,000 Durham - To ro nto Adjala/Mono - Carryforward levy-Peel 51,000 (303,987) 355,000 596.1% 304,000 York - Durham To ro nto Adjala/Mono Deficit/(Surplus) (40) IN PROGRESS: NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION Staff FTEs-Full-time 0.6 0.6 -3.2% (0.0) Non-F/T 1.2 -100.0% (1.2) #of Energy retrofits underway TBD TBD #of Washroom updrades underway TBD TBD #of Campgound Sites TBD TBD #of Water Play facilities TBD TBD NOTES: 2012 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) KCC Campus Centre work expanded with more York funding - - FTE Change:+1.8 staff allocated to KCC Campus - - NOTES: 2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS - - 74 - - Next Page ......57 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2012 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Parks&Culture Page 57 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Other Building Projects 2011 2011 2012 BUDGET ACTUALS BUDGET % CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Kortright Retrofit 1,217,000 1,227,406 247,000 -80% (970,000) KCC RETRO#2:URBAN AGRICULTURE - KCC Sustainable House Construction 10,891 KCC Sustainable House Landscaping KORTRIGHT ENTRANCE LANDSCAPING - Petticoat Pool 3,000,000 1,130,620 77,000 -97% (2,923,000) Heart Lake Pool 1,600,000 334,631 -100% (1,600,000) Nursery Relocation RSC Construction - Boyd Centre Workshop/Storage Construction BOYD WRKSHP:NON-CONSTRN.COSTS 6,147,260 2,795,075 863,560 -86% (5,283,700) FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees - Reserves 1,534,000 77,000 -95% (1,457,000) Interest Earnings - CFGT-Flowthrough 24,451 Other- Municipal - Other-Provincial 1,533,000 391,728 -100% (1,533,000) Other-Federal 1,533,000 391,728 -100% (1,533,000) Other-Donations/Fundraising - Other-Non-Government Grants Lease revenue 4,600,000 807,906 77,000 -98% (4,523,000) Capital levy Peel 330,260 301,679 329,560 0% (700) York 242,000 - 242,000 Durham Toronto 1,751 Adjala/Mono - Carryforward levy-Peel 31,000 (178,844) 210,000 577% 179,000 York 631,000 625,984 5,000 -99% (626,000) Durham 31,000 31,156 -100% (31,000) Toronto 524,000 523,522 -100% (524,000) Adjala/Mono 126 - Deficit/(Surplus) 681,795 - IN PROGRESS:NEW DATA/VOLUME/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION Staff FTEs-Full-time 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 Non-F/T - Sq. Footage under construction TBD TBD #of Pool projects under construction 2.0 2.0 FTE Change:-.2 no longer to KCC/LCC retro project NOTES: 2012 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) Pools completed FTE Change:-.2 no longer to KCC/LCC retro project Equestrian Centre work moves to 2012 NOTES: 2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Equestrian Centre work moves to 2012 Next Page ......59 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2011 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Restoration Services Page 59 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Oak Ridges Moraine Corridor Park 2011 2011 2012 BUDGET Actuals BUDGET % CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Park Management Plan(G" 3,000 14,000 367% 11,000 Terrestrial Field Inventories(SH) - Trail Construction(ML) 10,000 10,000 Park Legal Fees(MF) - Habitat Restoration(ML) 20,000 46,251 35,000 75% 15,000 Park Reforestation(TH) 100,000 98,517 55,000 -45% (45,000) Developers Contribution Agreement(JD) 62,284 - ORM Park:Secondary Trails 540,000 - 540,000 Park Restoration ORMF(GW) 146,000 1,311 145,000 _1% (1,000) 279,000 208,363 799,000 186% 520,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees 117,000 131,040 622,000 432% 505,000 Reserves - Interest Earnings CFGT-Flowthrough 90,000 90,000 Other-Municipal 18,000 18,000 Other-Provincial Other-Federal 20,000 20,000 Other-Donations/Fundraising - Other-Non-Government Grants 34,000 77,323 49,000 44% 15,000 279,000 208,363 799,000 186% 520,000 Capital levy Peel - York Durham Toronto Adjala/Tos Carryforward levy-Peel York Durham Toronto Adjala/Tos Deficit/(Surplus) - NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION in development Staff FTEs-Full-time 0.1 0.3 3.7 0.2 Non-F/T - #of reforestation seedlings planted 90,000 93,550 -1.0 (90,000) #of hectares of buffer plantings 5 1.0 - 1.0 #of trees/shrubs planted by Community groups 500 500 500 NOTES: 2011 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) Carry forward funds from developer's agreement for future park development Continue to implement park development plans Continue to receive developers funds as per agreemnt NOTES: 2010 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Carry forward developer's agreement funds for future works TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2012 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Parks&Culture Page 60 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: BCPV Retrofit and Attraction 2011 2011 2012 BUDGET Actuals BUDGET %CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: BCPV RETROF.CAP:VISITOR CENTRE 25,879 _ VIS.CENTRE ACCESSIBILITY 9,444 - BCPV Retrofit 446,000 75,351 479,000 7.40% 33,000 BCPV:DALZIEL BARN WORK 845 - BCPV:JAMES DALZIEL(AGNEW)WORK - - BC RETRO: ROOF PROJECTS 3,399 - BC RETRO:MENNONITE MEETING 1,220 - BC RETRO: MILL REPAIRS 1,870 - LASKEY'S EMPORIUM 39,281 - 09:BREWERY RETROFIT 3,495 - 09:RESTAURANT RETROFIT 382 - BURWICK#2:CONSTRUCTION - - 671,000 279,218 704,000 5% 33,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees - Reserves - Interest Earnings - CFGT-Flowthrough - Other-Municipal 225,000 8,636 225,000 Other-Provincial - Other-Federal 9,761 - Other-Donations/Fundraising - Other-Non-Government Grants - 225,000 18,397 225,000 Capital levy Peel York Durham Toronto 350,000 350,000 350,000 Adjala/Mono Carryforward levy-Peel - York Durham Toronto 96,000 (89,179) 129,000 Adjala/Mono - Deficit/(Surplus) - 0 - - IN PROGRESS: NEW DATA 1 VOLUME 1 PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION Staff FTEs-Full-time 0.4 1.0 0.4 Non-F/T - - Facilities:#Buildings 50.0 50.0 50 Sq. Footage 170,000 170,000 170,000 Site Hectares 31 31 31 Sq. Footage under repair TBD TBD TBD - #of items to be repalced TBD TBD TBD - NOTES: 2012 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) Similar level of work NOTES: 2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2012 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Finance and Business Development Page 61 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Information Technology Project 2011 2011 2012 BUDGET Actuals BUDGET % CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: IT Project 577,000 567,556 413,000 -28.4% -164,000 577,000 567,556 413,000 -28.4% (164,000) FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees Reserves Interest Earnings CFGT-Flowthrough Other-Municipal Other-Provincial Other-Federal Other-Donations/Fundraising Other-Non-Government Grants Capital levy Peel 46,000 46,000 46,000 York 79,000 78,716 81,000 2.5% 2,000 Durham 11,934 12,000 11,934 Toronto 263,000 263,333 264,000 0.4% 1,000 Adjala/Mono 66 66 66 Carryforward levy-Peel 20,000 19,261 1,189 -94.1% (18,811) York 35,000 32,687 2,029 -94.2% (32,971) Durham 5,000 5,073 311 -93.8% (4,689) Toronto 117,000 110,192 6,469 -94.5% (110,531) Adjala/Mono 29 2 2 Deficit/(Surplus) 198 - NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION For 2009 to 2010 and on Staff FTEs-Full-time Non-F/T 0.5 0.5 #of Desktop Computers 380 383 380 #of Laptop Computers 270 268 270 #of Landline phones 340 349 340 #of Cellphones 310 307 310 #of Lotus Notes Users 450 443 450 #of Accounting/GIS System Servers 8? NOTES: 2012 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) Accounting system to be replaced in 2011. NOTES: 2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Some funds held for replacing Accounting System in 2011+ 78 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2012 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Finance and Business Development Page 62 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Major Facilities Retrofits 2011 2011 2012 BUDGET Actuals BUDGET %CHG. CHG. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Administrative Office Retrofits 700,000 115,662 703,000 0.4% 3,000 Relocation To Boyd CFC 3,574 Downsview Office 14,158 New Administrative Office Design/Build 284,000 43,793 -100.0% (284,000) Swan Lake Management Costs 62,058 Asbestos Assessments 44,363 INDIAN LINE WATER LINE BREAK 984,000 283,608 703,000 -28.6% (281,000) FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees Reserves Interest Earnings CFGT-Flowthrough Other-Municipal Other-Provincial Other-Federal Other-Donations/Fundraising Other-Non-Government Grants 45,276 Capital levy Peel 126,000 126,000 80,000 -36.5% (46,000) York 218,000 137,754 142,000 -34.9% (76,000) Durham 20,883 20,900 20,885 0.0% 2 Toronto 461,000 460,833 460,000 -0.2% (1,000) Adjala/Mono 117 117 115 -1.7% (2) Carryforward levy-Peel 158,000 (59,969) -100.0% (158,000) Carryforward levy-York (99,763) - Carryforward levy-Durham (14,978) - Carryforward levy-Toronto (332,477) - Carryforward levy-Adjala/Mono (85) - Deficit/(Surplus) - - NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION For 2009 to 2010 and on Staff FTEs-Full-time 0.3 0.20 -20.0% -0.1 Non-F/T Facilities:#Buildings 4 4 4 Sq.Footage 54,000 54,000 54,000 $Retrofit/Sq. Footage 12.96 2.14 13.02 0.4% 0.1 NOTES: 2012 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) Accumulating funds for new administration office FTE Change:No change NOTES: 2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Accumulating funds for new administration office if ZY TORONTO AND REGION CONSERCATION AUTHORITY 2012 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Finance and Business Development Page 63 GROUP: Capital ACTIVITY: Land Acquisition 2011 2011 2012 Budget Actuals Budget % Chg. Ch g. GROSS EXPENDITURES: Waterfront Open Space 500,000 150,046 100,000 -80.0% (400,000) Acquisition-Greenspace Strategy 4,500,000 3,137,894 5,150,000 14.4% 650,000 Natural Areas Protection - ORC Repairs 6,861 - Peel Land Care 2,035,000 1,308,438 2,589,000 27.2% 554,000 York Land Care 437,000 481,865 412,000 -5.7% (25,000) 7,472,000 5,085,105 8,251,000 10.4% 779,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees 38,914 - Reserves 330,487 Interest Earnings 7,148 CFGT-Flowthrough 23,397 Other-Municipal 3,853,000 1,330,182 1,600,000 -58.5% (2,253,000) Other-Provincial 250,000 28,013 -100.0% (250,000) Other-Federal 14,261 - Other-Donations/Fundraising 520,000 1,400,000 3,000,000 476.9% 2,480,000 Other-Non-Government Grants - Other-Internal Land Sales proceeds 599,000 379,243 508,076 -15.2% (90,924) 5,222,000 3,551,644 5,108,076 -2.2% (113,924) Capital levy Peel 1,859,000 1,859,000 1,868,000 0.5% 9,000 York 442,985 443,583 446,446 0.8% 3,461 Durham 3,994 3,774 4,455 11.5% 461 Toronto 87,000 85,583 93,000 6.9% 6,000 Adjala/Mono 21 21 23 9.5% 2 Carryforward levy-Peel 138,000 (600,732) 737,000 434.1% 599,000 York 19,000 25,531 (6,000) -131.6% (25,000) Durham Toronto Adjala/Mono Deficit/(Surplus) (300,000) (283,299) -100.0% 300,000 NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION For 2009 to 2010 and on Staff FTEs-Full-time 6.3 5.9 -6.4% -0.4 Non-F/T 5.7 9.0 58.9% 3.3 #Hecatares Land in ownership 41,300 43,993 44,500 7.7% 3,200 #Hecatares estimated to be acquired 221 507 129.4% 286 #Hecatares of Land for Peel Land Care project TBD 9,800 9,910 - 9,910 #Hecatares of Land for York Land Care project TBD 11,761 11,900 11,900 NOTES: 2012 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS(excluding inflation/COLA) 2011 carryforward resulted from a number of contracts not being completed by year end. FTE change:+3.2 NEW Land technician,Coordinator, Designers NOTES: 2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD RES.#C4/12 - 2011 YEAR END FINANCIAL PROGRESS REPORT Recommends receipt of the 2011 year end financial progress report. Moved by: Dave Ryan Seconded by: David Barrow THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) Financial Progress Report dated December 31, 2011, be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Financial Progress Report is a tool through which staff advise the Authority of the financial status of TRCA's budget. As part of the financial management process, staff provide to the Budget/Audit Advisory Board (BAAB) financial progress reports. This report covers the year ended December 31, 2011. RATIONALE Staff has included within the 2012 Operating and Capital Budget documents, 2011 actual and 2011 budget information for comparison. Staff will be working with the auditors on the 2011 financial statements in May 2012. The financial statements will be presented to BAAB at its meeting scheduled to be held on June 22, 2012. In finalizing the 2011 financial statements, the 2011 actuals may be adjusted, but not significantly. The 2011 financial performance resulted in a combined operating and capital surplus of $279,500. Separately, details for each of the operating and capital financial results are listed below. The 2011 operating results disclose a surplus of$583,500. Key factors of the variance were: Division Deficit Explanation (Surplus) $ Ecology 30,300 Operating revenue lower in 2011 due to delayed projects that will continue in 2012. Matching expenditures were mitigated where possible. Finance and Business (38,400) Interest revenue over-budget by$130,000 due to higher rates Services and cash flow. Some over-expenditures due to staff re-classifications, additional unbudgeted help in the Finance area ($60,000) and special project recoveries came under budget ($41,000). HR, Marketing and (210,900) Employee benefits rebate of$83,400 and WSIB NEER rebate of Communication $113,000 contributed to the surplus. Planning and (66,300) Legal costs were higher than anticipated but were Development predominately offset by lower hearing costs. Surplus, due to higher permit and MESP revenues than budgeted. Restoration Services (248,800) Mainly due to revenues being higher based on increased plant material sales volume while production costs remained in-line with budget. Other (49,400 Multiple accounts with minor year-end balances. Total 1 (583,500) 81 The 2011 capital budget produced a deficit of$304,000. Key factors of the variance were: Project Deficit Explanation (Surplus) $ Land Acquisition ($283,300) Proceeds from land sales. Heart Lake Pool 362,000 Funding for this project was received in 2010. Petticoat Creek Pool 319,700 Deficit to be financed in future years through admission fees, as approved by the Authority. Restoration Planting (67,200) Surplus resulting from various special purpose projects throughout the year. Various other projects (27,200) Numerous projects with minor balances remaining. Total $304,000 There are multiple capital projects for which expenditures varied from budget. Reasons include factors such as: • project completion schedules which cover multiple years; • delays in obtaining various approvals and matching funding; and • weather conditions which cause delays of in-ground work. Provision is made for the carry-forward of funding for capital works that are delayed. Capital funding is formally project specific, meaning there is less opportunity for surplus funds to accumulate for unrestricted usage. Report prepared by: Rocco Sgambelluri, extension 5232 Emails: rgambelluri@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Ralph Kofler, extension 5274, Jim Dillane, extension 6292 Emails: rkofler @trca.on.ca, jdillane @trca.on.ca Date: April 05, 2012 RES.#C5/12 - 2011 AUDIT PLANNING Initial Communication From Grant Thornton, LLP. Grant Thornton LLP, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) auditor, presents its initial communication report to the board on the 2011 TRCA financial statement audit. Moved by: Dave Ryan Seconded by: David Barrow THAT the "Report to the Budget/Audit Advisory Board - Initial Communication on Audit Planning" dated March 19, 2012, from Grant Thornton LLP, be received. CARRIED 82 BACKGROUND Grant Thornton LLP has been appointed as TRCA's auditor for 2011. Canadian Auditing Standards (CAS) require the auditor to effectively engage with staff and board members charged with governance. The attached report has been prepared by Grant Thornton to comply with CAS (Attachment 1). RATIONALE The report from Grant Thornton addresses various 2011 audit planning matters, including overall audit strategy, assumed auditor responsibilities under CAS and terms of the audit engagement. Also addressed are the auditor's approach to internal controls over financial reporting, risk assessment, materiality and fraud considerations and a variety of other issues related to the 2011 audit. The 2011 financial statements together with the auditor's report will be presented to the Budget/Audit Advisory Board and the Authority on June 22, 2012. At that time, Joanne Rogers, CA, the Grant Thornton engagement partner will be in attendance to present the auditor's report and to address any questions or concerns from the members. Should the members wish, staff would be pleased to arrange for meetings with Ms. Rogers prior to the June 22nd Authority meeting. Report prepared by: Rocco Sgambelluri, extension 5232 Emails: rsgambelluri @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Rocco Sgambelluri, extension 5232; Jim Dillane, extension 6292 Emails: rsgambelluri @trca.on.ca; jdillane @trca.on.ca Date: April 4, 2012 Attachments: 1 83 Attachment 1 GraMThornton Report to the Budget/Audit Advisory Board — Initial communication on audit p lanning Toronto and Region Conservation Authority For the year ended December 31, 2011 Andl Ih»'tl'D.ox»Adlvllmo iry a,rarrC Ili,iriikni I I..II ACaixadian x1("1111'^rar(,raid I11"wil'n Illla)rllaUailal I 84 Grant,Thornton March 19,2012 Grant Thornton LLP Suite 200 15 Allstate Parkway Markham,ON L3R 5134 T+1 416 366 0100 F+1 905 475 8906 www.GrantThornton.ca To the members of the Budget/Audit Advisory Board of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority: We are pleased to enclose our&port to the Bu(JbetlA1ydit-4drz"oly Boal-d Initial communication on alyditplanninb. The purpose of this document,and our upcoming meeting to discuss its content, is to initiate effective two way communication with you regarding our financial statement audit engagement of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (organization) for the dear ended December 31, 2011. This communication will assist the committee in understanding the terms of the audit engagement;our proposed audit strategy and the level of responsibility assumed by Grant Thornton LLP under Canadian auditing standards ((-' S). This communication has been prepared to comply with the requirements outlined in CAS 260 Communication lazth those Char,oed)),ith Gorernance. The information in this document is intended solely for the information and use of the Budget/Audit Advisory Board (herein referred to as the Audit Committee),Board of Directors and management.It is not intended to he distributed or used by anyone other than these specified parties. If you have any particular comments,concerns or additional expectations that may require us to undertake additional work over and above that which is currently contemplated,please do not hesitate to raise them at our next scheduled meeting. Yours sincerely, Grant Thornton LLP Joanne Rogers, C.A. Partner cc: Brian Denney,Chief Administration Officer Jim Dillane,Director Finance and Business Services Rocco Sgarnbelluri,Controller Audit•Tax•Advisory R grant I hointon I I II.A Cifnadlan Ilflttmhtti<f�lfflit I homton Intel national L..td V 5 Contents Page Toronto and Region Conservation Authority—Environmental scan—changes in business, regulations and standards 1 Achieving effective governance 2 Quality assurance, independence and communication 3 Our audit approach 4 Client service team 8 Audit timetable 9 Fee considerations 10 Appendix A—Accounting developments 11 Audit•Tax•Advisory R �rmnt I ho A(in I I II.A Cifnadlmn IlflHmhHi<f�1fflit I hoTCOn Intelnatlonal I td V 6 Iltclp uri to tllPmc III'lludget/ttu dliit t dviii oury III'6oaurd .Illuroiiitiiialll co1iiniiinulliroiiic atiiiolliro ouiro au dliit III IIIauirodlniiling 1i l ourolliroiio aind III'tcc iiiolliro Coinseirvatiloin ttutllPmouriiity II our tllPmc ye air eroded IIII)eccuimu1twir 31,201 1n Toronto and Region Conservation Authority— Environmental scan — changes in business, regulations and standards The following is a summary of recent changes to organization's business environment, regulatory environment in which it operates,and relev-a t accounting and auditing standards. We have considered these factors in preparing the 2011 audit plan for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. We consider all relevant factors when preparing an audit plan Organization-specific changes specifically tailored to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority ("TR(-'A") is established under the Conservation your organization Authorities Act of Ontario to further the conservation,restoration,development and management of natural resources,other than gas,oil,coal and minerals for the watersheds within its area of jurisdiction. We are not aware of any specific changes to TRCA or its operations that may impact our audit approach. Broader business environment The global economic downturn continues and it has adversely affected debt and equity markets resulting in a general weakening of the economy. Difficult economic times raise operating and financial concerns for entities coping with tighter credit markets and heightened external scrutiny. Even with some positive economic news over the past year suggesting a modest recovery is underway,major banks have been reluctant to raise interest rates significantly, suggesting that economists and policy makers around the globe remain cautious on the pace of worldwide economic recovery. These risks are taken into consideration when we plan and execute your audit. Regulatory environment We are not aware of any specific changes to TRCA's regulatory environment that may impact our audit approach. Audit•Tax•Advisory �rmnt I ho A(in I I II.A Cifnadlmn Ilflttmhtti<f�rmnt I homton lntelnatlonal L..td 87 Ilfclllpcurt to tllPmc III4uaudget/Audiiit Adviiivcrury III'6crruurd .Illinliifiiialll coiininulinliic atiiloin on audiiit Ill rlllauirodliroiiiung y t crurointo aind III'fcctiiion Ccrinseirvatiiloin Autllliloriiity II crur tllPmc your eroded III':tcccuimr1twir 311,201111 Achieving effective governance There are several fundamental components of effective governance. The Audit Committee plays a key role in achieving strong governance,particularly with respect to financial reporting. Roles in ensuring strong financial reporting The Audit Committee helps set the tone for the Role of the Audit • Help set the tone for the organization by emphasizing honesty,ethical behaviour and fraud organization by Committee prevention emphasizing honesty, • Oversee management,including ensuring that management establishes and maintains internal ethical behaviour and controls to provide reasonable assurance regarding reliability of financial reporting fraud prevention • Recommend the nomination and compensation of external auditors to the board • Directly oversee the work of the external auditors including reviewing,discussing and approving audit plan • Review and approve annual financial statements Role of • Prepare financial statements in accordance With an appropriate Financial Reporting Framework management • Design,implement and maintain effective internal controls over financial reporting processes • Exercise sound judgment in selecting and applying critical accounting principles • Safeguard assets • Prevent detect and correct errors • Provide representations to external auditors •Assess quantitative and qualitative impact of misstatements discovered during the audit on fair presentation of the financial statements. Role of Grant • Provide an audit opinion that the financial statements are in accordance with an appropriate and Thornton LLP recognized Financial Reporting Framework • Conduct our audit in accordance with Canadian Auditing Standards • Maintain independence and objectivity • Be a resource to the Audit Committee and management • Implement an effective two way communication process that reports matters of interest to the Audit Committee and obtains input from the committee on audit risk matters Audit•Tax•Advisory R R �rmntI hot A(inIIII.ACifnadlmn Ilflttmhtti(if�1"flit I homton I ntelnatlonal L..td VV Iltclp urt to tllPmc III'liudget/ttu dliit t dviilsoiry III'6craurd ....Illuroiiitiiialll coiinlinulliroiiic atiiioin oin au dliit IpIIIaui iniiling loircrllnto aind IIIlRegiiioin c inseurvatiiioin ttutlliloiriiity II oir tllPmc ye air eroded III')cccuii-Itucur 31,20111 Quality assurance, independence and communication Grant Thornton LLP has Quality assurance a robust quality control Grant Thornton LLP has a robust quality control program that forms a core part of our client service. program We combine internationally developed audit methodology,ads arced technology,rigorous review procedures,mandatory professional development requirements,and the use of specialists to deliver high quality audit services to our clients.In addition to our internal processes,we are subject to inspection and oversight by standard setting and regulatory bodies.We are proud of our firm's approach to quality assurance and would he pleased to discuss any aspect with you at your convenience. Independence We have a rigorous process where we continually monitor and maintain our independence. The process of maintaining our independence includes,but is not limited to • Identification of threats to our independence and putting into place safeguards to mitigate those threats. For example,we evaluate the independence threat of any non-audit services provided to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority; • Confirming the independence of our engagement tearn members. Communication with the Audit Committee Throughout the audit Effective and timely communication is key to quality service. In conducting our audit we will process we encourage the audit committee to communicate frequently with the audit Committee so that issues and concerns are addressed in a contact us if there are timely and productive manner.We also require the Audit Committee's input and perspective on v arious any questions or risk assessment matters such as fraud risk,compliance with laws and regulations and we welcome the concerns I � Audit Committee's view on organization's system of internal controls. We encourage the members of the Audit Committee to contact us at any time if questions or concerns arise. Audit•Tax•Advisory RA/ �rmntI hot A(inIIII.ACifnadlmn Ilflttmhtti(if�1"flit I homton I ntelnatlonal I td VV Ilt llpoit to tIIPm III'liudg t/ttu liit t dviilsoiTy III'6craurat ....Illulroiiitiiialll coiinlinulli liic atiiicrlliro croiro audit IpIIIauirodli iiiui g 4 l oiTouiro o wi d III't giiicrlliro Coiseiivatiloii ttutlliloiiiity II crux t1lile yeaiT eiided III1) c uimuJll;u ur 31,201 1i Our audit approach An understanding of your organization and your business drives the Grant Thornton LLP audit approach. The audit methodolop-is risk based and specifically tailored to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority as depicted below: � m a Risk assessment process Our tailored audit approach results in procedures designed to respond to an identified risk. The greater the risk of material misstatement associated with the account, transaction or balance,the greater audit emphasis placed in terms of audit verification and analysis. Audit•Tax•Advisory �rmnC I hont<n I I II.A Cifnadlmn Ilflatmhati<f(',lfflit I homton Intatrnatlonal L..t<I 90 Ilf lllpvurt to tllPmc III4uaudget/Audiiit Adviiivcrury III'6crruurd .Illinliifiiizlll coiininulinliic atiiloin crlin zudiiit Illplllaliniiniiiling 5 t crurointo aind III'f ctiiloin Coinscurvztiiloin Autllliloiriiity II crur tllPmc your eroded III':tcccuimr1twir 311,201111 Other communications As a result of our audit process we will communicate in our"results report"information on the following matters: • Misstatements,other than trivial errors; • Fraud; • Misstatements that may cause future financial statements to he materially misstated; • Illegal or possibly illegal acts,other than those considered inconsequential;and • Material weaknesses and significant deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting. Internal control Our audit includes gaining an understanding of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's internal control over financial reporting. Our understanding will focus on processes associated with the identified financial statement risk areas (see below). The audit team uses this understanding to determine the nature,extent and timing of our audit procedures. Our understanding may also result in valuable internal control findings for your consideration.Please note that the objectives of a financial statement audit are different from fiduciary control objectives. Therefore,management and the Audit Committee cannot rely on our findings to discharge their responsibilities in this area. Risk assessment Our risk assessment process has identified the following areas where we will focus our attention: Risk area Planned audit procedures Revenue generated from municipal levies,contracts, Obtain schedules prepared by management and test the grants and special projects various calculations and contracts through the sampling process. Subsequent collections will also be examined as part of the testing of the related)receivables. Analytical review of revenue and'various reconciliations as well as deferred revenue schedules Will be tested and analytically reviewed. Employee Compensation We will review the T4 summary`;and general ledger reconciliation for reasonableness and investigate unusual items. Payroll accruals Will be examined and both payables and compensation expenses Will be analytically reviewed. Tangible Capital Assets Examine supporting documentation for significant capital asset addition's.Ensure that assets are capitalized in the proper class and that those expenditures not capitalized have been properly considered. Operating Expenses Detailed analytical review between operating expense line items between actual to budget. Investigation of significant payables and accruals. Materiality The purpose of our audit is to provide an opinion as to whether your financial statements present fairly, in all material respects,the financial position,results of operations and cash flows in accordance with Canadian accounting standards for public sector entities as of December 31,2011. Therefore, materiality is a critical auditing concept and as such we apply it in all stages of the engagement. Audit•Tax•Advisory �rmntI hot ntonIIII.ACifnadlmn Ilflttmhtti(if�1"flit I homton I ntelnatlonal I td 91 Iltclp uri to Ulm III'liudget/ttu liit t dviilsoiry III1:4oaird ....Illmroiiitiiialll coiinlinulliroiiic atiiioin oin audliit IpIIIaui iniiling 6 loircrllnto aind IIIlRegiiioin Coinseirvatiloin ttutlliloiriiity II oir tllPmc ye air eroded III')cccuimuJll;ucur 31,201 1n Applying the concept of materiality at the planning and execution stage of the engagement recognizes that the audit team cannot verify every balance, transaction or judgment made in the financial reporting process.During audit planning,we make a preliminary assessment of materiality for purposes of developing our audit strategy,including determining the extent of our audit procedures. During the completion stage,we consider not only the quantitative assessment of materiality,but also qualitative factors,in assessing the impact on the financial statements,our audit opinion and the matters reported to the Audit Committee. Fraud considerations We are responsible for planning and performing the audit to obtain reasonable assurance as to whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement caused by error or by fraud. Our audit procedures comply with the requirements of CAS 240 Auditor's&,,pon,ibility&,1atinb to Fraud in an Audit Fraud can occur in of Pinaneial Statements. CAS 240 heightens the auditors'awareness of the potential for fraud when any organization,at Tannin and executing udits and it emphasizes the need for professional scepticism during he audit. anytime,and can I g I I I g be perpetrated by In addition, the auditing standard requires us to communicate with you on matters related to fraud anyone. including obtaining your perspective on the risk of fraud within organization and whether you are aware of or suspect any fraudulent activity.If our audit procedures identify fraud or we suspect fraud, we will report such matters to you. The following provides a summary of some of the fraud-related procedures we plan to perform during the audit: • Discuss amongst the engagement team where the financial statements may he susceptible to material misstatement due to fraud. • Gather information to identify the risks of material misstatement due to fraud,including our understanding of internal control and making detailed inquiries to senior management,internal audit and members of the Audit Committee. • Using the information gathered in our risk assessment process. Professional scepticism Professional scepticism is a questioning state of mind.We will maintain our professional scepticism throughout the audited,recognizing the possibility that a material misstatement due to fraud could exist not withstanding our past experiences with the organization or our beliefs about management's honesty and integrity. It is presumed in the evaluation of audit evidence for sufficiency and appropriateness that the we will apply professional scepticism. Specific matters that may put into question our audit evidence include the following: • Investigation of any inconsistencies and vague or implausible management responses identified in our inquiry procedures • Lack of corroboration available for managements responses • Conflicting or missing audit evidence • Indications that a document used as audit evidence may not he authentic Audit•Tax•Advisory (',rant Ihoi nt<nIIII.ACifnadlmn Ilflttmhtti(if�1"flit I homton I ntelnatlonal I td 92 Iltclllp uri to Ulm III'lludget/ttu dliit t dviilsoiry III'6craurd .Illmroiiitiiialll coiinlinulliroiiic atiiioin oin au dliit IlpIllauirodlniiling Y loircrllnto aind IIIlRegiiioin c inseurvatiiioin ttutlliloiriiity II crur tllPmc ye air eroded III')cccuimuJll;ucur 31,201 1n Client assistance and readiness Client assistance and readiness are integral to the successful meeting of our targeted report release date. As presented further below,it is also critical in meeting our agreed fee. To facilitate the communication process,we will provide management with a letter detailing expected assistance and the critical milestone dates. Deliverables We are committed to We are committed to executing our audit in a most effective,efficient and timely manner.We will executing our audit in a provide the following deliverables to the Audit Committee: most effective,efficient and timely manner • Initial communication on audit planning, • Audit report on the financial statements of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, • Communication of audit results, • Management letter that provides our observations and recommendations regarding internal controls based on matters identified during the course of our audit. Technical updates Accounting standards Accounting standards issued by the Accounting Standards Board which may affect your business for the current and future years are included in Appendix A.If you have any questions about these changes we invite you to raise them during our next meeting.We will be pleased to address your concerns. We would like to draw your attention to Section PS 3410—"Government Transfers"which will be effective for TRC A for the year ending December 31, 2013 (earlier adoption is encouraged). This section which can be applied retroactively or prospectively may have a significant impact on revenue recognition by TRC A. We will work closely with management to implement this new accounting policy. Auditing standards There have been no changes in assurance standards since we issued our report to you on June 16, 2011. Audit•Tax•Advisory �rmntI hot A(inIIII.ACifnadlmn Ilflttmhtti(if�1"flit I homton I ntelnatlonal I td 93 Ilk lllp urt to Ulm III4uaudget/Audiiit Adrriii crury III'6crruurd .Illinliitiiialll ccrumrlinulinliic atiiloin on audit Ill rlllauirodliroiiiung d t crurointo aind III't ctiiion Conseirrratiiloin Autlllmcruriiity II crur tllPmc your eroded IIII)eccuimrJll;r ur 311,201111 Client service team We have assembled a team of outstanding professionals to demonstrate our commitment to quality and service to Toronto and Region Conser-ation Authority. Engagement member Role Joanne Rogers Engagement partner �°! Colin Ryckman Audit senior manager Adam McDonald Audit senior Venita Naggea Audit Assistant Audit•Tax•Advisory �rmnC I hont<n I I II.A Cifnadlmn Ilflttmhtti<f(',lfflit I homton Intelnatlonal I t<I 94 Ili lllpourt to tllPmc III4urdget/Aurdiiit Adviiivoury III'6craurd .Illinliifiiialll co11o1uourluroiiic atiiiolin on aurdiiit IIIrIIIaui iniiling 0 l ourolinto aind III'f cliiioln Colnseirvatiiiolin Aurtlllmouriiity II our tllPmc your eroded III')cc cuioJll;r ur 011,201111 Audit timetable Week of Nov.28,2011 Audit planning December 31,2011 pate for all confirmations,including bank,accounts receivable,investments. April 13,2012 Report to the Budget/Audit Advisory Board—Initial Communication on Audit Planning provided to the Board for their review May 7-June 1,2012 `Hear-end visit June 14,2012 Preliminary clearance to be provided on draft financial statements June 22,2012 Meeting with Budget/Audit Advisory Board and presentation of Report to the Budget/Audit Advisory Board —Audit Results Presentation of draft financial statements to the Board for approval Audit•Tax•Advisory �rmnCI hot nt<nIIII.ACifnadlmn Ilflttmhtti(if�l"flit I homton I ntelnatlonal I td 95 Ilt lllpoiTt to tIIPm IIIludg t/ttu dllt t dviii airy III'6crauTd .Illulroiiitiiialll coiinlimuwiroiiic atiiicrllii aiii au dliit IlpIllauirodliiiiiuiig 10 l oiTouiro o wid IIIlRegiilaiii CaiiseiTvatiloiii ttutllilaTiiity II crux t1lile yeaiT eiiiided III1) c uimuJll;u ur 31,2011 Fee considerations Fee considerations Our audit fee is as provided in our response to your request for proposal. Upfront and periodic discussions are central to our approach in dealing with fees. Our goal is to avoid surprises by having early and frank communication. The proposed fee is based on receiving the following from management: • Draft financial statements including the notes to the financial statements, • All working papers and schedules as outlined in our requirements letter, • Trial balance together with reconciled control accounts, • All books and records made available to us when requested,and • Use of the organization's staff to help us locate information and provide explanations. Our ability to deliver the services outlined in the agreed timetable and our proposed fee will depend upon these schedules being a-ailable/tasks being completed by the due dates. If there are any variances to the above plan,we will discuss them with you and agree to any additional fees before costs are incurred,wherever possible. Any unforeseen work outside the scope of this proposal will he billed separately after discussion with management. Audit•Tax•Advisory �rmntI hot A(inIIII.ACifnadlmn Ilflttmhtti(if�l"flit I homton I ntelnatlonal I td 96 IIk IIIp urt to Ulm III4uau get/ a dliit Advilsoiry III'6craurd .Illmroiiiflalll ccrlllmrllinurlliroiiic atiiicrlliro cruiro au dliit Ill rlllauirodliroiiiung l crurcrllnto aind IIIIlegiiicrlliro Coinseirvatiloin AutIliloirlity II crur t1lile yeair einded IIII) c uimrJll;r ur 31,2011 Appendix A — Accounting developments Audit-Tax•Advisory �rmnt I hont<n I I II.A Cifnadlmn Ilflttmhtti<f Armnt I homton lntelnatlonal lI t<I 97 Ilf lllpourt to tllPmc III4urdget/Auaudiiit Adviiivoury III'6crzurd .Illinliifiiialll co11o11iourlinliicatiiiolin on aurdiiit Ill rlllauirodliroiiling 112 t ourolinto aind III'f ctiiiolln Collnseirvatiiiolin Aurtlllmouriiity II our tllPmc ycvur eroded III':tcc cuioJ1twir 311,201111 Introduction to Publillllullllc Sector Accounting(PSA)Handbook Ir The revised introduction to PSA Handbook directs the frameworks applicable to governments,government business GBEs are required to follow the timeline for enterprises(DBEs),other government organizations(OGOs) PAEs;that is,they are required to adopt IFRS for and government not-for-profit organizations(GNFPOs). fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, GBEs should apply the standards applicable to publicly 2011' accountable enterprises(PAEs). OGOs are presumed to apply GNFrPO's accounting;choice is effective for fiscal PSA Handbook but where these standards do not meet the periods beginning on or after January 1,2012. needs of the users OGO's should whether IFRS would be a Early adoption is permitted. more appropriate framework.GNFPOs have the option to apply either the CICA PSA Handbook including sections PS 4200 to PS 4270 or the CICA PSA Handbook without sections PS 4200 to PS 4270. Accounting standards that apply to GNFPOs Effective for fiscal periods beginning on or after January 1,2012, Fiscal periods beginning on or after January 1,; GFNPOs will have the option to use either the CICA PSA 2012. Handbook with sections PS 4200 to PS 4270 or without those Early adoption is permitted. sections. The new sections are as follows and apply only to GFNPOs: • PS 4200 Financial statement presentation by not-for-profit organizations; • PS 4210 Contributions—revenue recognition; • PS 4220 Contributions receivable; • PS 4230 Capital assets held by not-for-profit organizations; • PS 4240 Collections held by not-for-profit organizations; • PS 4250 Reporting controlled and related entities by not- for-profit organizations; • PS 4260 Disclosure of related party transactions by not-for- profit organizations;and • PS 4270 Disclosure of allocated expenses by not-for-profit organizations. Section PS 3450 Financial instruments,Section PS 2601 Foreign currency translation and Section PS 1201 Financial statement presentation The new requirements are all required to be Section PS 3450 Financial instruments is a new section that applied at the same time. establishes standards for recognizing and measuring financial For governments,the sections are effective for assets,financial liabilities and non-financial derivatives. fiscal years beginning on or after April 1,2015. Section PS 2601 Foreign currency translation revises and For government organizations,the sections are replaces Section PS 2600 Foreign currency translation. effective for fiscal years beginning on or after April Section PS 1201 Financial statement presentation revises and 1,20112. replaces Section PS 1200 Financial statement presentation. Earlier adoption is permitted. The issuance of these new sections also includes consequential amendments to • Introduction to accounting standards that apply only to government not-for-profit organizations • Section PS 1000 Financial statement concepts • Section PS 1100 Financial statement objectives • Section PS 2125 First-time adoption by government organizations • Section PS 2500 Basic principles of consolidation • Section PS 2510 Additional areas of consolidation • Section PS 3060 Government partnerships • Section PS 3070 Investments in government business Audit•Tax•Advisory �rmntI hot nt<nIII".AC%mnmdlmn Ilflmmhmi(if�1"flit I homton I ntmmmtlonal L..td 98 Ilfalpvurt to tllPma III4urdget/Aurdiiit Adviiiacrury III'6craurd ....Illinliifiiialll coiindlinurlinliicatiiioin on audit IpIIlauirodliroiiling 113 t crurcrlinto aind III'factiiicrlln Ccrllnseirvatiiioin Aurtlllmcruriiity II crur tllPma yaaur eroded III':tac auimrJ1twir 311,201111 IuuIIIiu1luilli rw 4 enterprises • Section PS 3230 Long-term debt • Section PS 3310 Loan guarantees • Section PS 4200 Financial statement presentation by not- for-profit organizations PSG-6 Including results of organizations and partnerships applying fair value measurement was withdrawn as a result of the issuance of these sections. Section PS 3260 Liability for contaminated sites This Section establishes the recognition criteria,measurement This section applies to fiscal years beginning on or and disclosure requirements for reporting liabilities associated after April 1,2014. with remediation of contaminated sites that either are not in use Earlier adoption is encouraged. or resulted from unexpected environmental events(such as a toxic spill or natural disaster). Section PS 3510 Tax Revenue This Section establishes standards for the recognition, This section applies to fiscal years beginning on or measurement and disclosure of tax revenue in government after April 1,'2012, financial statements. Earlier adoption is encouraged. Section PS 3410 Government Transfers,revised This Section replaces the existing Section PS 3410, This section applies to fiscal years beginning on or Government Transfers.This Section establishes standards for after April 1,'2012, recognition,presentation and disclosure for government Earlier adoption is encouraged. transfers to individuals,organizations and other governments from both a transferring government and a recipient government perspective. Withdrawal of Government assistance—Application of CICA Handbook—Accounting Section PS 3800 Withdrawal of section is effective for fiscal years The section will be removed as IFRS standard IAS 20 beginning on or after January,1,2011. Accounting for Government Grants and Disclosure of Government Assistance will be applicable to government business enterprises and other government entities choosing to apply IFRS. For those other government organizations following the PSA Handbook,there is sufficient guidance on this matter elsewhere in the Handbook. Section PS 2125 First-time adoption by government organizations This section will apply to government This Section provides guidance for organizations adopting the organization applying PSA Handbook for the first PSA Handbook for the first time.Adoption of the PSA Handbook time and is effective for fiscal years beginning on is generally applied retrospectively with the exception of certain or after January 1,2011. optional exemptions. Certain disclosures are required on adoption. Audit•Tax•Advisory grantI hot ntonIII".AC"mnadlan Il flmmhmi<f�1"flit I homton I ntmmatlonal I td 99 TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at ., on Friday, April 13, 2012. Gerri Lynn O'Connor Brian Denney Chair Secretary-Treasurer /ks 100 MEETING OF THE BUDGET/AUDIT ADVISORY BOARD #2/12 June 22, 2012 The Budget/Audit Advisory Board Meeting #2/12, was held in West Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, June 22, 2012. The Chair Gerr the meeting to order at 9:01 a.m. PRESENT Maria AugimeriMember David BarrowMember Gerri Lynn O'ConnorChair ABSENT Bob CallahanMember Dave RyanMember RES.#C6/12 - MINUTES Moved by: David Barrow Seconded by: Maria Augimeri THAT the Minutes of Meeting #1/12, held on April 13, 2012, be ap CARRIED ___________________________________ SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION RES.#C7/12 -2011 AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS The 2011 audited financial statements are recommended for approv Moved by:David Barrow Seconded by:Maria Augimeri THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the transfer of funds reserves to surplus in the amount of $295,646.00 during 2011, as to the financial statements entitled "Continuity of Reserves", b AND FURTHER THAT the 2011 audited financial statements, as prese signed by the Chair and Secretary-Treasurer of Toronto and Regio Authority (TRCA), and distributed to each member municipality an Natural Resources, in accordance with subsection 38 (3) of the C Act. CARRIED RATIONALE 2011Financial Statements The financial statements of TRCA for 2011 are presented for appr Grant Thornton LLP, has completed its audit and has included wit unqualified auditor's report. The audited financial statements the report. Grant Thornton LLP has also addressed a report to the board, ent /Audit Advisory Board - Communication of Audit Results", which is This report addresses various matters, including comments on fin misstatements, significant accounting policies, sensitive accoun As noted in the section entitled "Reportable Matters," there matters of interest to the members. were no reportable internal control findings for 2011. A representative from Grant Thornton LLP will be in attendance tor's report on the 2011 financial statements. Tangible Capital Assets Effective January 1, 2009, financial statements incorporate a ne tangible capital assets (TCA), which are in essence non-financia substance. (Excluded from the definition of TCA are a number of trademarks, patents, goodwill, etc.) Before these changes were the acquisition of TCA were expensed in the year that the assets 2009, the costs are spread (amortized) across the years that the useful life. The balance of the asset costs which have yet to be statement of financial position as non-financial assets and offs surplus" section of the same statement. As at December 31, 2011, the total book value of the tangible cap which $121.2 million has been amortized. The unamortized balanc reported in the statement of financial position as the net book Also included in Land, which is carried on the books at a cost of $333.1 million the audited financial statements is a schedule itemizing the var (page 24.) During 2011, $24.6 million in TCA were acquired and assets havin have been disposed. Highlights of the 2011 additions include: acquisition of the Bolton camp and buildings thereon (Peel) - $3 transfer of Brock North and South lands from the City of Toronto Heart Lake pool construction (Peel) - $0.6 million; Meadowcliffe Drive erosion control works (Toronto) - $2.47 milli Deer Valley erosion site (Peel) - $0.4 million; development at Tommy Thompson Park (Toronto) - $1.89 million; Mimico Park development (Toronto) - $0.56 million; Troutbrooke Drive slope stabilization (Toronto) - $0.7 million; Kortright Centre retrofit (York) - $1.2 million; Port Union Phase II park development (Toronto) - $0.7 million; Petticoat Creek pool (Durham) - $1.27 million. Financial Statement Structure The standards regarding the content and structure of the financi starting in 2009, mainly in order to accommodate tangible capita changes have moved the financial statements from a Ñmodified acc accrualÒ basis. The new standards require the following financia Operations, Changes in Net Debt and Cash Flows. The Statement of Operations reports revenues, expenses and surpl year, excluding the impact of TCA expenditures and disposals. T Position reports the financial assets and liabilities, defining organization and discloses non-financial assets and accumulated Changes in Net Debt reconciles the surplus or deficit for the pe which appears in the Statement of Financial Position. Finally, t discloses the cash inflows and outflows during the year which ar investing or capital activities. Cash-Basis Deficit Position: The "cash-basis" analysis presented below looks at available fun expenditures, the same basis upon which the annual budget is dev members. With the introduction of TCA to the financial statement this very important concept. Below is an analysis of TRCA's "ca the impacts on the accounts introduced by TCA. For the year ended December 31, 2011, revenues exceeded expendit $514,161, reducing the cumulative "cash basis" deficit from $2,3 outlined in the table below and as reported on the Schedule of A of the audited financial statement package.) Included in the cas accumulated expenditures for the Petticoat Creek Pool capital pr amount of $920,057. This amount will be "repaid" with future re pool, starting with the 2012 budget wherein $75,000 has been ear 2011, the final "installment" of $75,600 was made against $1.9 m Restoration Services Centre in Vaughan, which was substantially The chart below is a summary of the main elements of the cumula TRCA as of December 31, 2011: Amount Deficit - general operations$954,275 Portion of operating deficit attributable to RSC- Portion of operating deficit re: Petticoat Creek Pool$920,057 Cash-basis deficit, end of year$1,874,332 As demonstrated in the "Statement of Financial Position" TRCA ca ensure no borrowing is required to finance the deficit. Reserves: The status of TRCA reserves is presented on page 22 of the finan titled, "Continuity of Reserves." Some of the more significant in 2011 are as follows: Vehicle and Equipment Reserve: Recoveries from programs, usage charges, exceeded the cost of capital acquisitions and cost of operations by an amount reserve balance from $332,936 to $410,289. : The reserve balance Funds Held Under Provincial Revenue Sharing Policy Reserve decreased by $343,994, from $1,089,618 to $745,624. Note 5 to t (page 10) explains the rules which govern the use of funds in th transactions which flowed through the reserve during the year. At Authority Meeting #9/03, held on November 28, 2003, ResolutionA254/03 approved a reserves policy including the establishment of the operating con the operating contingency reserve balance has grown from $871,66 the opinion that this amount is insufficient to meet significant which could negatively impact admission and retail revenues. Gi climate and the task of eliminating the accumulated deficit, it be made in improving reserve balances sufficient to provide an a the next several years. The Authority may choose to use the existing "Operating Continge any part of the accumulated deficit. Staff is of the opinion th repayment of the deficit as part of the annual budget cycle rath funds. Summary: Significant progress was made towards the reduction of the accum TRCA continues to maintain a strong cash flow position and will cash basis deficit position and improve reserve balances in 2012 Report prepared by: Rocco Sgambelluri, extension 5232 Emails: rsgambelluri@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Rocco Sgambelluri, extension 5232; Jim Dillane, extension 6292 Emails: rsgambelluri@trca.on.ca: jdillane@trca.on.ca Date: June 14, 2011 Attachments: 2 Attachment 1 Financial Statements Toronto and Region Conservation Authority December 31, 2011 105 Contents Independent Auditor’s Report 1 - 2 Statement of Financial Position 3 Statement of Operations 4 Statement of Changes in Net Debt 5 Statement of Cash Flows 6 Notes to the Financial Statements 7 – 14 Schedule of Financial Activities – Watershed Management and Health Monitoring 15 Schedule of Financial Activities – Environmental Advisory Services 16 Schedule of Financial Activities – Watershed Stewardship 17 Schedule of Financial Activities – Conservation Land Management, Development and Acquisition 18 Schedule of Financial Activities – Conservation and Education Programming 19 Schedule of Financial Activities – Corporate Services 20 Schedule of Financial Activities – Vehicle and Equipment 21 Continuity of Reserves 22 Schedule of Accumulated Surplus 23 Schedule of Tangible Capital Assets 24 106 Audit Tax Advisory Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd Independent AuditorÔs Report Grant Thornton LLP Suite 200 15 Allstate Parkway Markham, ON L3R 5B4 T +1 416 366 0100 F +1 905 475 8906 www.GrantThornton.ca To the Members of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority We have audited the accompanying financial statements of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (ÑTRCAÒ), which comprise the statement of financial position as at December 31, 2011, and the statements of operations, changes in net debt, and cash flows for the year then ended, and a summary of significant accounting policies and other explanatory information. Management’s responsibility for the financial statements Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentat accordance with Canadian public sector accounting standards, and management determines is necessary to enable the preparation of from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error. Auditor’s responsibility Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards. Those standards require that we comply with ethical requirements and plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence in the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditorÔs judgment, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financia error. In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the entityÔs preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of effectiveness of the entityÔs internal control. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of accounting es well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. 1 107 Audit Tax Advisory Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinion. Opinion In our opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of TRCA as at December 31, 2011, and the results of its operations, changes in net debt, and its cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with Canadian public sector accounting standards. Other matter Without modifying our report we draw attention to the budget fig comparative purposes only. They have not been subject to audit procedures. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the budget figures. Markham, Canada June 22, 2012 Chartered Accountants Licensed Public Accountants 2 108 Audit Tax Advisory Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd December 31 2010 Cash and cash equivalents (Note 3) $ 9,680,564 Marketable securities (Note 2) 13,809,132 Receivables (Note 4) 12,440,449 35,930,145 Payables and accruals 11,880,535 Deferred revenue Municipal levies 9,483,983 Capital, special projects and other 14,533,481 Vacation pay and sick leave entitlements 1,880,611 37,778,610 (1,848,465) Inventory 488,353 Prepaids 245,711 402,233,964 Tangible capital assets (Page 24) 402,968,028 $ 401,119,563 Contingent liabilities and commitments (Note 7) On behalf of TRCA Chair Secretary-Treasurer See accompanying notes to the financial statements. 3 109 Year Ended December 31 2011 2010 Budget Actual (unaudited) Municipal Levies - Operating $ 11,724,000 $ 11,532,985 - Capital 35,017,260 19,023,309 Other 5,878,000 9,512,054 Government grants MNR transfer payments 846,000 845,753 Provincial - other 7,071,400 6,102,964 Federal 2,888,600 2,533,796 User fees, sales and admissions 15,390,000 13,834,661 Investment income 340,000 321,342 Proceeds from sale of properties 699,000 3,806,025 The Living City Foundation 1,205,000 1,233,689 Donations and fundraising 1,049,000 478,058 Facility and property rentals 2,414,000 2,787,019 Canada Post Corporation agreement 665,000 8,868 Waterfront Toronto 10,381,000 6,796,768 Corporate and Community Groups 2,144,000 1,145,918 Contract services 7,873,000 9,134,950 Sales and property tax refunds 135,000 289,272 Compensation agreements 734,000 674,440 16,779 Sundry 1,300 106,455,560 90,078,650 Less: cost of sales of tangible capital assets included above - (363,653) 106,455,560 89,714,997 Watershed management and health monitoring 14,281,000 12,273,577 Environmental advisory services 5,144,000 4,525,335 Watershed stewardship 28,577,260 18,902,434 Conservation land management, development and acquisition 32,784,000 28,141,902 Conservation and education programming 19,164,300 17,745,867 Corporate services 7,759,000 6,428,272 145,580 Vehicle and equipment, net of usage charged - 107,709,560 88,162,967 Less the following included in expenditures: Tangible capital asset expenditures - (20,817,231) Contributed tangible capital assets - (1,123,586) Expenditures before amortization 107,709,560 66,222,150 Amortization - 5,902,164 107,709,560 72,124,314 $ (1,254,000) $ 17,590,683 See accompanying notes to the financial statements. 4 110 Year Ended December 31 2010 Annual surplus for the year $ 17,590,683 Acquisition of tangible capital assets (20,817,231) Contributed tangible capital assets (1,123,586) Cost of sales of tangible capital assets 363,653 Amortization 5,902,164 Change in inventory (8,704) Change in prepaids (35,997) Decrease in net debt in the year 1,870,982 Net debt, beginning of year (3,719,447) Net debt, end of year $ (1,848,465) See accompanying notes to the financial statements. 5 111 Year Ended December 31 2010 Surplus for the year $ 17,590,683 Non-cash charge to operations Amortization 5,902,164 Gain on disposal of tangible capital assets (71,664) Contributed tangible capital assets (1,123,586) Write off of tangible capital assets 48,017 Decrease in receivables 10,435 Increase in interest receivable (50,598) Decrease (increase) in inventory (8,704) Decrease (increase) in prepaids (35,997) Increase in payables and accruals 1,998,822 Increase in deferred revenue 1,246,029 Decrease in vacation pay and sick leave (55,125) entitlements 25,450,476 Investing Proceeds on maturities of marketable securities 12,500,000 Purchase of marketable securities (12,059,045) 440,955 Capital Proceeds on disposal of tangible capital assets 387,300 Purchase of tangible capital assets (20,817,231) (20,429,931) Net increase in cash and cash equivalents 5,461,500 Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of year 4,219,064 Cash and cash equivalents, end of year $ 9,680,564 See accompanying notes to the financial statements. 6 112 December 31, 2011 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (“TRCA”) is established under the Conservation Authorities Act of Ontario to further the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources, other than gas, oil, coal and minerals for the nine watersheds within its area of jurisdiction. TRCA’s area of jurisdiction includes areas in the City of Toronto, the Regions of Durham, Peel and York, and the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio and Town of Mono. The financial statements of TRCA are prepared by management in accordance with Canadian generally accepted accounting principles for organizations operating in the local government sector as recommended by the Public Sector Accounting Board of The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. Significant aspects of the accounting policies adopted by TRCA are as follows: Revenue and expenditures are recorded on the accrual basis, whereby they are reflected in the accounts in the year in which they have been earned and incurred, respectively, whether or not such transactions have been settled by the receipt or payment of money. Tangible capital assets are recorded at cost which includes all amounts directly attributable to acquisition, construction development or betterment of the asset. Contributed tangible capital assets are recorded at fair market value at the date of contribution. Amortization is provided on a straight-line basis over the estimated useful life for all assets except Land which is not amortized. Work in progress assets are not amortized until the asset is put into service. One-half of the annual amortization is charged in the year of acquisition and in the year of disposal. Assets under construction are not amortized until the asset is available for productive use. Tangible capital assets received as contributions are recorded at their fair value at the date of receipt and also are recorded as revenue. TRCA has a collection of art and historical buildings not included as a part of the tangible capital asset balance. Service life of tangible capital assets is as follows: Land improvements 20-40 years Buildings and building Improvements 10-55 years Machinery and equipment 5-12 years Vehicles 6-25 years Infrastructure 10-50 years 7 113 December 31, 2011 TRCA considers deposits in banks, certificates of deposit and short term investments with original maturities of 90 days or less as cash and cash equivalents. Marketable securities consist of Guaranteed Investment Certificates and bonds. These investments are carried at cost. Investment income is recognized when earned. The fair market value of the marketable securities at December 31, 2011 is $17,915,571 (2010 - $13,834,848). Reserves for future expenditures and contingencies are established as required at the discretion of the members of the Authority. Increases or decreases in these reserves are made by appropriations to or from operations. Government transfers are recognized in the financial statements as revenue in the period in which events giving rise to the transfer occur, providing the transfers are authorized, any eligibility criteria have been met and reasonable estimates of the amounts can be made. User charges and fees are recognized as revenue in the period in which the related services are performed. TRCA receives certain amounts principally from other public sector bodies, the proceeds of which may only be used in the conduct of certain programs or completion of specific work. Further, certain user charges and fees are collected but for which the related services have yet to be performed. These amounts are recognized as revenue when the related expenditures are incurred or services performed. Inventories of goods for resale are valued at the lower of cost and net realizable value. Nursery inventory is valued at the lower of cost and replacement value. Cost is determined on a first-in, first out basis. 8 114 December 31, 2011 The preparation of financial statements requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenue and expenditures during the year. Actual results could differ from those estimates. Vacation credits earned but not taken and sick leave entitlements are accrued as earned. Donated capital assets are recorded at fair value when fair value can be reasonably estimated. Donated materials and services are not recorded. Volunteers contribute significant time to the governance and delivery of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority programs. Due to the difficulty in determining the fair value of these contributions, contributed services are not recognized in the financial statements. Cash and cash equivalents comprise of the following: 2010 Cash $ 7,467,651 2,733,744 Restricted Cash – Source Water Protection 10,201,395 Rouge Park Alliance (332,112) Greater Toronto Area Agricultural Action Committee (188,719) $ 9,680,564 The trust funds are funds administered by TRCA on behalf of the organizations above. These funds are held in trust by TRCA for the benefit of others and therefore are not presented as part of TRCA’s financial position or financial activities. The restricted cash is related to the funds set aside to fund a specific program. 9 115 December 31, 2011 2010 Waterfront Toronto $ 1,538,059 City of Toronto 3,712,245 Regional Municipality of York 739,436 Regional Municipality of Peel 92,708 The Living City Foundation 383,995 Government of Canada 1,210,555 Province of Ontario 1,531,281 Interest receivable 6,360 Municipal levies 239,640 Trade and other 2,986,170 $ 12,440,449 Revenue generated from the sale of properties may be held in a reserve created under the Ministry of Natural Resources’ policy for the disposition of TRCA-owned properties. The Ministry reserves the right to direct the purpose to which the provincial share of funds may be applied or to request a refund. The proceeds on the sale of properties are attributed to the province and the member municipalities on the basis of their original contribution when the properties were acquired. The reserve balance must always be maintained in proportion to the original contribution by the province and TRCA, represented by the member municipalities. TRCA is permitted to withdraw the municipal share of the reserve provided that the corresponding provincial share is either matched by other sources of funding or returned to the province. Interest at prevailing market rates must be imputed on the unspent balance (if any) of the reserve. The changes of the reserve in 2011 and 2010 are based upon the following transactions recorded in operations: 2010 Reserve balance, beginning of year $ 21,173 Net proceeds from sale of properties 3,806,025 Interest 5,914 Applications: Greenspace acquisition project (781,005) Revised Project for the Etobicoke Motel Strip (1,962,489) Reserve balance, end of year $ 1,089,618 10 116 December 31, 2011 TRCA makes contributions to the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System (“OMERS”), which is a multi-employer plan, on behalf of full-time members of staff and eligible part-time staff. The plan is a defined benefit pension plan, which specifies the amount of the retirement benefit to be received by the employees based on the length of service and rates of pay. Contributions made by TRCA to OMERS for 2011 were $2,277,047 (2010 - $1,916,166). (a) Legal actions and claims: TRCA has received statements of claim as defendant under various legal actions resulting from its involvement in land purchases, fatalities, personal injuries and flooding on or adjacent to its properties. TRCA maintains insurance coverage against such risks and has notified its insurers of the legal actions and claims. It is not possible at this time to determine the outcome of these claims and, therefore, no provision has been made in these financial statements. (b) As part of some agreements entered into by TRCA, sites purchased are required to be remediated. Any unpaid costs associated with these activities have not been reflected in these financial statements as any costs would be reimbursed through contributions as required under the agreements. (c) The TRCA has completed the acquisition of lands required to undertake various projects. There are 3 recent projects where TRCA has acquired lands under the Expropriations Act. The first project is the Revised Project for the Etobicoke Motel Strip. Properties required for this project were obtained through expropriation from five owners. Funding was obtained from the City of Etobicoke and the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto (now collectively known as the City of Toronto) and the Province of Ontario. To date four of the expropriations have been settled. The second project is the Port Union Improvement Project. This project is funded by the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation. One property was expropriated for this project and one property was acquired under Section 30 of the Expropriations Act which allows the owner to consent to the acquisition but still arbitrate the compensation. The expropriation has been settled. The compensation for the property acquired under Section 30 is still outstanding. The third project is the Mimico Waterfront Linear Park Project. This project is funded by the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation. One property was expropriated for this project and one property was acquired under Section 30 of the Expropriations Act. Both the expropriation and compensation for the property acquired under Section 30 are still outstanding. 11 117 December 31, 2011 (d) Lease commitments TRCA has entered into agreements to lease premises and equipment for various periods until 2015. Minimum lease payments in aggregate for each of the next four years are as follows: 2012$ 361,259 2013$ 333,747 2014$ 201,803 2015$ 6,160 (e) Loan guarantee TRCA and City of Toronto have jointly and severally provided a loan guarantee in the amount of $7.5 million to the Evergreen Foundation for the Don Valley Brick Works restoration project. The lease agreement for the Brick Works was signed in January, 2008. In December 2008, TRCA Executive Committee recommended to the Authority that TRCA approve a lease amending agreement with Evergreen and the City of Toronto that provided for extensions to some dates for completion of conditions under the lease, granted subsurface rights to Evergreen, reduce the maximum price of construction contracts and authorized TRCA staff to negotiate or settle terms of financing arrangements, including the requirement for a $500,000 deposit to be held by the City of Toronto, on behalf of the City and TRCA. This resolution was approved by the Authority on January 9, 2009. As of December 31, 2011, Evergreen had received advances in the amount of $8.8 million ($8.7 million as of Dec. 31, 2010) from its financing institutional lender. TRCA is related to The Living City Foundation (“LCF”), a public foundation that raises funds to support projects of TRCA. TRCA does not exercise control or significant influence over the LCF; consequently, the financial statements do not include the assets, liabilities and activities of the LCF. In addition, staff of the LCF are employees of TRCA. Payroll costs for these employees in the amount of $298,218 (2010 - $303,226) are fully recovered from LCF. The financial statements include LCF grants in support of projects in the amount of $1,583,368 (2010 -$1,233,689.) At the end of the year, the LCF was indebted to TRCA in the amount of $1,044,552 (2010 - $383,995.). 12 118 December 31, 2011 Certain allocation methodologies are employed in the preparation of segmented financial information. Government grants, user charges, transfers from other funds, and other revenues are allocated to the specific program or service they relate to. Expense allocations are both internal and external. Activity based costing is used to allocate internal support costs to departments. These costs include the net expenditures for departments, such as human resources, information systems, finance and others, commonly referred to as overhead. TRCA segments its activities into six main program areas which are reported in the accompanying supplementary schedules to the financial statements. Watershed management and health monitoring program costs and revenues are those required to develop the framework and management strategy to provide a rational approach to natural systems protection, restoration and use. The main activities included in this segment are watershed and sub watershed plans, resource inventory and environmental monitoring, flood protection services and source water protection. Environmental advisory services includes costs and revenues associated with the approval of development applications or rendering of opinions on the impact of development applications on natural hazards, natural heritage resources and water resources as provided under provincial legislation which includes the Planning Act, Conservation Authorities Act and the Environmental Assessment Act. The watershed stewardship program costs and revenues are those associated with providing service and assistance to private and public landowners on sound environmental practices that will enhance, restore or protect lands and natural features. This category includes activities such as fisheries rehabilitation, tree planting and reforestation, wildlife habitat improvements, management plans, agricultural best practices and erosion control services. The conservation land management schedule includes all expenses and revenues associated with lands, improvements, buildings and structures owned or by TRCA. It does not include active programming on Authority lands. The conservation and education program area includes costs and revenues associated with the delivery of recreational and educational programming. 13 119 December 31, 2011 Corporate services includes management and non-program specific costs and revenues. These include internal support service costs such as senior management costs, board costs, office services, financial services, human resources, information technology and corporate communications. The 2011 budget figures included in these financial statements are those adopted by TRCA on April 29, 2011. Certain comparative figures have been reclassified to conform with the financial statement presentation adopted in the year. 14 120 Year Ended December 31 2011 2010 Budget Actual (unaudited) Municipal Levies - Operating $ 2,012,000 $ 2,198,000 - Capital 5,828,000 4,290,367 Other 97,000 15,297 Government grants MNR transfer payments 634,000 634,000 Provincial – other 3,056,900 2,761,889 Federal 303,100 105,743 User fees, sales and admissions 53,000 71,526 Contract services 334,000 582,704 Interest - 20,696 The Living City Foundation 174,000 92,285 Waterfront Toronto 622,000 1,199,037 Compensation agreements 33,000 19,896 Donations and fundraising 425,000 425,000 Corporate and community groups 689,000 50,239 Sundry - 10,670 14,261,000 12,477,349 Watershed strategies 1,580,000 1,510,666 Resource inventory and environmental monitoring 1,186,000 1,225,248 Flood forecasting and warning 346,000 311,001 Flood control structures, operations and maintenance 313,000 279,769 3,425,000 3,326,684 Capital and other projects and studies Source Water Protection 2,403,000 2,424,462 Regional monitoring study and other monitoring projects 1,612,000 1,262,207 Water management projects 2,925,000 1,424,300 Lower Don flood control 622,000 1,284,447 Terrestrial Natural Heritage study 663,000 476,327 Floodplain mapping 326,000 300,098 Groundwater strategies 604,000 607,150 Other flood control projects 1,701,000 1,175,687 Decrease in vacation pay and sick leave entitlements - (7,785) 14,281,000 12,273,577 Less: expenditures on tangible capital assets included above - (232,747) Expenditures before amortization 14,281,000 12,040,830 Amortization - 420,764 - 12,461,594 $ (20,000) $ 15,755 15 121 Year Ended December 31 2011 2010 Budget Actual (unaudited) Municipal Levies - Operating $ 313,500 $ 314,247 - Capital 290,000 280,000 Other 896,000 835,381 Government grants MNR transfer payments 105,500 104,753 Development services fees 3,539,000 3,342,146 Sundry - 6,850 5,144,000 4,883,377 Municipal/public plan input and review 2,358,000 2,004,775 Development plan input and review 2,786,000 2,523,430 Decrease in vacation pay and sick leave entitlements - (2,870) 5,144,000 4,525,335 Less: expenditures on tangible capital assets - (4,995) included above Expenditures before amortization 5,144,000 4,520,340 Amortization - 6,385 4,526,725 5,144,000 Surplus for the year $ - $ 356,652 16 122 Year Ended December 31 2011 2010 Budget Actual (unaudited) Municipal Levies $ 234,000 289,000 - Capital 17,544,260 8,221,658 Other 432,000 953,061 Government grants Provincial – other 716,500 706,872 Federal 820,500 846,076 Contract services 7,487,000 8,318,362 User fees, sales and admissions 95,000 138,339 Compensation Agreements 591,000 10,833 Interest - 216 The Living City Foundation 200,000 130,121 Corporate and community groups 457,000 197,200 28,577,260 19,811,738 Less: cost of sales of tangible capital assets included above - (144) 28,577,260 19,811,882 Watershed stewardship 1,145,000 1,251,090 Capital and other projects and studies Erosion control and slope stabilization projects in Toronto 8,250,000 4,847,113 Erosion control – Peel and York Regions 503,000 304,715 Regeneration Projects 9,171,000 7,012,893 Sustainable technology evaluation 1,294,000 836,686 Pan- Am Games Equestrian Facility 330,260 28,582 Nursery workshop & office - 29,177 Peel climate change mitigation 7,884,000 4,604,167 Decrease in vacation pay and (11,989) sick leave entitlements - 28,577,260 18,902,434 Less: expenditures on tangible capital assets included above - (1,094,989) Expenditure before amortization 28,577,260 17,807,445 Amortization - 630,525 28,577,260 18,437,970 Surplus for the year $ - $ 1,373,624 17 123 Year Ended December 31 2011 2010 Budget Actual (unaudited) Municipal Levies - Operating $ 1,088,000 $ 1,096,000 - Capital 7,946,000 4,336,902 Other 4,133,000 7,523,074 Government grants Provincial – other 1,798,000 968,657 Federal 1,716,000 1,313,494 Contracted services 50,000 223,667 Rental properties 2,414,000 2,735,339 Interest - 7,229 User fees, sales and admissions - 21,525 Proceeds from sale of properties 699,000 3,806,025 The Living City Foundation 223,000 221,018 Waterfront Toronto 9,759,000 5,597,731 Donations and fundraising 520,000 21,625 Canada Post Corporation agreement 665,000 8,868 Compensation agreements 110,000 643,711 Sales and property tax refunds 20,000 38,672 Corporate and community groups 80,000 549,876 Sundry - - 31,221,000 29,113,413 Less: cost of sales of tangible capital assets included above - (61,143) 31,221,000 29,052,270 Conservation land management Property services 1,754,000 1,738,273 CA land management 329,000 124,799 Rental properties 1,888,000 2,082,809 3,971,000 3,945,881 Capital and other projects and studies Greenspace acquisition 4,500,000 9,983,720 Waterfront development 3,655,000 1,807,548 Waterfront – Land portion 500,000 63,266 Waterfront Toronto 9,677,000 5,495,453 Etobicoke Motel Strip waterfront project 100,000 738,956 Conservation area development 334,000 316,583 Living City Centre at Kortright – infrastructure 1,217,000 274,423 Peel campground improvements 808,000 410,296 Petticoat Creek and Heart Lake CA pools 4,600,000 2,438,468 Black Creek Pioneer Village retrofit / attractions project 671,000 499,566 Land Care Projects 2,472,000 2,060,380 ORC housing stock repairs - 24,297 ORM Corridor Park development 279,000 100,215 Decrease in vacation pay and sick leave entitlements - (17,150) 32,784,000 28,141,902 Less the following included in expenditures: Tangible capital asset expenditures - (18,214,728) Contributed tangible capital assets - (1,123,586) Expenditures before amortization 32,784,000 8,803,588 Amortization - 3,488,870 32,784,000 12,292,458 $ (1,563,000) $ 16,759,812 18 124 Year Ended December 31 2011 2010 Budget Actual (unaudited) Municipal Levies - Operating $ 3,229,000 $ 3,046,738 - Capital 1,848,000 1,236,515 Other 320,000 185,241 Government grants Provincial – other 785,000 1,084,818 Federal 37,000 242,623 Contracted services 2,000 3,367 Conservation areas 3,540,800 2,934,872 Black Creek Pioneer Village 3,036,700 2,825,525 Kortright Centre 1,070,800 1,039,974 Living City Centre Programs 678,000 717,019 ORM Park Operation 1,267,000 1,129,308 Conservation Field Centres 1,798,700 1,368,275 Community Transformation Partnerships 245,000 193,646 Corporate Education Outreach 4,000 6,088 Rentals - 22,246 The Living City Foundation 608,000 787,265 Donations and fundraising 104,000 31,433 Sundry 1,300 4,940 348,603 Corporate and community groups 918,000 19,493,300 17,208,496 Less: cost of sales of tangible capital assets included above - (1,921) 19,493,300 17,206,575 Conservation land programming Conservation areas 3,174,800 2,927,411 ORM Park Operation 1,371,000 1,331,081 Conservation/Heritage education Black Creek Pioneer Village 5,039,000 5,153,169 Kortright Centre for Conservation 1,220,800 1,399,741 Living City Centre Programs 691,000 607,333 Community Transformation Partnership 1,831,000 950,617 Conservation Field Centres 2,517,600 2,271,853 Education Outreach 2,167,000 1,903,136 Conservation Education Management 396,100 367,714 Program support and marketing 756,000 845,066 Decrease in vacation pay and (11,254) sick leave entitlements - 19,164,300 17,745,867 Less: expenditures on tangible capital assets included above - (220,164) Expenditures before amortization 19,164,300 17,525,703 Amortization - 644,127 18,169,830 19,164,300 $ 329,000 $ (963,255) 19 125 Year Ended December 31 2011 2010 Budget Actual (unaudited) Municipal: Levies - Operating $ 4,847,500 $ 4,589,000 - Capital 1,561,000 657,867 Government grants MNR transfer payments 106,500 107,000 Provincial – other 715,000 580,728 Federal 12,000 25,860 Interest 340,000 293,201 Retail Sales 62,000 46,418 Rentals - 29,434 The Living City Foundation - 3,000 Sales and property tax rebate 115,000 250,600 1,169 Sundry - 7,759,000 6,584,277 Less: cost of sales of tangible capital assets included above - (296,942) 7,759,000 6,287,335 Corporate management 1,516,000 1,342,683 Office services 1,460,000 1,419,925 Financial services 1,240,000 1,188,227 Human resources 529,000 517,571 Information technology 1,238,000 1,144,532 Corporate communications 1,331,000 1,230,618 Professional Access Program 763,000 618,093 Increase (decrease) in vacation pay and sick leave entitlements - (4,077) Recoveries from Programs (1,879,000) (1,687,167) 6,198,000 5,770,405 Capital and other projects and studies Administrative office 984,000 230,017 Information Technology acquisition project 577,000 427,850 7,759,000 6,428,272 Less: expenditures on tangible capital assets included above - (340,896) Expenditures before amortization 7,759,000 6,087,376 247,453 Amortization - 7,759,000 6,334,829 $ - $ (47,494) 20 126 Year Ended December 31 2011 2010 Budget Actual (unaudited) Recovery of expenditures by charges Based on usage $ 1,178,000 $ 1,251,362 Operations Fuel, maintenance and repairs 643,000 656,442 Other overhead 55,000 57,699 698,000 714,141 Capital Purchase of equipment and machinery 195,000 394,663 Purchase of vehicles 300,000 316,873 Proceeds on disposals or trade-in (15,000) (28,735) 1,178,000 1,396,942 - (145,580) Add: expenditures on capital assets included above - 708,712 Less: cost of sales of tangible capital assets - (3,503) included above (464,040) Less: amortization - $ - $ 95,589 21 127 Year Ended December 31, 2011 Vehicle and equipment $ 332,936 $ 77,353 Tree donation program 12,280 56 Operating contingency 1,719,869 (29,061) Funds held under provincial revenue sharing policy (Note 5) 1,089,618 (343,994) $ 3,154,703 $ (295,646) 22 128 Year Ended December 31, 2011 2010 Actual Accumulated surplus, beginning of year $ 383,528,880 17,590,683 Surplus for the year Accumulated surplus, end of year $ 401,119,563 Accumulated Surplus consists of: Tangible capital assets $ 402,233,964 Reserves (Page 22) 3,154,703 Operating deficit (2,388,493) (1,880,611) Amount to be funded in future periods $ 401,119,563 23 129 130 Attachment 2 Report to the Budget/Audit Advisory Board - Communication of audit results For the year ended December 31, 2011 131 June 14, 2012 Grant Thornton LLP Suite 200 15 Allstate Parkway Markham, ON L3R 5B4 T +1 416 366 0100 F +1 905 475 8906 www.GrantThornton.ca To the members of the Budget/Audit Advisory Board of Toronto and Authority: We are pleased to report that we have now substantially complete statements of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for the 2011. We enclose our Report to the audit committee Ï communication of audit results to continue our dialogue with you regarding our financial statement audit. This report provides an overview of the results of our audit including comments on misstatements, si sensitive accounting estimates, and other matters that may be of This communication has been prepared to comply with the requirements outlined in CAS 260 Communication with those Charged with Governance. Budget/Audit Advisory Board (herein referred to as the Audit Committee), Board of Directors and management. I distributed or used by anyone other than these specified parties. We express our appreciation for the cooperation and assistance received from the management and staff of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority during th If you have any particular comments or concerns, please do not h scheduled meeting. Yours sincerely, Grant Thornton LLP Joanne Rogers, C.A. Partner cc: Brian Denney, Chief Administration Officer James Dillane, Director Finance and Business Services Rocco Sgambelluri, Controller 132 © Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International. All rights reserved. Contents Status of the audit 1 Audit results 2 Reportable matters 3 Appendix A – Draft Independent Auditor’s Report 5 Appendix B – Draft Management representation letter 8 Appendix C – Letter of independence 14 CONFIDENTIAL 133 © Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International. All rights reserved. Status of the audit We have substantially completed our audit of the financial state Conservation Authority for the year ended December 31, 2011 and the results of that audit are incl in this report. The following items were outstanding as at the date of this repo Completion of quality control reviews; Receipt and evaluation of legal letter confirmations and updates Gardiner Roberts; Chappell, Bushell, Steward LLP Barristers & Solicitors; Aird & Berlis LLP Barristers & Solicitors; Willms & Shier Environmental Lawyers LLP; Ritchie, Ketcheson, Hart & Biggart LLP Barristers, Solicitors, N Receipt of signed management representation letter (draft has be Inquiries regarding subsequent events; and Approval of the financial statements by the Board of Directors. CONFIDENTIAL 134 © Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International. All rights reserved. Audit results Our audit identified the unadjusted non-trivial misstatements noted below. Summary of misstatements Non-trivial misstatements noted during the course of our audit but not adjusted in the financial statements were as follows: To adjust for invoices in accounts receivable that were reversed after year-end $ 79,666 $ - $ - $ 79,666 Reversal of prior year unadjusted misstatement-- 40,021 (40,021) We have discussed the unadjusted misstatements with management and requested that the identified amounts be adjusted. The amounts have not been adjusted because these unadjusted misstatements are not material to the financial statements of Toronto and Region C approval from the Budget / Audit Advisory Board, we are willing to accept managementÔs position. Summary of disclosure matters The following is a description of disclosure adjustments made by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority as a result of the audit of the financial statements: Disclosure of the amount of contributed assets recognized at their fair value during the year and recognition of these transactions as non-cash in the stateme Disclosure of the nature and amount of related party transaction Foundation. CONFIDENTIAL 135 © Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International. All rights reserved. Reportable matters Internal control Management is responsible for the design and operation of an effective system of internal control th provides reasonable assurance that the accounting system provides timely, accurate and reliable financial information, and safeguards the assets of the entity. The audit is designed to express an opinion on the financial statements. Our understanding of internal control is sufficient to enable us to plan the audit and to dete tests to be performed. However, if we become aware of a deficiency in your internal controls system auditing standards requires us to communicate to the audit committee those deficiencies we consider significant or material. A financial statement audit is not desi control. During the course of performing our audit, we did not identify a internal control. Significant new accounting policies There were no significant new accounting policies noted in the y Significant transactions There were no significant transactions identified during the cou Risk assessment Our initial communication on audit planning identified the following risk areas. There have been no changes to these risks areas and no additional risk areas were identified. Our audit results on these risk areas are described below: Revenue generated from We obtained schedules prepared by Results of procedures were appropriate. municipal levies, contracts, management and tested the various calculations grants and special projectsand contracts through the sampling process. Subsequent collections were also examined as part of the testing of the related receivables. nalytical review of revenue and various A reconciliations as well as deferred revenue schedules were tested and analytically reviewed. CONFIDENTIAL 136 © Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International. All rights reserved. Employee Compensation We reviewed the T4 summary reconciliation to Results of procedures were appropriate . the general ledger. We performed analytical review procedures on compensation expense and investigated significant variances reasonableness. Payroll accruals were tested for completeness. Tangible Capital Assets We examined supporting documentation for Results of procedures were appropriate significant capital asset additions. Ensured that assets were capitalized in the proper class and that those expenditures not capitalized were properly considered. Operating Expenses We performed a detailed analytical review Results of procedures were appropriate. between operating expense line items comparing actual to budget and actual to prior year, corroborating explanations for significant variances. We tested disbursements subsequent to year- end to determine the reasonableness of accounts payables and accruals. Sensitive accounting estimates and disclosures During the course of our audit, we noted the following sensitive Management’s estimation rea uditor’s comments AA process/disclosure llowance for doubtful accounts Management has reviewed We reviewed management’s estimate and A receivable.receivables and determined that an reviewed the age of receivables and allowance for doubtful accounts in subsequent collections in 2012. We agreed the amount of $21,233 is with management’s assessment of the appropriate. adequacy of the allowance. Contributed assets recorded at fair Management obtains appraisal On a test basis we reviewed the appraisal valuereports to support the fair values reports supporting the additions tested. The assigned to contributed property. amounts recorded for contributed assets were derived from the valuation reports. Cooperation during the audit We report that we received full cooperation from management and Region Conservation Authority. To our knowledge, we were provide and other documentation and any issues that arose as a result of our audit were discussed with management and have been resolved to our satisfaction. Consultations with other accountants To our knowledge, management did not seek the advice or opinion financial reporting or accounting matters. Fraud and illegal acts Our inquiries of management did not reveal any fraud or illegal acts. CONFIDENTIAL 137 © Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International. All rights reserved. Appendix A Ï Draft Independent AuditorÔs Report CONFIDENTIAL 138 © Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International. All rights reserved. Independent AuditorÔs Report Grant Thornton LLP Suite 200 15 Allstate Parkway Markham, ON L3R 5B4 T (416) 366-0100 F (905) 475-8906 www.GrantThornton.ca To the Members of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority We have audited the accompanying financial statements of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (ÑTRCAÒ), which comprise the statement of financial position as at December 31, 2011, and the statements of operations, changes in net debt, and cash a summary of significant accounting policies and other explanato. Management’s responsibility for the financial statements Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentat in accordance with Canadian public sector accounting standards, and for such internal control as management determines is necessary to enable the preparation of from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error. Auditor’s responsibility Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with Canadian generally accept standards require that we comply with ethical requirements and p obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statemen misstatement. An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditorÔs judgment, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the aud relevant to the entityÔs preparation and fair presentation of th design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entityÔs internal control. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and t estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall statements. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficien for our audit opinion. 139 © Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International. All rights reserved. Opinion In our opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all of TRCA as at December 31, 2011, and the results of its operatio cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with Canadian public sector accounting standards. Other matter Without modifying our report we draw attention to the budget figures which are provided for comparative purposes only. They have not been subject to audit procedures. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the budget figures. Markham, Canada Chartered Accountants June 22, 2012 Licensed Public Accountants CONFIDENTIAL 140 © Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International. All rights reserved. Appendix B Ï Draft Management representation letter CONFIDENTIAL 141 © Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International. All rights reserved. June 22, 2012 Grant Thornton LLP 15 Allstate Parkway, Suite 200 Markham, Ontario L3R 5B4 Dear Sir/Madam: We are providing this letter in connection with your audit of th Region Conservation Authority as of December 31, 2011, and for the year then ended, for the purpose of expressing an opinion as to whether the financial statements the financial position, results of operations, changes in net de Conservation Authority in accordance with Canadian public sector accounting standards. We acknowledge that we have fulfilled our responsibilities for the preparation of the financial statements in accordance with Canadian public sector accounting standards and for the design and implementation of internal controls to prevent and detect fraud that the financial statements may be materially misstated as a result of fraud, and have determined s risk to be low. Further, we acknowledge that your examination w accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards (GAAS) so as to enable you to express an opinion on the financial statements. We understand that whil of the accounting system, internal controls and related data to the circumstances, it is not designed to identify, nor can it necessarily be expected to disclose, fraud, shortages, errors and other irregularities, should any exist. Certain representations in this letter are described as being li is considered material, regardless of its monetary value, if it is probable that its omission from or misstatement in the financial statements would influence the dec the financial statements. We confirm, to the best of our knowledge and belief, as of June 22, 2012, the following representations made to you during your audit. Financial statements 1The financial statements referred to above present fairly, in al position of the entity as at December 31, 2011 and the results of its operations, changes in net debt and its cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with Canadian public sector accounting standards, as agreed to in the terms of the audit engagement. CONFIDENTIAL 142 © Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International. All rights reserved. Completeness of information 2We have made available to you all financial records and related of directors, and committees of directors, as agreed in the terms of the audit engagement. Summaries of actions of recent meetings for which minutes have n provided to you. All significant board and committee actions are included in the summaries. 3There are no material transactions that have not been properly recorded in the accounting records underlying the financial statements. The reclassification entries which have been proposed by you are approved by us and will be recorded on the books of the enti 4There were no restatements made to correct a material misstateme statements that affect the comparative information. 5We are unaware of any known or probable instances of non-complia regulatory or governmental authorities, including their financial reporting requirements. 6We are unaware of any violations or possible violations of laws should be considered for disclosure in the financial statements or as the basis of recording a contingent loss. 7We have disclosed to you all known deficiencies in the design or financial reporting of which we are aware. 8We have identified to you all known related parties and related revenues, purchases, loans, transfers of assets, liabilities and guarantees, non-monetary transactions and transactions for no co 9You provided a non-attest service by assisting us with drafting notes. In connection with this non-attest service, we confirm that we have made all management decisions and performed all management functions, have the knowledge to evaluate the accuracy and completeness of the financial statements, and accept respons statements. Fraud and error 10We have no knowledge of fraud or suspected fraud affecting the e employees who have significant roles in internal control; or oth non-trivial effect on the financial statements. 11We have no knowledge of any allegations of fraud or suspected fr statements communicated by employees, former employees, analysts, regulators or others. 12We acknowledge our responsibility for the design, implementation control to prevent and detect fraud. 13We believe that the effects of the uncorrected financial statement misstatements summarized in the accompanying schedule are immaterial, both individually and in the aggregate, to the financial statements taken as a whole. CONFIDENTIAL 143 © Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International. All rights reserved. Recognition, measurement and disclosure 14We have no plans or intentions that may materially affect the ca assets and liabilities, both financial and non-financial, reflected in the financial statements. 15All related party transactions have been appropriately measured and disclosed in the financial statements. 16The nature of all material measurement uncertainties has been ap financial statements, including all estimates where it is reason change in the near term and the effect of the change could be ma 17All outstanding and possible claims, whether or not they have been discussed with legal counsel, have been disclosed to you and are appropriately reflected in the financial statements. Refer to Note 7 in the financial statements. 18All liabilities and contingencies, including those associated with guarantees, whether written have been disclosed to you and are appropriately reflected in the financial statements. 19With respect to environmental matters: at year end, there were no liabilities or contingencies that have not already been disclosed to a) you; liabilities or contingencies have been recognized, measured and disclosed, as appropriate, in the b) financial statements; and commitments have been measured and disclosed, as appropriate, in the financial statements. c) 20The entity has satisfactory title to (or lease interest in) all assets, an encumbrances on the entityÔs assets nor has any been pledged as collateral except under the Evergreen Loan Guarantee. 21We have disclosed to you, and the entity has complied with, all aspects of contractual agreement that could have a material effect on the financial statements in the event of non-compliance, including all covenants, conditions or other requirements of all outstanding debt. 22The Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) transactions recorded by the enti federal and provincial regulations. The HST liability/receivable amounts recorded by the entity are considered complete. 23Employee future benefit costs, assets, and obligations have been determined, accounted for and disclosed in accordance with the requirements of PS3255 Post-employment Benefits, Compensated Absences and Termination Benefits of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA) Handbook. 24There have been no events subsequent to the date of the statemen date hereof that would require recognition or disclosure in the have been no events subsequent to the date of the comparative financial statements that would require adjustment of those financial statements and related not CONFIDENTIAL 144 © Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International. All rights reserved. Other 25We have considered whether or not events have occurred or conditions exist which may cast significant doubt on the organizationÔs ability to continue as a that no such events or conditions are evident. Yours very truly, Brian Denney, Chief Administrative Officer James W. Dillane, Director, Finance and Business Services CONFIDENTIAL 145 © Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International. All rights reserved. Summary of Uncorrected Misstatements To adjust for invoices in accounts receivable that were reversed after year-end $ 79,666 $ - $ - $ 79,666 Reversal of prior year unadjusted misstatement-- 40,021 (40,021) CONFIDENTIAL 146 © Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International. All rights reserved. Appendix C Ï Letter of independence CONFIDENTIAL 147 © Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International. All rights reserved. June 14, 2012 Members of the Audit Committee Grant Thornton LLP Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Suite 200 15 Allstate Parkway 5 Shoreham Drive Markham, ON L3R 5B4 Downsview, Ontario T +1 416 366 0100 M3N 1S4 F +1 905 475 8906 www.GrantThornton.ca Dear Audit Committee Members: We have been engaged to audit the financial statements of Toront (the Organization) for the year ended December 31, 2011. Canadian generally accepted auditing standards require that we c regarding all relationships between the Organization and affiliates, and Grant Thornton LLP that, in our professional judgment, may reasonably be thought to bear on In determining which relationships to report, these standards require us to consider relevant rules and related interpretations prescribed by the appropriate provincial legislation, covering such matters as: 1holding a financial interest, either directly or indirectly, in a client; 2holding a position, either directly or indirectly, that gives th significant influence over the financial or accounting policies 3personal or business relationships of immediate family, close re either directly or indirectly, with a client; 4economic dependence on a client; and 5provision of services in addition to the audit engagement. We have prepared the following comments to facilitate our discus matters arising since June 16, 2011, the date of our last letter. We are not aware of any relationships between the Organization a professional judgment, may reasonably be thought to bear on our from June 16, 2011 to the date of this letter. We confirm that we are independent with respect to the Organizat of Professional Conduct of the Institute of Chartered Accountant letter. 148 Audit Tax Advisory Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd This report is intended solely for the use of the Audit Committee, the Board of Directors, management, and others within the Organization and should not be used for an Yours sincerely, Grant Thornton LLP Joanne Rogers C.A. Partner 149 Audit Tax Advisory Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 9:09 a.m., on Friday, June Gerri Lynn O'ConnorBrian Denney ChairSecretary-Treasurer /ks MEETING OF THE BUDGET/AUDIT ADVISORY BOARD #3/12 October 12, 2012 The Budget/Audit Advisory Board Meeting #3/12, was held in West Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, October 12, 2012. The Chair G called the meeting to order at 11:12 a.m. PRESENT Maria AugimeriMember David BarrowMember Bob CallahanMember Gerri Lynn O'ConnorChair ABSENT Dave RyanMember RES.#C8/12 - MINUTES Moved by: David Barrow Seconded by: Maria Augimeri THAT the Minutes of Meeting #2/12, held on June 22, 2012, be app CARRIED ___________________________________ PRESENTATIONS (a)A presentation by Rocco Sgambelluri, Chief Financial Officer, TRC BAAB7.1 - 2013 Preliminary Capital and Operating Estimates. RES.#C9/12 -PRESENTATIONS Moved by:Maria Augimeri Seconded by:David Barrow THAT above-noted presentation (a) be received. CARRIED ___________________________________ SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION RES.#C10/12 -2013 PRELIMINARY CAPITAL AND OPERATING ESTIMATES Recommends approval of 2013 preliminary capital estimates and operating budget guidelines. Moved by:Maria Augimeri Seconded by:David Barrow THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the preliminary estim Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) 2013 - 2022 p municipality capital and special project budgets, as outlined in approved for submission to the respective municipalities; THAT the preliminary estimates for the 2013 operating budget mak of living adjustment of two per cent (2%) effective in April, 20 THAT the preliminary estimates for the 2013 operating budget inc increases consistent with the guidelines determined by the respe municipality; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to submit the 2013 preliminar York and Durham, the Town of Mono City of Toronto, the regional municipalities of Peel, and the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio in accordance with their r schedules. AMENDMENT RES.#C11/12 Moved by:Maria Augimeri Seconded by:David Barrow THAT the following be inserted before the last paragraph of the THAT TRCA urge the City of Toronto to maintain its commitment to TorontoÔs drinking water by continuing to allocate $6 million pe THE AMENDMENT WASCARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WASCARRIED BACKGROUND TRCA has begun the process of submitting preliminary estimates t partners. TRCA staff has met with staff of the regions of Peel, Toronto to present TRCA budget requirements. Meetings with PeeYork and Durham included representatives of the other conservation authorities w regions. Over the next several months and into 2013, staff will also make regional councils and various committees of councils. Each juri process to be followed for the budget submissions which ultimate municipal councils. Staff is presenting the summary level information on the capital each jurisdiction, as an attachment to this report. Details of available for any Board member who wishes to have the informatio Staff has not provided details of the operating estimates becaus considerable change between now and the end of February when TRC funding decisions of its municipal partners and TRCA's 2012 year The current working version of the preliminary estimates is summarized in at RATIONALE Operating Budget Staff is in the process of completing the 2013 preliminary budgeAt this stage, there exists a gap of about $600,000 between anticipated funding ($38. expenditure levels ($38.9 million.) As always, staff will recommend a final budget next April in which expenditures are equal to the revenues, including revenue municipal levy. However, more time is needed to work through the the full-year 2012 revenue results and concluding levy negotiati municipalities. Expenditures The working version of the 2013 operating estimates reflects an 5.9% or about $2.2 million, over 2012. Pressures on the operati in salaries and benefits due to a proposed COLA (2%), increases contributions of 0.9%, health benefit premium increases of 8.3%, effective April 2012, as well as the proposed addition of a few below. TRCA salary and wage (COLA) adjustments: 2009 - 0% 2010 - 2% 2011 - 0% 2012 - 3% 2013 - 2% (proposed) For 2013, staff is recommending a 2% COLA effective the first pa operating budget by an estimated $344,000. The average annual C 1.4%. Preliminary estimates provide for maintenance of existing progra level of service, with the following exceptions: Two new positions as well as the filling of a 2012 vacancy are b planning and development function. These positions will allow TR service delivery standards consistent with increase in developer Authority in 2011, effective January 2012. The preliminary estimates also include a new program at a cost o increase the number of individual donors through a door-to-door program has been successfully carried out by The Living City Fou Municipal Levy Below is a summary of the status of the discussions that have be the participating municipalities: Adjala and Mono - No formal communication has occurred. Durham - Regional staff has indicated that a 2.5% operating incr although the official guideline has not been issued. Peel - Staff has presented a request just below the 4.5% guideli in projected regional assessment growth may require a downward a Toronto - City of Toronto staff is prepared to recommend a 2.5% since the portion of the levy (57%) which is funded from water r lined by Toronto Water, it appears the increase, if approved, wi funded portion of the levy, reflecting an increase of about 5.9%An increase of this magnitude will be seen as excessive and will certainly not escap winds its way through the committee process. York - Staff has met the Region's 4.5% guideline, although some c the projected rate of growth in assessment. The current levy projections embedded in the working version of optimistically reflect the levy increases noted above. Planning and Development Fees At the direction of the Authority, staff has implemented, effective January 1, 2012, a program to increase planning and development fees to achieve 100% recovery development applications. In 2012, the actuals are tracking bet allowed for an increase in revenue, budget over budget, of $489, been cautious at this point as we still do not have a full year' Other Operating Revenues The reason for the difference between expenditures and available to the lack in growth of revenues from sources other than levy a about 50% of the operating budget. The current estimates in the show very modest growth, will be refined once staff has analyzed end results. Provincial Transfer Payments The Ministry of Natural Resources has recently announced a reduc Although the reduction Ontario conservation authorities (CA) for fiscal years 2013 and was not as much as had been anticipated the Ministry targeted on TRCA and the Grand River CA. TRCA's funding of $846,000 was red similar amount was lost by the GRCA. Conservation Ontario conti Ontario for additional funding. Rouge National Urban Park In 2011, the Government of Canada announced support for creation Urban Park. In 2012, further details, including funding, were r Parks Canada have met with the Rouge Park Alliance, Rouge Park s initiate the process to create the National Park. The role of T is currently being defined, and as things unfold there may be op for certain tasks with the newly created park. Source Water Protection (SWP) Program One of the pressures that TRCA faces is in relation to the TRCA technical and planning functions for the Credit-Toronto-Central Protection Region. The source water protection plan will be sub Environment for approval in late October. Included in the sourc govern how land uses will be managed or prohibited to ensure the in the CTC Region. While most of the responsibility for impleme the municipalities and Province, there are functions that have b Clean Water Act for the source protection regions. At this time, the Province has not provided an indication of continued funding for this program to conservation ends as of December 31, 2012. There are two staff wholly associ as a number of staff who have provided technical support to the assessment reports upon which the source protection plan is base continuity of this program is important by keeping staff who is and planning process over the past seven years. Some "bridge fin the municipalities until an announcement on funding is received Capital Budgets Participating municipalities usually require that TRCA provide 1 projections and each municipality has its own requirements and f Obviously, most attention is paid to the 2013 and 2014 capital p Attachment 2 includes summary tables for capital and special proj Toronto and the regions of Peel, York and Durham. Staff prepares for the City, Peel and York regions, budget binders which include detailed information on ea program. These binders are available to members who require the As a matter of course, TRCA staff regularly consult with municipa alignment on objectives and deliverables; to avoid duplication o and procurement to realize maximum value and efficiency; and to project deliverables; City of Toronto The capital submission is based on core funding for long-standin existing City of Toronto targets. The City funds TRCA core capi and water rate funding and special asks from reserve funding. T for TRCA is $3 million and has remained unchanged for many years budget funded from water rates is projected at 3.83 million, an Currently, the 10 year forecast is based on an annual funding gr capital funded from reserves varies from year to year, depending as noted below. Funding from the City remains inadequate to meet critical state infrastructure requirements of TRCA's work within the City. Ero and repairs to waterfront parks require additional commitment frAccordingly, in 2010, staff prepared a prioritized list of critical infrastructu core funding request. This list was extensive and reflects the City has been inadequate in terms of asset maintenance. In 2011, the City of Toronto agreed to fund an additional $5 mil management works from reserves. TRCA asked for the same amount i deal with the backlog of state of good repair projects in the Ci million could be made available for erosion work, while $500,000 potential land acquisition items. City staff has indicated that a further $1.5 million will be ava each of the years 2014 and 2015, with no firm commitment beyond Regional Municipality of York York Region guidelines provide for an increase in core programs o has met this guideline, which if approved will bring the capital Further, the Region has indicated a desire to approve an "outloo estimates are in line with this guideline. In the 2013 submission, staff has included a list of priority pr beyond the core funding. The Region has made a significant inve programs but there is still much to be done. TRCA staff anticip Region's Finance and Administration Committee to request support projects, including: Emerald Ash Borer program - $50,000 annually for hazard tree rem Erosion Control program - $500,000 annually to meet the growing remediation measures; SNAP program - $100,000 annually; and Boyd Water Play Facility - $2.8 million over two years to introd the Boyd conservation area. Regional Municipality of Peel Peel Region guidelines provide for some increase in key programs a rationale to demonstrate needs beyond the guidelines. The 201 on estimates submitted as part of the 2012 program, with minor d The current staff submission to Peel shows growth in core capita within the guideline and if approved will grow the capital and s expenditure total to almost $13 million. The special request list for Peel includes: Arsenal Buildings - This is a one time $2 million dollar project Arsenal lands buildings in Mississauga; Bolton Camp - This is $1.6 million ask over four years, to begi former Bolton Camp lands. Regional Municipality of Durham Capital funding for Durham Region totals $825,000. Included is a pooled capital program for groundwater management in which TRC participating municipalities spent at the discretion of a steeri and conservation authority staff. TRCA's capital funding from D remained the same since about 2004, and all indications from sta no change will be recommended for 2013. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Following year end, the capital budget can be finalized and will projects as approved by the respective participating municipalit projects such as those projects funded by Toronto Waterfront Rev estimates on available land acquisition funding. The operating estimates will become final following year end, at the impact of the 2012 operating season and final municipal apprAlso, staff await direction from the Authority that the 2% COLA is to be implement Staff is prepared to describe in detail the capital projects and submissions at the Budget/Audit Advisory Board meeting or at the Authority Meeting on October 26th. Approval of the preliminary estimates by the Authority enables st forward with discussions knowing that the Chair and Members are projects and programs subject to the funding capacity of the res Report prepared by: Rocco Sgambelluri, extension 5232 Emails: rsgambelluri@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Rocco Sgambelluri, extension 5232; Adele Freeman, extension 5238 Deborah Martin-Downs, extension 5706 Emails: rsgambelluri@trca.on.ca; afreeman@trca.on.ca; dmartin-do Date: October 3, 2012 Attachments: 2 Attachment 1 158 159 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVAT APPORTIONMENT OF 2013 OPERATING BUDGET LE < --------- 2013 GENERAL LEVY ----------------- > LEVY TOTAL 2012 Operating EXCLUDINGTANON-CVA GENERA OPERATING Change X L TAX ADJ.DJUST.LEVY LEVY LEVY *13/12 A $$$$$% ADJALA-TOSORONTIO 883 -883 87580.91% - DURHAM 346,227137,90024,300 508,427494,570 13,8572.80% - TORONTO 7,666,345200 7,666,5457,476,355 190,1902.54% - MONO 1,047200 1,2471,209 383.14% - PEE 1,362,662102,600107,500 1,572,7621,504,946 67,8164.51% L - YOR 2,428,536187,100145,900 2,761,5362,604,045157,4916.05% K 11,805,700428,000277,700 12,511,40012,082,000429,4003.55% 11,805,700428,000277,700 12,511,40012,082,000429,4003.55% * includes Rouge Park levy 160 Attachment 2 161 162 163 164 SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD RES.#C12/12 -2012 FINANCIAL PROGRESS REPORT TO AUGUST 31, 2012 Information is provided on Toronto and Region Conservation Autho financial performance as of August 31, 2012 and projected to Dec 31, 2012. Moved by:Maria Augimeri Seconded by:David Barrow IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Financial Progress Report to August 31, 2012, be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND As part of TRCA's financial management process, staff provide to the Budget/Audit Advisory Board a financial progress report regarding the financial status ending August 31, 2012 and provides a projection to year end, De RATIONALE The 2012 projected financial performance results in a combined o of about $1,183,400. There are no major projections of expendit be generated on the revenue side, as indicated below. To the ex achieved, staff will recommend that this amount be applied to su cumulative deficit not attributable to capital expenditures, whi and possibly to augment operating reserves. Key Operating Results The 2012 operating results portray a surplus of $623,400. Key f DivisionDeficit (Surplus) Explanation $ Human Resources and 40,800Mainly due to higher expenses incurred for the Marketinginitiation of a new door to door campaign not previously budgeted. Planning and (552,400))A significant increase in permit revenue has Developmentexceeded budget due to the approved increases to fees for 100% cost recovery. Restoration Services(116,300)Majority of the increase is due to revenues higher than budgeted for plant material sales while matching expenditures remain more in line with the budget. Watershed Management44,700Lower revenue for Energy Workshop due to deferral of the Ontario Government FIT program to 2013. In addition, there is a $54,000 projected shortfall in the field centres budget mainly due to booking cancellations resulting from labour disputes between provincial government and teacher federations. The shortfalls are partially offset by administration savings. Parks and Culture(75,000)Budgeted surplus for repayment of pool construction Other34,800Multiple accounts with minor year end projections. Net Operating Surplus(623,400) Key Capital and Special Project Results There are no anticipated shortfalls in the overall 2012 capital A surplus is anticipated for an unbudgeted capital item, the West Landform project. This $10 million project, undertaken on behal through its general contractor, is projected to produce a surplu project was initiated in the spring of 2012 with an expected com TRCA was able to undertake this project at considerable savings Funding for IT expenses which exceed the IT capital budget will Facilities Retrofit budget. These IT expenses include approxima financial information system and computer purchases required to as, an unbudgeted pressure of $200,000 for a new corporate telep Multiple other capital projects varied from budget but these are differences as projects span multiple years; delays in receiving funding; and weather conditions which delay the in-ground operat Capital funding is project specific, therefore multi-year projec their budgets which mitigate the various delays. Project specif funding being dedicated to the project and limits the ability to usage. Report prepared by: Janice Darnley, extension 5768 Emails: jdarnley@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Rocco Sgambelluri, extension 5232 Emails: rsgambelluri@trca.on.ca Date: October 02, 2012 ___________________________________ TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11:56 a.m., on Friday, Octo Gerri Lynn O'ConnorBrian Denney ChairSecretary-Treasurer /ks