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 2013
MEETING OF THE BUDGET/AUDIT ADVISORY BOARD #1/13 April 12, 2013 The Budget/Audit Advisory Board Meeting #1/13, was held in West Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, April 12, 2013. The Chair Ger the meeting to order at 8:38 a.m. PRESENT Maria AugimeriMember David BarrowMember Gerri Lynn O'ConnorChair Dave RyanMember ABSENT Bob CallahanMember RES.#C1/13 - MINUTES Moved by: David Barrow Seconded by: Maria Augimeri THAT the Minutes of Meeting #3/12, held on October 12, 2012, be CARRIED ___________________________________ PRESENTATION (a)A presentation by Rocco Sgambelluri, Chief Financial Officer, TRC BAAB7.1 - 2013 Budget, Operating and Capital. RES.#C2/13 -PRESENTATIONS Moved by:David Barrow Seconded by:Dave Ryan THAT above-noted presentation (a) be received. CARRIED ___________________________________ 1 SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION RES.#C3/13 -2013 BUDGET, OPERATING AND CAPITAL Recommends approval of the 2013 operating and capital budget. Moved by:David Barrow Seconded by:Dave Ryan THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT WHEREAS the Conservat Authorities Act (CA Act) provides that a conservation authority, levy, shall have the power to determine the proportion of total afforded to all participating municipalities that is afforded to THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT, subject to such regulations u Conservation Authorities Act as may be approved by the lieutenan (i)all participating municipalities be designated as benefitting in the 2013 Operating Budget; (ii)Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) share of programs included in the 2013 Operating Budget shall be raised f participating municipalities as part of the General Levy; (iii)the 2013 General Levy be apportioned to the participating m proportion that the modified current value assessment of the who jurisdiction of TRCA, unless otherwise provided in the levy or a (iv)the appropriate TRCA officials be directed to advise the par pursuant to the Conservation Authorities Act and the regulations and to levy the said municipalities the amount of the general le 2013 Operating Budget, including property tax adjustments and no Assessment (CVA) levy, and to levy the said municipalities the a levy set forth in the 2013 Capital Budget and in the approved pr THAT the 2013 Operating and Capital Budget, and all projects the THAT staff be authorized to amend the 2013 Operating and Capital actual 2013 provincial grant allocations in order to determine t governed by regulation; THAT the cost of property taxes imposed by municipalities on con by TRCA be charged as additional levy to the respective particip excluding the cost of property taxes which are passed on to a th similar agreement; THAT, except where statutory or regulatory requirements provide authorized to enter into agreements with private sector organiza organizations or government agencies for the undertaking of proj to TRCA and funded by the sponsoring organization or agency; 2 THAT, as required by Ontario Regulations 139/96 and 231/97, this the accompanying budget documents, including the schedule of mat non-matching levies, be approved by recorded vote; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take s necessary to implement the foregoing, including obtaining needed signing and execution of documents. CARRIED RATIONALE Enclosed is the recommended 2013 Budget, Operating and Capital. presented to the Authority at its meeting scheduled to be held oApril 26, 2013. Municipal Approval Status Preliminary estimates are prepared in the summer and fall of eac TRCA's municipal funding partners. Staff meet with municipal st processes and budget schedules followed by each major participat Presentations are made to municipal finance staff and the commit funding partners as required. In the case of Peel Region, TRCA Credit Valley and Halton conservation authorities to align budge A similar process occurs with York Region where TRCA works closel Region Conservation Authority. In Durham Region, the process is five conservation authorities work to align budgets and financia Region of Durham budget requirements. TRCA's submissions to the and operating levy are reviewed with senior Finance and Toronto The 2013 Preliminary Estimates were approved by the Authority in for submissions to TRCA's municipal funding partners. The fundi apportionment of the levy reflects the amounts that the municipa approved in their 2013 budgets for capital and operating. Contr partners, City of Toronto and the regional municipalities of Dur received council. The Township of Adjala-Tosorontio and the Town of TRCA's levy request. MNR Transfer Payments The 2013 provincial funding which must be matched with levy has 2013 operating budget includes a provision for MNR transfer paym the funding received in 2012. The 2012 funding level of $846,00 8.5% from the previous year. No time line has been given for th grants. Notice of Meeting By regulation, TRCA has provided 30 days written notice to its m date of the meeting at which the Authority will consider the munAt the April 26, 2013, Authority meeting, a recorded vote on the budget recommendation i non-matching municipal levy is required. The weighted voting pr regulation will be used, if necessary. 3 Operating Budget - Overview of Key Issues Salary/Wage Costs The largest segment of the operating budget is wages and benefit gross operating expenditures. The Authority was advised in Octo preliminary estimates were approved, that staff was recommending at the first pay in April, 2013. TRCA salary and wage adjustmen outlined below, have totalled 7%, representing a simple average 2009 - 0% 2010 - 2% 2011 - 0% 2012 - 3% 2013 - 2% Staffing Levels The TRCA full time equivalents (FTEs) included in the operating 410.3 for 2013 (as compared to 396.6 budgeted in 2012.) This is an increase of 13.7 FTE's from 2012. Refer to page 7 of the operating budget document (Attachment 1) for an explanation of the year-over-year changes, by section. Expenditures/Operating Revenues The 2013 operating expenditure budget is $38.36 million, an incr over 2012 budget. The increase in expenditures will be financed (non-levy) of $1.22 million (5.1% increase) and additional general levy of 548,000 (4.6% increase.) Expenditure increases are, with minor exception, mai costs ($1.26 million) and benefit costs ($607,000.) The benefit OMERS premiums of 0.7 of 1% on earnings to $51,100 and 1.8% on e The Living City Foundation (LCF) The Living City Foundation continues to enjoy success in attract many capital and special TRCA projects. However, the LCF contin funds for unrestricted purposes and, therefore, the TRCA budget unrestricted funding in 2012 or 2013. The 2013 budget does incl $213,000 for donor acquisition. Although this amount was originally set aside to finance a new phase of the "door-to-door" donor acquisition program, it is sta in assisting the LCF with donor acquisition. Deficit Management The 2012 audited financial statements will not be available unti Budget/Audit Advisory Board. While there may still be a need to process adjustments to the year end results, 2012 results have been exce surplus for 2012 will exceed $4.4 million. Going into 2012 the million of which approximately $900,000 relates to the new Petti repaid from future revenues) and the balance to past operating d Year End Financial net results are available elsewhere on the agenda, in the report Progress Report". The June report to the board may include reco transfers to reserves from surplus. 4 In 2013, there is provision for a $75,000 surplus within the ope the second instalment from Parks and Culture Division for the re over available funding to complete the Petticoat Creek pool, whi Municipal Funding Arrangements Each of TRCA's participating municipalities has its own unique b budgetary pressures. TRCA has met each the individual participa requirements within the context of the Conservation Authorities Ac t. In recent years, TRCA has changed the funding "formula" to achieve greater flexibility in partner guidelines. To this end, the 2013 operating levy include $206,500, (2012 - $195,300) referred to as "Non-CVA Levy". Und TRCA makes a general levy against all of its participating munic operating requirements. With regards to the portion of the levy as defined in the Act, TRCA must use CVA as the basis of apporti balance of the general levy which is raised for "maintenance cos may apportion benefit using any method that is approved in adopt the non-CVA levy adjusts the amount of the general levy that rel would otherwise be apportioned using CVA as the basis and allows funding guidelines of each participating municipality. The non-CVA levy apportionments for 2013 have been allocated to Municipality20132012 Durham$26,200 $20,400 Peel$89,700 $82,000 Toronto- _ York$90,600$92,900 Mono- - Adjala- Tosorontio- - Total$206,500$195,300 After giving consideration of all the factors that affect the geny including tax adjustments, year over year shifts in CVA and indi TRCA has achieved total municipal levy funding in the amount of average increase over 2012 of 3.43%. The levy has been allocated follows: Municipality2013 General LevyChange over 2012 Durham$507,365 2.59% Peel$1,572,950 4.52% Toronto$7,666,494 2.54% York$2,746,333 5.46% Mono$1,956 61.79% Adjala- Tosorontio$902 3.09% Total$12,496,000 5 Property Taxes on Conservation Lands TRCA is required to pay property taxes on its lands except where exemption or partial exemption under the Conservation Land Tax I In the case of revenue producing properties such as rental house covered by the revenues received. For park and conservation lan the rates are generally relatively low. In the City of Toronto, are exempt from property taxation because the City exercised its 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 ar not included under CLTIP. In fairness to the City of Toronto wh long had a practice of allocating the cost of property taxes to taxes. This is reflected as an adjustment to the apportionment Rouge Park The Province of Ontario has withdrawn from the Rouge Park agreem The Government of Canada is in the process of implementing the R In the interim, management of the lands and operation of the par the same manner as in previous years. TRCA, along with many of t Rouge Park Alliance, is in discussion with Parks Canada with reg short term and long term management of the park. In addition to earmarked for activities and programming within the park, the Wa will contribute $237,600 ($425,000 in 2012) and the federal gove of the staff who carry out the programming. Pages 5 and 6 of the operating budget include brief notes about increases/decreases in the various programs. The program descri information. Capital Budget Summary The 2013 capital budget is set at $72.4 million, an increase of funding pays for $35.2 million of the capital program, of which the balance ($7.8 million) is on hand as carried forward levy fr all other sources amount to $37.2 million. There are many chang program. The summary on pages 28 and 29 of the budget document c Additional information is contained in the detailed budget docume prepared for municipal budget process. Capital projects are usually funded by the municipal partners on basis. That is, with few exceptions, capital projects funded by undertaken within that municipality. These include: erosion control projects (Peel, Toronto and York); Remedial Action Plan program (Toronto); waterfront development (Toronto and Durham); 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; 6 Peel Region Climate Change Project; conservation land care (Peel and York); conservation area infrastructure. Some capital programs are generally benefitting. These include: public use infrastructure - levy based on CVA, used to fund infr and education field centres; information technology - levy based on CVA, used to fund common the organization; major facilities retrofit - levy based on CVA, used for major ca 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 availableYork and Durham, City of Toronto, local municipalities, Oak Ridges Mo Living City Foundation and other sources; the source water protection program is funded entirely by the Pr Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (TWRC) projects - through delivery agreements, including Port Union, Mimico and Lo Humber Bay Shores (Etobicoke Motel Strip) - legacy project for w and Province of Ontario have continuing commitment to finance th expropriation process; The Living City Campus at Kortright - Funding is provided by bot Special Project Funding: TRCA works with its municipal partners to undertake special proj significant, specialized expertise. These special projects incl of trails, bridges and wetlands, and tree planting. This fundin is completely separate from the municipal operating and capital this category of work is included in the budget only if there is Capital expenditures can vary significantly from year to year as budget provides for continuing commitment to capital projects un has included the municipal project funding for 2013 in the attac the approvals of the funding partners for 2013. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE At the Budget/Audit Advisory Board meeting, staff will make a presentation summ 2013 operating and capital budgets. Report prepared by: Rocco Sgambelluri, extension 5232 Emails: rsgambelluri@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Rocco Sgambelluri, extension 5232 Emails: rsgambelluri@trca.on.ca Date: April 03, 2013 Attachments: 2 7 Attachment 1 2013 BUDGET OPERATING For Budget/Audit Advisory Board of April 12, 2013 8 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2013 BUDGET TABLE OF CONTENTSPages Section 1: Apportionment of Levy 2013 Apportionment of Levy - Summary1 2013 Apportionment of Levy - Matching/Non-Matching Format2 Basis of Apportionment - Municipal Levy 20133 - 4 Section 2: Operating Budget Operating Budget Summary5 - 6 Full -Time Equivalents of Staffing 7 2013 Operating Budget - Detailed8 - 26 Office of the CEO 8 Watershed Management 12 Planning and Development 15 Ecology 17 Restoration Services 19 Parks and Culture 20 Communications and Human Resources 26 9 SECTION 1 2013 APPORTIONMENT OF LEVY 10 11 12 Page 3 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2013 BASIS OF APPORTIONMENT - MUNICIPAL LEVY (BASED ON 2011 MODIFIED CURRENT VALUE ASSESSMENT FIGURES*) % OF CURRENT CURRENTMUNICIP-VALUEPOPULATION VALUEALITY INASSESSMENTTOTAL IN MUNICIPALITYASSESSMENTAUTHORITYIN WATERSHEDPOPULATIONAUTHORITY $(000's)$(000's) Township of Adjala-Tosorontio 1,629,763 465,1919,676387 Durham, Regional Municipality of 31,389,217*25,813,064199,324166,006 City of Toronto 553,676,897100 553,676,8972,107,5952,107,595 Town of Mono 1,526,117 576,3066,928346 Peel, Regional Municipality of 227,194,717*99,558,5301,030,619468,159 York, Regional Municipality of 194,520,747*177,199,365736,073663,283 - 1,009,937,458 856,389,3524,090,2153,405,776- - ANALYSIS OF REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES * - - Durham, Regional Municipality of - Ajax, Town of 13,786,498 11,856,38995,97682,53986 Pickering, Town of 13,963,367 13,265,19983,98879,78995 Uxbridge Township 3,639,352 19691,47719,3603,678 - 31,389,217 25,813,064199,324166,006- - Brampton, City 72,529,416 45,693,532387,418244,07363 Mississauga, City of 141,822,355 46,801,377589,430194,51233 Caledon, Town of 12,842,946 557,063,62153,77129,574 - 227,194,717 99,558,5301,030,619468,159- York, Regional Municipality of - Aurora, Town of 10,192,105 4407,68445,4591,818 Markham, Town of 60,941,064100 60,941,064245,351245,351 Richmond Hill, Town of 36,644,746 36,278,299151,802150,28499 Vaughan, Town of 73,988,851100 73,988,851244,342244,342 Whitchurch-Stouffville, Town of 7,791,242 433,350,23430,78913,239 King Township 4,962,739 452,233,23318,3308,249 - 194,520,747 177,199,365736,073663,283- * As provided by the Ministry of Natural Resources - - 13 Page 4 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2013 LEVY APPORTIONMENT MODIFIED2013 GENERAL2012 GENERAL CURRENT VALUELEVYLEVY MUNICIPALITYASSESSMENTPROPORTIONATEPROPORTIONATE IN WATERSHEDFACTORFACTOR $(000's) ADJALA-TOSORONTIO 65,191 0.00761%0.00763% DURHAM, REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF Ajax 11,856,389 Pickering 13,265,199 Uxbridge 691,477 25,813,064 3.01417%2.98771% CITY OF TORONTO 553,676,897 64.65247%65.13410% TOWN OF MONO 76,306 0.00891%0.00879% PEEL, REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF Brampton 45,693,532 Mississauga 46,801,377 Caledon 7,063,621 99,558,530 11.62538%11.54298% YORK, REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF Aurora 407,684 Markham 60,941,064 Richmond 36,278,299 Vaughan 73,988,851 Whitchurch - Stouffville 3,350,234 King 2,233,233 177,199,365 20.69145%20.31879% 856,389,352 100.00000%100.00000% 14 SECTION 2 2013 OPERATING BUDGET 15 16 17 18 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2013 OPERATING BUDGET- FINAL DIVISION: Office of the CEO / some Communications & HR Page 8 ACTIVITY: Various Administration 201220122013 BudgetActualsBudget% Chg.$ Chg. $$$ Expenditures: Financial Services1,331,0001,325,625 1,417,000 6.5%86,000 Moved to Corporate Secreatariat: - Office Services Information Technology908,000840,768 963,000 6.1%55,000 GIS581,000506,333 598,000 2.9%17,000 Project Surcharge(2,086,000)(2,110,953)(2,055,000)-1.5%31,000 Moved 2013: Divisional Administration 245,700439,241-100.0%(245,700) for former F&BS - Expenditure Total 979,7001,001,014 923,000-86.0%(56,700) Funding Sources: Program/User fees15,00011,759 15,000 Reserves - Interest Earnings525,000595,644 540,000 2.9%15,000 CFGT - Flowthrough - Municipal - Provincial - Federal - Donations/Fundraising - Non-Government Grants25,00011,742-100.0%(25,000) Revenue Total 565,000619,144 555,000-97.1%(10,000) Net Expenditures414,700381,869368,000 11.1%(46,700) Staff FTEs- Full-time31.229.8-4.4%-1.4 Non-F/0.3 -0.3 T NOTES: 2013 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) nnualization of new financial ERP maintenance contract ($30,000) A Director Position not replaced in 2013 budget Legal and insurance moved to CEO budget in 2013 FTE Change: -.8 net for Director & Admin transfer net of IT Tech FTE Change: -.5 WM Admin. staff utilized in accounting NOTES: 2012 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Interest revenue exceeded budget ($55,000) Savings from not replacing Director position ($60,000) Extra costs for PDP lease ($48,000) - rent + hydro 19 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2013 OPERATING BUDGET- FINAL DIVISION: Finance and Business Services Page 9 ACTIVITY: Rental Properties 201220122013 ctualsBudget% Chg.$ Chg. Budget A $$$ Expenditures: Basic Rentals 648,325630,003.8%23,000 607,00 00 ORC Rentals 855,37873,001.0%9,000 864,00 040 Special Agreements 157,18168,00-18.0%(37,000) 205,00 060 Central Services 404,04374,002.7%10,000 364,00 000 2,064,922,045,000.2%5,000 Expenditure Total 2,040,00 040 Funding Sources: Basic Rentals 876,00834,19898,002.5%22,000 060 ORC Rentals 941,14970,001.0%10,000 960,00 060 Special Agreements 653,12700,00-3.2%(23,000) 723,00 000 Program/User fees totals 2,559,0002,428,4612,568,0000.4%9,000 Reserves CFGT - Living City CFGT - Flowthrough Municipal Provincial Federal Donations/Fundraising Non-Government Grants 150 2,559,002,428,6112,568,000.4%9,000 00 Net Expenditures(519,000)(363,687)(523,000)0.8%(4,000) Staff FTEs- Full-time5.65.6 0.5-100.0%(0.5) Non-F/ T NOTES: 2013 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) WWK rent reduced to reflect reduction in taxes FTE hange: -.5 o maintenance sta Cfff NOTES: 2012 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Rental income down due to high vacancy rate Rental expenditures increase due to increased repairs WWK rent reduced to reflect reduction in taxes 20 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2013 OPERATING BUDGET- FINAL DIVISION: Finance and Business Services Page 10 ACTIVITY: Property & Taxes 201220122013 BudgetctualsBudget% Chg.$ Chg. A $$$ Expenditures:- Property Services 1,707,001,694,5311,840,007.8%133,00 00 0 Conservation Lands- Insurance 203,00186,611204,000.5% 1,000 00 -Recoverable Taxe 407,00419,13440,008.1%33,000 s060 - - Expenditure Total 2,367,002,467,812,534,007.1%167,00 090 0 Funding Sources: Program/User fees 31,20031,000 - 31,000 Reserves - - CFGT - Living City - - CFGT - Flowthrough 150,00150,00150,00 - 000 Municipal - - Provincial - - Federal - - Donations/Fundraising - - Non-Government Grants (4,241) - - Revenue Total 150,00176,95181,0020.7%31,000 090 - - Net Expenditures2,217,0002,290,8602,353,0006.1%136,000 - Staff FTEs- Full-time10.210.41.5%0.2 Non-F/0.1-100.0%-0.1 T NOTES: 2013 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) Manager, Acquistions and Sales position annualized for 2013 Increase in taxes due to change in assessment for Heart Lake FTE change: RSS staff charged here from maintenance NOTES: 2012 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Increase in taxes due to change in assessment for Heart Lake Insurance premiums were lower in 2012 21 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2013 OPERATING BUDGET- FINAL DIVISION: Finance and Business Services Page 11 ACTIVITY: Vehicle & Equipment 201220122013 BudgetctualsBudget% Chg.$ Chg. A $$$ Expenditures: Fuel, Maintenance & Repairs 702,80824,98834,0018.7%131,20 0800 Vehicle Purchases 300,00211,222370,0023.3%70,000 00 Equipment Purchases - New 195,000212,924218,00011.8%23,000 - Equipment Disposal Proceeds (15,000)(30,000)100.0%(15,000) Internal Recoveries (1,182,800)(1,411,793)(1,392,000)17.7%(209,200) Expenditure Total 38,423 - Funding Sources: Program/User fees - Reserves see above CFGT - Living City - CFGT - Flowthrough - Municipal - Provincial - Federal - Donations/Fundraising - Non-Government Grants 38,423 - - - Revenue Total 38,423 - Net Expenditures - Staff FTEs- Full-time0.50.624.2% 0.1 0.1-100.0% Non-F/ T-0.1 - NOTES: 2013 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/CO L 2013 acquisition budget reflects accelerated replacement schedul 2013 expenditure / recovery budgets based on 2012 actuals, not 2 FTE Change: +.2 WM admin staff now charged to V&E, FBS FTE Chang NOTES: 2012 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Variances from 2012 budget result from errors in presenting 2012 22 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2013 OPERATING BUDGET- FINAL DIVISION: Watershed Management Page 12 ACTIVITY: WM Divisional Management 201220122013 BudgetctualsBudget% Chg.$ Chg. A $$$ Expenditures: Divisional Management437,000411,760449,0003%12,000 Downsview Offices - Corporate10,00012,21310,000 Sustainable Management System 21,00040,00090%19,000 Expenditure Total 468,000423,973499,0007%31,000 Funding Sources: Program/User fees249 - Reserves - CFGT - Living City - CFGT - Flowthrough - Municipal - Provincial12,00012,50012,000 Federal12,00012,50012,000 Donations/Fundraising - Non-Government Grants31,000 -31,000 Revenue Total 24,00025,24955,000129%31,000 Net Expenditures444,000398,724444,000 Staff FTEs- Full-time3.73.6-3%-0.1 Non-F/T - NOTES: 2013 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) Growth of contract services for Sustainable Management System pr Increase expenditures due to reallocation of staff workload from Admin FTE Change: -.1 net re: Admin staff to other projects NOTES: 2012 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Reductions to offset other operating pressures 23 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2013 OPERATING BUDGET- FINAL DIVISION: Watershed Management Page 13 ACTIVITY: Watershed Strategies 201220122013 ActualsBudget% Chg.$ Chg. Budget $$$ Expenditures: Don River212,000179,721220,0003.8%8,000 Humber River195,000178,730199,0002.1%4,000 Rouge River425,000425,000238,000-44.0%(187,000) Highland Creek114,000128,77173,000-36.0%(41,000) Etobicoke - Mimico Creek202,000170,501234,00015.8%32,000 Duffins Creek227,000263,305251,00010.6%24,000 Oak Ridges Moraine135,00093,036175,00029.6%40,000 Waterfront Strategy77,00071,17281,0005.2%4,000 6,689 Expenditure Total 1,587,0001,516,9251,471,000-7.3%(116,000) Funding Sources: Program/User fees(193) - Reserves - CFGT - Living City - CFGT - Flowthrough87,000121,43535,000-59.8%(52,000) Other - Municipal(4,658) - Other - Provincial45,00048,23745,000 Other - Federal45,00045,00045,000 Other - Donations/Fundraising425,000425,000238,000-44.0%(187,000) Non-Government Grants52,00018,23965,00025.0%13,000 Revenue Total 654,000653,060428,000-34.6%(226,000) Net Expenditures933,000863,8651,043,00011.8%110,000 9.521.1%0 Staff FTEs- Full-time9.42- 0.3930.0%0 Non-F/T0.3- NOTES: 2013 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) Increase expenditures due to reallocation of staff workload from Strats FTE Change: +.2 more Etob-Mimico Admin & ORM DSS FTE Ch NOTES: 2012 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Reductions to offset other operating pressure s 24 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2013 OPERATING BUDGET- FINAL DIVISION: Watershed Management Page 13b GROUP: ACTIVITY: Livin Cit Camus Prorammin gypgg 201220122013 BUDGETActualsBUDGET% CHG.$ CHG. $$$ GROSS EXPENDITURES: 46,00034,09249,0006.5% Administration3,000 Marketing - General 8,00017,9138,000 Marketing - Education 5,0001,7805,000 Education Programs50,000 492,000517,781542,00010.2% Sustainable House Programming - 778 Maple Syrup Education2,000 72,00077,75074,0002.8% Energy Workshops(35,000) 105,00063,64570,000-33.3% Day Camps(8,000) 30,00022,67722,000-26.7% - - Expenditure Tot 12,000 a 758,000736,415770,0001.6% FUNDING SOURCES: User fees- Education Programs 372,000273,382389,0004.6%17,000 serees-usanaeouse, 0009158-100.0% 10 U f Stibl H,,(10000) User fees- Maple Syrup14,000 72,00095,31886,00019.4% User fees- Energy Workshops(31,000) 158,00088,873127,000-19.6% 4,000 34,00019,21938,00011.8% User fees- Marketing Education 75 - Program/User fees Total(6,000) 646,000486,024640,000-0.9% Reserves - Interest Earnings - CFGT - Flowthrough5,000 70,000119,17775,0007.1% Other - Municipal - Other - Provincial - Other - Federal - Other - Donations/Fundraising - Other - Non-Government Grants - - - Revenue Total-0.1%(1,000) 716,000605,201715,000 Deficit / (Surplus 31.0%13,000 42,000131,21455,000 5.15.46.9%0.4 Staff FTEs- Full-time Non-F/T 5.65.71.8%0.1 NOTES: 2013 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) Reduced revenue from Energy Workshops FIT programs uncertainty LCC FTE Change:+.5 KCC Supervisor charged here NOTES: 2012 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS owerrevenueornergyorsopsueosuspensonoenaroovernmenprogramun. L f E Wkh d t i f th Oti Gt FIT til 2013 oweranancpaeeucaonoong. L th tiitd dti bki cooprogramsaveeenramacayeeceyeeacerswororue. Shl h b dtill fftd b th th k t l 25 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2013 OPERATING BUDGET- FINAL DIVISION: Watershed Management Page 14 ACTIVITY: Conservation Field Centre s 201220122013 BudgetctualsBudget% Chg.$ Chg. A $$$ Expenditures: CFC Program Management189,000126,720203,3007.6%14,300 Education Support Services 291,000263,842273,000-6.2%(18,000) lbion Hills752,700490,742775,3003.0%22,600 A Claremont798,000753,783760,700-4.7%(37,300) Lake St. George1,022,0001,055,0521,024,5000.2%2,500 Education Special Projects132,000169,733190,20044.1%58,200 Food Equipment 9,045 - - Internal - - Expenditure Total 3,184,7002,868,9173,227,0001.3%42,300 Funding Sources: User Fees- Albion Hills 535,700352,443526,000-1.8%(9,700) Claremont 497,000342,291472,000-5.0%(25,000) Lake St. George 818,000613,445821,0000.4%3,000 All other 29,00018,18829,000 Program/User fees total 1,879,7001,326,3681,848,000-1.7%(31,700) Reserves - Interest Earnings - CFGT - Flowthrough 632,000766,218701,00010.9%69,000 Municipal 5,0005,000 Provincial - Federal 8,000 -8,000 Donations/Fundraising - Non-Government Grants 400 - Revenue Total 2,516,7002,092,9862,562,0001.8%45,300 Net Expenditures668,000775,932665,000-0.4%(3,000) Staff FTEs- Full-time26.425.2-4.4%-1.2 Non-F/T9.79.91.8%0.2 NOTES: 2013 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) Albion Hills: Increase of Food Services (return to full bookings in 2013) will be covered by growth through private funded visits Lake St. George: Grid Increases will be covered by growth in Dorm 2 sales Education Special Projects: Addition of Weston Expansion Program FTE Change:-1.2 re: gapping & less cook & instructor hours, FTE change: portion of RSS Landcaping staff to CFC NOTES: 2012 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 26 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2013 OPERATING BUDGET- FINAL DIVISION: Planning & Development Page 15 ACTIVITY: Development Services 201220122013 BudgetctualsBudget% Chg.$ Chg. A $$$ Expenditures: Planning Services1,121,0001,013,4841,243,00010.9%122,000 Planning Services- MESPs13,827 Regulation Services973,000948,9071,069,0009.9%96,000 Solicitor Realty Inquiries - Policy, Research and Special Projects15,00029,19015,000 Hearings125,000125,723135,0008.0%10,000 Environ. Assessments-Core570,000557,431706,00023.9%136,000 York EA668,000650,382774,00015.9% Peel EA346,000344,504346,000 Brampton EA142,000142,190153,0007.7%11,00 York Durham Sewer47,00052,60453,00012.8%6,000 Central Pickering DP EA126,00025,793132,0004.8%6,000 TTC-Spadina Subway EA60,00066,28756,000-6.7%(4,000) ork Rapid Transit42,00014,25648,00014.3%6,000 Y Expenditure Total 4,235,0003,984,5774,730,00011.7%495,000 Funding Sources: - 1,734,0002,683,5192,093,00020.7%359,000 Fees-Planning MESPs250,000254,660250,000 Fees-Regulation Services1,129,0001,297,0161,327,00017. Fees-Solicitor165,000269,856200,00021.2%35,000 Fees: Core E.A.570,000497,616606,0006.3 York EA13,00076,05813,000 Peel EA11,00047,44511,000 Brampton EA4,00012,3504,000 Central Pickering DP EAsee other municipa - - TTC-Spadina Subway EA ork Rapid Transit - Y - Program/User fees total 3,876,0005,138,5184,504,00016.2%628,000 - Reserves CFGT - Living Cit - y - CFGT - Flowthrough Municipal1,403,0001,300,8901,634,00021.6%231,000 Provincial - eera- Fdl Donations/Fundraising - Non-Government Grants - Peel E.A. via Cap Levy335,000335,000335,000 - Revenue Total 5,279,0006,439,4086,138,00016.3%859,000 Net Expenditures(1,044,000)(2,454,831)(1,408,000)34.9%(364,000) - Staff FTEs- Full-time 38.4 - 40.24.7% 1.8 Non-F/T 3.6 - 4.628.3% 1.0 -- - - NOTES: 2013 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) dditional staff for EA work and to deliver on service standard A DSS FTE Change: +1.5 new Planners Ecology portion FTE Change: +1.4 York EA $ Eglinton LRT NOTES: 2012 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Higher revenues due to more applications processed Higher revenues also attributed to full cost recovery fees Lower legal expenditures than projected 27 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2013 OPERATING BUDGET- FINAL DIVISION: Planning & Development Page 16 ACTIVITY: Enforcement 201220122013 BudgetctualsBudget% Chg.$ Chg. A $$$ Expenditures: Enforcement557,00491,10569,002.2%12,000 070 Legal80,00062,99085,0006.3%5,000 Expenditure Total 637,00554,09654,002.7%17,000 080 Funding Sources: Program/User fees - Reserves - CFGT - Living City - CFGT - Flowthrough - Municipal - Provincial - Federal - Donations/Fundraising - - - - Revenue Total - Net Expenditures637,000554,098654,0002.7%17,000 Staff FTEs- Full-time5.05.0 Non-F/ T- - NOTES: 2013 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) Increase in vehicle chargebacks, cell phones and legal expenditu r NOTES: 2012 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Lower expenditures due to staff retirement Lower legal expenditures 28 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2013 OPERATING BUDGET- FINAL DIVISION: Ecology Page 17 ACTIVITY :Divisional Summary 201220122013 BudgetctualsBudget% Chg.$ Chg. A $$$ Expenditures: Program Management 283,000278,784319,00012.7%36,000 Natural Heritage Management659,000 1,223,176 755,000 14.6%96,000 NHM- Development Serv.support ateresources 851,000387,6461,009,00018.6%158,000 W R oveto:ustanaeanagementystem - 2011 Md WMSibl M S Flood Forecasting & Warning 328,000351,323335,0002.1%7,000 p.antenanceoams,annesanater 313,000301,160327,0004.5%14,000 O & Mi f D Chl d W Special Projects 100,00031,695-100.0%(100,000) - Expenditure Total 2,534,0002,573,7832,745,0008.3%211,000 Funding Sources: Program/User fees 30,00022,02110,000-66.7%(20,000) Reserves - CFGT - Living City - CFGT - Flowthrough - uncpa 25,000-100.0%(25,000) Miil Provincial 50,00014,950-100.0%(50,000) Federal 25,000-100.0%(25,000) Donations/Fundraising - Non-Government Grants - Revenue Total 130,00036,97110,000-92.3%(120,000) 2,536,8122,735,0013.8%331,00 Net Expenditures2,404,00 000 Staff FTEs- Full-time21.322.1 3.6%0.8 Non-F/T0.32.5 881.7%2.2 - NOTES: 2013 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) Additional staffing costs to Eng Detail (10%) off Source Water Protection. dditional Technical ta4 to support Planning and Development Function ASff() dditional staff costs to Program Administration(20%) and FMS (20%) A FTE Changes: +3 for 1 NEW Water Tech & Headwater staff NOTES: 2012 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Overage in operating for staff salary/benefit costs from fewer Service Agreements and the Corporate Strategic Plan Next Page…. 19 29 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2013 OPERATING BUDGET- FINAL DIVISION: Restoration Service s Page 19 ACTIVITY:Divisional Summary 201220122013 BudgetctualsBudget% Chg.$ Chg. A $$$ Expenditures: Program Management406,000392,027412,0001.5%6,000 Inland Fill265,000339,288265,000 Plant Propagation25,000(279,354)(15,000)-160.0%(40,000) Planting Projects482,000407,050530,00010.0%48,000 g,, rchaeology250,000440,302281,00012.4%31,000 A Expenditure Total 1,543,0001,299,3131,592,0003.2%49,000 Funding Sources: Inland Fill500,000564,640500,000 Plant Propagation25,00044,09935,00040.0%10,000 Planting Projects203,000123,597255,00025.6%52,000 rchaeology120,000394,95780,000-33.3%(40,000) A Other150 - Program/User fees Total848,0001,127,443870,0002.6%22,000 Reserves - CFGT - Living City - CFGT - Flowthrough5,000405,000 Municipal80,00081,795150,00087.5%70,000 Provincial5,0003,4905,000 Federal6,0002,4626,000 Donations/Fundraising60 - Non-Government Grants10,304 - - - - Revenue Total 944,0001,225,5951,036,0009.7%92,000 Net Expenditures599,00073,718556,000-7.2%(43,000) Staff FTEs- Full-time20.419.6-3.8%(0.8) Non-F/T12.2 13.27.9% 1.0 NOTES: 2013 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) Higher municipal revenues in Valley & Stream Higher private revenues in private lands reforestation Net expenditure of $50K in plant propagation Revenue sources for Archaeology revised to reflect better actual FTE Changes: -.1 less Conserv. PlanningFill FTE Changes: +.3 mor NOTES: 2012 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Higher revenues more landowner participation Tree & Shrub and Reforestation Higher revenues in plant propagation - more orders, inventory change 30 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2013 OPERATING BUDGET- FINAL DIVISION: Parks and Culture Page 20 ACTIVITY: Divisional Managemen t 201220122013 BUDGETctualsBUDGET% CHG.$ CHG. A $$$ Expenditures: PARKS & CULTURE ADMIN. 371,000374,572397,9007.3%26,900 PARKS & CULTURE SALES20,00029,07420,000 PARKS & CULTURE CUSTOMER SERVICE 376,000362,460415,10010.4%39,100 PARKS & CULTURE RECEPTION 67,077 - 767,000833,280833,0008.6%66,000 FUNDING SOURCES: User fees:24,00039,63524,000 Reserves - CFGT - Living City - CFGT - Flowthrough - Other - Municipal - Other - Provincial - Other - Federal - Other - Donations/Fundraising - Non-Government Grants - 24,00039,63524,000 NET EXPENDITURES743,000793,645809,0008.9%66,000 Staff FTEs- Full-time7.08.115.7%1.1 Non-F/0.5-100.0%(0.5) T NOTES: 2013 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) Reinstated Customer Service Position to full year g FTE Change: +.6 re: .5 Customer Service + more Budget Manage r NOTES: 2012 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Supplementary staff wages exceeded budget. 31 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2013 OPERATING BUDGET- FINAL DIVISION: Parks & Culture Division Page 21 ACTIVITY: Conservation Areas 201220122013 BudgetActualsBudget% Chg.$ Chg. $$$ Exenditures: p General Operations99,00090,72699,000 - West Zone - West Zone Administration72,000138,67166,300-7.9%(5,700) Albion Hills787,000756,088767,000-2.5%(20,000) Glen Haffy182,800208,799216,30018.3%33,500 Indian Line472,000432,637458,000-3.0%(14,000) Boyd255,000251,503227,500-10.8%(27,500) Heart Lake452,000465,447459,5001.7%7,500 - East Zone - East Zone Administration67,00071,73861,300-8.5%(5,700) Bruce's Mill386,000424,982384,800-0.3%(1,200) Petticoat Creek510,000535,241520,1002.0%10,100 Glen Rouge Campground219,000207,445228,0004.1%9,000 Land Management: - East Zone124,00061,943109,000-12.1%(15,000) West Zone185,00084,649191,2003.4%6,200 - Major Maintenance25,00013,09925,000 - Expenditure Total 3,835,8003,742,9683,813,000-0.6%(22,800) Funding Sources: User Fees-Bruce's Mill536,000480,930536,000 User Fees-Petticoat Creek566,000568,209566,000 User Fees-Heart Lake426,000436,763426,000 User Fees-Albion Hills878,000793,211988,00012.5%110,000 User Fees-Glen Haffy157,800137,944158,0000.1%200 User Fees-Indian Line710,000747,045710,000 User Fees-Boyd324,000295,194324,000 User Fees-Glen Rouge250,000285,359250,000 User Fees-Rentals/Other18,156 - 3,847,8003,762,8103,958,0002.9%110,200 User Fees Total Reserves - CFGT - Living City - CFGT - Flowthrough - Municipal - Provincial - Federal26,904 - Donations/Fundraising80 - Non-Government Grants20,049 - Revenue Total 3,847,800 - Net Expenditures(12,000)(66,875)(145,000)1108.3%(133,000) Staff FTEs- Full-time10.310.84.4%0.5 Non-F/T37.737.6-0.2% (0.1) NOTES: 2013 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) Albion Hills Winter program reinstated PC Supervisor, PC & BM & GH Asst superv position reinstated to fr GH, BM, PC Asst. Supervisors position changed to Lead Hand posits IL Supervisor position replaced with Lead Hand AH, IL, BM Lead Hand positions changed to partial year FTE Change: +.3 NEW GH Lead hand as part of downward reclasses FTE Change:+.7 filling some Lead Hand/ Supervisor postions FTE Change: -.4 re: less support staff and Supervisor allocation NOTES: 2012 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Expenditures reduced to offset unrealized revenue Revenue: Unrealized camping and day use revenue. 32 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2013 OPERATING BUDGET- FINAL DIVISIONParks and Culture : Page 22 ACTIVITYKortright Centre for Conservation : 201220122013 BUDGETctualsBUDGET% CHG.$ CHG. A $$$ Expenditures: DMINISTRATION25127,50 -27,50 A00 GROUNDS133,00147,80122,50-7.9%(10,500) 030 BUILDINGS180,90204,44178,60-1.3%(2,300) 080 LIVING MACHINE5,0001,6665,000 GENERAL PROGRAM67,0076,2066,80-0.3%(200) 090 DAY USE78,0060,0977,20-1.0%(800) 040 PUBLIC PROGRAMS31,007,26034,5011.3%3,500 00 EDUCATION PROGRAMS - KCC:DU WETLAND CREATION-OTHER KCC:EDUCATION PROG.DEVELOPMENT - CAFE73,0088,48876,104.2%3,100 00 GIFT SHOP99,0068,23197,90-1.1%(1,100) 00 CAFE - MAPLE SYRUP43,0045,3540,00-7.0%(3,000) 070 CORPORATE FUNCTIONS47,0040,65239,30-16.4%(7,700) 00 GIFT SHOP - MAPLE SYRUP75,0070,5874,10-1.2%(900) 060 SUSTAINABLE HOUSE OP/PROGRAM11,0017,9811,00 060 PUBLIC MAPLE SYRUP86,0076,7599,0015.1%13,00 0600 MAPLE SYRUP EDUCATION - ENERGY WORKSHOPS17 CORPORATE PROGRAMS - COMMERCIAL FILMING154 - KITE FESTIVAL - KCC:MAPLE SYRUP EVENING PROGS. WEDDINGS304,00350,60352,5016.0%48,50 0400 KORIGHT:ENERGY THEMED PROGRAMS KORTRIGHT FOOD RESRVE ACTIVITY 12,38 - 4 Marketing26,0023,8929,0011.5%3,000 070 Expenditure Total 1,258,901,292,851,331,005.7%72,10 0600 Funding Sources: User fees by program Component: 8,24533,20-37.5%(19,900) PUBLIC PROGRAMS53,10 00 - EDUCATION PROGRAMS55 32,58233,00 CAFE33,00 00 GIFT SHOP75,0036,4455,00-26.7%(20,000) 060 55,00 CAFE - MAPLE SYRUP55,00 00 GIFT SHOP - MAPLE SYRUP130,00130,00 00 PUBLIC MAPLE SYRUP124,00282,01124,00 060 WEDDINGS450,00604,72530,0017.8%80,00 0300 CORPORATE FUNCTIONS104,0062,90564,00-38.5%(40,000) 00 - ENERGY WORKSHOPS - SUSTAINABLE HOUSE OP/PROGRAM1,790 - DAY CAMPS LL OTHER USER FEES8,800868,800 A 1,103,9001,093,2101,104,000-84.8%100 - Reserves - CFGT - Living City - CFGT - Flowthrough3,792 - Municipal - Provincial - Federal1,231 - Donations/Fundraising161 - Non-Government Grants 1,098,391,104,000.0%100 -1,103,90 050 Net Expenditure155,000194,461227,00046.5%72,000 s Staff FTEs- Full-time4.24.712.0%0.5 Non-F/T9.49.62.0%0.2 NOTES: 2013 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) Wedding program projected to grow more . FTE Change:+.7 for Lead hand & Events Superviso r NOTES: 2012 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Wedding expenditures increase to reflect increase busines s Wedding revenue exceeded projected budget . 33 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2013 OPERATING BUDGET- FINAL DIVISION: Parks and Culture Page 23 ACTIVITY: Oak Ridges Corridor Park 201220122013 BUDGETctualsBUDGET% CHG.$ CHG. A $$$ GROSS EXPENDITURES: BATHURST GLEN GOLF COURSE - ADMINISTRATION 314,000295,766313,000-0.3%(1,000) Oak Ridges Corridor Par k 363,000348,938371,0002.2%8,000 BATHURST GLEN GOLF COURSE - PRO SHOP 165,000175,359170,0003.0%5,000 BATHURST GLEN GOLF COURSE - SNACK BAR 108,000103,782110,0001.9%2,000 BATHURST GLEN GOLF COURSE - DRIVING RANGE 69,00064,1770,0001.4%1,000 4 - OAK RIDGES PARK 252,00228,80237,00-6.0%(15,000) 090 - 1,271,001,216,821,271,00 080 FUNDING SOURCES: User fees by program Component:1,168 - BATHURST GLEN GOLF COURSE - PRO SHO847,00800,222847,00 P00 BATHURST GLEN GOLF COURSE - SNACK BA100,0093,719100,00 R00 BATHURST GLEN GOLF COURSE - DRIVING RANGE220,00179,02220,00 000 OAK RIDGES PARK 104,00 0- User fees Total1,167,0001,178,1291,167,000 Reserves - CFGT - Living City - CFGT - Flowthrough - Other - Municipal - Other - Provincial104,00104,00 00 Other - Federal - Other - Donations/Fundraising - Non-Government Grants6,310 - - 1,271,001,184,431,271,00 090 NET EXPENDITURES32,390 Staff FTEs- Full-time3.4 3.3-1.5% (0.0) Non-F/11.611.6 - T - NOTES: 2013 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) Same service level in 2013 FTE Change: no change NOTES: 2012 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Expenditures reduced to offset revenue shortfall. 34 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2013 OPERATING BUDGET- FINAL DIVISION: Parks and Culture Page 24 ACTIVITY: Black Creek Pioneer Villag e 201220122013 ctualsBudget% Chg.$ Chg. Budget A $$$ Expenditures: Program Managemen 362,000250,683383,0005.8%21,000 t Curatorial 280,000305,093292,0004.3%12,000 Photography 9,00010,00011.1%1,000 Interpretative Programming 1,224,0001,237,8491,248,0002.0%24,000 Special Events 241,000224,908255,0005.8%14,000 Heritage Education 296,000323,254325,0009.8%29,000 Building Maintenance 1,121,0001,156,3461,149,0002.5%28,000 dmissions 219,000156,534235,0007.3%16,000 A Giftshop 315,000273,733317,0000.6%2,000 Marketing and Sponsorships 203,000146,332203,000 New: Brewery Operations 105,000104,743105,000 Expenditure Total4,375,0004,226,0254,522,0003.4%147,000 Funding Sources: Curatorial 5,0006,5795,000 Photography 100,000181,686128,00028.0%28,000 Interpretative Programming 20,00017,95120,000 Special Events 97,00087,48997,000 Heritage Education 552,000575,133552,000 dmissions 559,000464,195559,000 A Parking 335,000420,953375,00011.9%40,000 Giftshop 410,000333,775410,000 New: Brewery Operations 54,00064,04554,000 Other 146 - Program/User fees Total 2,132,0002,151,9512,200,0003.2%68,000 Reserves - Interest Earnings - CFGT - Flowthrough 75,00052,93375,000 Municipal - Provincial 220,000223,529220,000 Federal 9,713 Donations/Fundraising 11,0008,49211,000 Non-Govt. Grants - - - Revenue Total 2,438,0002,446,6192,506,0002.8%68,000 Net Expenditures1,937,0001,779,4072,016,0004.1%79,000 Staff FTEs- Full-time17.1n/a17.41.8%0.3 Non-F/38.9n/a39.00.3%0.1 T NOTES: 2013 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) Capacity Building Grant reduced Parking revenue increased Filming revenue increased FTE change: +.1 More interpreters net of portion of fundraiser FTE Change: +.3 More Sales Manager time to BCPV from Food & Div. NOTES: 2012 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Filming and Parking revenue exceeded projected budget. Savings realized in maintenance and utilities expenditures. 35 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2013 OPERATING BUDGET- FINAL DIVISION: Parks and Culture Page 25 ACTIVITY: Food Services 201220122013 BudgetctualsBudget% Chg.$ Chg. A $$$ - Weddings: Sales Costs & Revenue 307,000347,665312,7001.9%5,700 Corporate Events: Sales Costs/Revenue 275,000331,205291,3005.9%16,300 Banquet Costs & Internal Functions 142,00049,899149,0004.9%7,000 Visitor Services 227,000239,373254,00011.9%27,000 Equipment (710) Program Management 41,00036,99728,300-31.0%(12,700) djust for Internal charges (115,000)(3,451)(117,000)1.7%(2,000) A FOOD: CENTRAL PURCHASING 10,180 Expenditure Total 917,0001,047,372971,0005.9%54,000 Funding Sources: Weddings 380,000456,821387,0001.8%7,000 Corporate Events 355,000373,345366,5003.2%11,500 Internal & Lunchroom 43,00036,21643,000 Visitor Services- Brew Pub 105,00091,926105,000 Pavilion Snackbar / BBQ 51,00055,63351,000 Thanksgiving 14,0007,08420,90049.3%6,900 March Break 19,0003,90514,000-26.3%(5,000) Mothers Day 4,0004504,000 Christmas Dinners 7,00020,5274,700-32.9%(2,300) Christmas by Lamplight 25,00037,96337,90051.6%12,900 Lunch with Santa 1,323 Other (Rides etc 6,693 ) Total Program/User fees 1,003,0001,091,8871,034,0003.1%31,000 Reserves (710) CFGT - Living Cit y CFGT - Flowthrough Municipal Provincial 160 Federal Donations/Fundraising Non-Government Grants Revenue Total 1,003,0001,091,3371,034,0003.1%31,000 Net Expenditures(86,000)(43,964)(63,000)-26.7%23,000 Staff FTEs- Full-time6.77.310.1%0.7 Non-F/7.16.9-3.1%(0.2) T NOTES: 2013 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) No major service level change in 2013 FTE Change: -.1 FTE less SupervisorFTE Change:+.6 Visitor servic NOTES: 2012 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Wedding and Corporate revenue exceeded projected revenue. 36 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2013 OPERATING BUDGET- FINAL DIVISION: Human Resources, Marketing and Communications Page 26 ACTIVITY: Communications, HR and Some Office the CEO items 201220122013 BudgetctualsBudget% Chg.$ Chg. A $$$ Expenditures: Corporate Management 615,300402,520642,0004.3%26,700 Corporate Secretariat 233,000656,032239,0002.6%6,000 Human Resources 492,000504,726601,00022.2%109,000 Corporate Communications 1,317,0001,308,6991,618,00022.9%301,000 Professional Access 758,000800,947855,00012.8%97,000 - Expenditure Total 3,899,3003,669,1824,425,00013.5%525,700 Funding Sources: Program/User fees 5,00013,8011,500-70.0%(3,500) Reserves 213,000 213,000 - Interest Earnings 91 - CFGT - Flowthrough - Municipal - Provincial 707,000733,984801,00013.3%94,000 Federal - Donations/Fundraising - Non-Government Grants 1,000243,068500-50.0%(500) Special Programs - Revenue Total 713,000990,9431,016,00042.5%303,000 Net Expenditures3,186,3002,678,2393,409,0007.0%222,700 Staff FTEs- Full-time 28.2 - 34.321.5% 6.1 Non-F/T 5.0 - 6.0 0.20 1.0 Authority Members -28.0 28.0 - NOTES: 2013 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) PAIE program increase offset by revenue. More funds allocated for staff training. Website costs higher. FTE: +1.65 for more PAIEE staff net of more HR staff and Records 37 Attachment 2 SECTION 3 2013 CAPITAL AND OTHER PROJECTS BUDGET 38 39 40 41 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2013 CAPITAL BUDGE T DIVISION: Ecology Page 31 GROUP:Capital ACTIVITY: Regional Monitoring Program 201220122013 BUDGETCTUALSBUDGET% CHG.$ CHG. A $$$ GROSS EXPENDITURES: Project Management166,000162,691 147,400-11%(18,600) quatic484,500485,068 516,700 A 7% 32,200 Terrestrial152,000136,578 147,500-3%(4,500) Water Quality178,000202,452 187,700 5% 9,700 Flow & Precipitation140,00082,492 140,000 - GIS & Database36,00022,460 28,000-22%(8,000) West Nile Virus Monitoring50,00037,638 51,800 4% 1,800 Fixed Plot Monitoring42,00043,470 42,000 - - - - Other related Special Projects - - - SEATON MONITORING - - - Groundwater / Well Installations41,00033,802 39,900-3%(1,100) Moe West Nile Virus Monitoring - - - SP:VOLUNTEER AQUATIC MONITORNG - - - SP:MNR - Stream Training42,00013,146 47,000 12% 5,000 SP: MOE Bethic Algal Assessment2,500 2,000-20%(500) SP: Duffins Heights Monitoring36,00012,744 24,000-33%(12,000) SP: Nobleton Phosphorous Offse95,00010,944 82,000-14%(13,000) t SP:WaterQ MOE Biomonitoring20,00016,800 2,000-90%(18,000) SP: Caledon East Water Taking22,00017,664 24,000 9% 2,000 SP:KEMPTVILLE TRAINING COURSES 500 - - - - - 1,507,0001,278,449 1,482,000 -2% (25,000) FUNDING SOURCES: - -- Program/User fees188,50045,569 175,000-7%(13,500) Reserves - - - Interest Earnings - - - CFGT - Flowthrough1,000 1,000 - Other - Municipal53,5009,000 19,000-64%(34,500) Other - Provincial83,500101,863 44,000-47%(39,500) Other - Federal41,50014,669 43,000 4% 1,500 Other - Donations/Fundraising - - - ther - Non-overnment rants20,00020,414 --100%(20,000) OGG 388,000191,515 282,000 --27%- (106,000-) Capital levy - -- Peel387,000387,000 405,000 5% 18,000 York315,000315,000 330,000 5% 15,000 Durham65,00065,000 78,000 20% 13,000 Toronto330,000330,000 330,000 -- djala / Mono - A - - Carryforward levy-Peel 8,000(10,066) 18,000 125% 10,000 York5,000 18,000 260% 13,000 Durham4,000 3,000-25%(1,000) Toronto5,000 18,000 260% 13,000 djala / Mono - -- A Deficit / (Surplus) - - Staff FTEs- Full-tim7.07.70.10.7 e Non-F/T6.76.1(0.1)(0.6) NOTES: 2013 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) 2013 has no more MOE specific funding however additional projec ll other programs will continue at same service level as 2012. A FTE Change: +.1 of Technologis t NOTES: 2012 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Additional data analysis and reporting required in 2012 Less special Provincial funding for some initiatives Increase rom municipal unders or higher work load and more monitoring opportunities fff 42 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2013 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Ecology Page 32 GROUP:Capital Peel Water Management ACTIVITY: 201220122013 CTUALSBUDGE% CHG.$ CHG. BUDGETAT $$$ GROSS EXPENDITURES: 124,00089,137 151,000 Planning/ Integration: Project Management - Subwatersheds22%27,000 Surface Flow: Fluvial Geomorphology - 44,000 quatic: Aquatic Systems Priority Planning10%4,000 A 40,00043,481 Clmate Change - 161,000 Regulation Line mapping Update Funding4%6,000 155,000168,277 2011 out of Sust Tech:Sustainable Neighbourhood Retrofit in Peel Region-100%(15,000) 15,00015,720 - - - 356,000 334,000316,6167%22,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees - Reserves - Interest Earnings - CFGT - Flowthrough - Other - Municipal - Other - Provincial - Other - Federal-- Other - Donations/Fundraising10,00010,000-100%(10,000) Other - Non-Government Grants - Internal - 10,00010,000 (10,000) Capital levy - 352,000 Peel319,000319,00010%33,000 York - Durham - Toronto - Adjala / Mono Carryforward levy-Peel4,000 5,000(12,444)-20%(1,000) York Durham Toronto - Adjala / Mono - - - Deficit / (Surplus)59 - - - Staff FTEs- Full-time - Non-F/T - - - - NOTES: 2013 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) FTE changes: see Water Costs NOTES: 2012 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS 43 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2013 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Ecology Page 33 GROUP:Capital ACTIVITY: ork Water Manaement Yg 201220122013 BUDGECTUALSBUDGE% CHG.$ CHG. TAT $$$ GROSS EXPENDITURES: Clmate Change Adaptation/Research33,00038,610 35,000 6%2,000 Planning/ Integration: Project Management 15,000 -15,000 Groundwater Flow Model Deveolpment - 177,000143,2685,000 Surface Flow: Regulation Lines 182,000 3% 54,00027,8612,000 Headwaters Drainage Study 56,000 4% 280,000205,30758,000 Sustainable Neighbourhood. Retrofit 338,000 21% Sustainable Greenfields Development - Surface Water Q: Rural Water Q - 47,00043,481(3,000) Aquatic: All 44,000-6% -- -- 591,000458,527 79,000 670,000 13% FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees - Reserves - Interest Earnings - CFGT - Flowthrough - -36,500 Other - Municipal40000.0033,986 3,500-91% 121,500 Other - Provincial63457.25 121500.00 - 1,000 Other - Federal 6,250 1000.00 - Other - Donations/Fundraising-- -110,000 Other - Non-Government Grants132,000 22,000-83% 103,693 148,00 172,000 0-24,000 Capital lev y Peel - 107,000 York338,000338,000 445,000 32% Durham - Toronto - Adjala / Mono Carryforward levy-Peel - (4,000) York81,000(19,797)77,000-5% Durham - Toronto - Adjala / Mono - - Deficit / (Surplus)36,631 - Staff FTEs- Full-time - Non-F/T - NOTES: 2013 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) NOTES: 2012 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS 44 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2013 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Ecolo Page 34 gy GROUP:Caital p ement ACTIVITY: Durham Water Mana g 201220122013 CTUALBUDGET% CHG.$ CHG. BUDGETAS $$$ GROSS EXPENDITURES: -122- Other: Floodwarning Flood Control Capital122-444,0004,321-100%(4,000) Report Cards & other projects122-4575,00062,88450,000-33%(25,000) Surface Flow: Stream Gauges122-4643,000-42,000-2%(1,000) Aquatic: Durham Fish Plan 122-4710,00019,60211,00010%1,000 Flood Warning Systems & Flood Control Capital122-55 - Regulation Line Mapping Update122-5683,00069,19383,000 Durham Waterfront & Watershed Water Quality Studie122-59333 - s Clmate Change122-60 - -122- - 358,000280,488 186,000-48%(172,000) FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees333 - Reserves - Interest Earnings - CFGT - Flowthrough - Other - Municipal - Other - Provincial - Other - Federal - Other - Donations/Fundraising - Other - Non-Government Grants143,000-- 77,777 143,000-100%(143,000) Capital lev y Peel - York - Durham162,000162,000162,000 Toronto - Adjala / Mono - Carryforward levy-Peel York - Durham53,00040,71024,000-55%(29,000) Toronto - Adjala / Mono Deficit / (Surplus) - - Staff FTEs- Full-time - Non-F/T - NOTES: 2013 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) NOTES: 2012 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS 45 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2013 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Ecology Page 34b GROUP:Capital ACTIVITY: Water Management portion of Toronto Remedial Action 201220122013 BUDGETACTUALSBUDGET% CHG.$ CHG. $$$ GROSS EXPENDITURES: WMan.: Planning & Integration113-91 - Water Balance 23,00018,610 -100%(23,000) 188,0002%4,000 Sust. Neighbourhoods Retrofit Plan184,000178,660 - WMan.: Water Budgets - 127,000-18%(27,000) Highland Creek Valley & Stream Greening Program154,00081,576 - 135,0005%7,000 Reg Line Mapping, Growth Management128,000141,277 WMan.: Riparian Zone Survey/Aquatic Priorities40,00043,48146,00015%6,000 WMan.: Climate Change74,00030,00025,000-66%(49,000) - 603,000493,604521,000(82,000) -14% FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees500 - Reserves - Interest Earnings - CFGT - Flowthrough70,00070,05030,000-57%(40,000) Other - Municipal - Other - Provincial2,73422,000 -22,000 Other - Federal - Other - Donations/Fundraising - Other - Non-Government Grants-27,000- - - 70,00073,28479,00013%9,0000 Capital levy Peel York - Durham - Toronto373,000363,000364,000-2%(9,000) Adjala / Mono - Carryforward levy-Peel - York - Durham - Toronto160,00050,79078,000-51%(82,000) Adjala / Mono Deficit / (Surplus)6,531 - Staff FTEs- Full-time - Non-F/T - - - - - NOTES: 2013 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) - - NOTES: 2012 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS 46 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2013 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Ecology Page 35 GROUP:Capital ACTIVITY: Water Cost Centres 201220122013 ACTUALSBUDGET% CHG.$ CHG. BUDGET $$$ GROSS EXPENDITURES: Watershed Plan/Integration Projects233,00063,829281,00021%48,000 Growth Management Policy Projects533,000401,737513,000-4%(20,000) Flood / Groundwater Projects274,000-226,000(48,000) Aquatic Projects202,000228,740494,000145%292,000 Climate Change Projects479,00039,939146,000-70%(333,000) - Other: Trail Plans - Other: Cultural Heritage Master Plan56,00056,722-100%(56,000) - Covered from Water Funding projects (1,369,000)(891,020) (1,157,000) (0) 212,000 - 408,000221,704503,00023%95,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees154,00072,645115,000-25%(39,000) Reserves - Interest Earnings - CFGT - Flowthrough - Other - Municipal11,0003,56218,00064%7,000 Other - Provincial71,500115,430214,000199%142,500 Other - Federal17,50032,712115,000557%97,500 Other - Donations/Fundraising - Other - Non-Government Grants154,00010,41641,000-73%(113,000) - - 408,000234,765 503,00023%95,000 - Capital levy - Peel - York - Durham - Toronto - Adjala / Mono - Carryforward levy-Peel York - Durham - Toronto - Adjala / Mono Deficit / (Surplus)(13,061) - - Staff FTEs- Full-time9.57.0(0.3)(2.5) Non-F/T2.73.40.30.7 NOTES: 2013 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) FTE Change: RSS none FTE Change: +.6 SNAP staff NOTES: 2012 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS -- - 47 - - - TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2013 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Ecology Page 35b GROUP:Capital ACTIVITY: CTC Source Water Protection Plan 201220122013 BUDGETACTUALSBUDGET% CHG.$ CHG. $$$ GROSS EXPENDITURES: SOURCE PROT:MNR/CO BASE FUNDS478,000177,984-100%(478,000) CTC - GIS Mapping13,50054,69420,00048%6,500 CTC Assessment Report130,00016,079-100%(130,000) CTC:SOURCE PROTECTION PLAN115,00042,039-100%(115,000) CTC;CVC Transfer432,000170,020-100%(432,000) CTC:CLOCA Transfer258,000214,899-100%(258,000) CTC Communications234,000258,858217,000-7%(17,000) Water Budget Peer Review35,314 - Source Protection Committee154,00081,47096,000-38%(58,000) SPP: L. Ontario Collaboration2,737 - CTC Project Management16,400173,172134,000717%117,600 SPP:TRCA PROJ.MANGMENT - CTC Technical Support14,000-100%(14,000) CTC Admin. Support73,60072,57193,00026%19,400 TRCA Admin. Support20,0005,04210,000-50%(10,000) SPP: TRAINING COSTS1,500-100%(1,500) SWP:SW MONITORING - Data Management29,000112-100%(29,000) GIS/ Mapping48,00094120,000-58%(28,000) SPP: Preliminary Water Budget80,594 - TRCA Project Management126,000182,33998,000-22%(28,000) TRCA Technical Support16,0001,65511,000-31%(5,000) SPP: POLICY / PLANNING 504 - 2,159,000-699,000(1,460,000) FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees189 - Reserves Interest Earnings24,609 - CFGT - Flowthrough Other - Municipal Other - Provincial2,159,0001,546,225699,000-68%-1,460,000 Other - Federal Other - Donations/Fundraising Other - Private - 2,159,0001,571,023699,000-68%-1,460,000 Capital levy Peel - York - Durham - Toronto - Adjala / Mono - Carryforward levy-Peel - York - Durham - Toronto - Adjala / Mono - Deficit / (Surplus)0 - Staff FTEs- Full-time 2.045 -0.2(1) Non-F/T0.64.00.4-0.3-0.2 - NOTES: 2013 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excludi +.2 FTE York Water Festival small amount of staff to here FTE change: -.8 GIS moved out of closing project -.5 staff allocated to other programs NOTES: 2012 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS 48 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2013 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Ecology Page 36 GROUP:Capital CTIVITY: Floodplain Mapping Program A 201220122013 BUDGETCTUALBUDGET% CHG.$ CHG. AS $$$ GROSS EXPENDITURES: - - - - 244,000 Core Flood Plain Mapping Program219,000253,26211%25,000 - - 219,000253,262 244,000 11%25,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees17,000 - Reserves - Interest Earnings - CFGT - Flowthrough - Other - Municipal17,000 - Other - Provincial- Other - Federal - Other - Donations/Fundraising - Other - Non-Government Grants - - 34,000 Capital lev y 80,000 Peel70,00070,00014%10,000 62,000 York60,00060,0003%2,000 20,000 Durham20,00020,000 70,000 Toronto65,00065,0008%5,000 - Adjala / Mono Carryforward levy-Peel5,000 -5,000 3,500 York -3,500 Durham - 3,500 Toronto4,0004,262-13%-500 Adjala / Mono Deficit / (Surplus) Staff FTEs- Full-time0.20.50.90.2 Non-F/T 1 10.1 0 - NOTES: 2013 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) Delay in initiating and hiring consultants during 2012 result in higher budget for 2013. FTE Change: +.3 PAIE intern NOTES: 2012 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS 49 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2013 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Ecology Page 37 GROUP:Capital ACTIVITY: York/Peel/Durham/Toronto Groundwate r 201220122013 CTUALSBUDGE% CHG.$ CHG. BUDGE TAT $$$ GROSS EXPENDITURES: 556,000 Groundwater Studies618,000539,763-10%(62,000) - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - 556,000 618,000539,763-10%(62,000) FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees195 - Reserves - Interest Earnings - CFGT - Flowthrough - Other - Municipal - Other - Provincial - Other - Federal - Other - Donations/Fundraising - 2,500 Other - Non-Government Grants -2,500 - Capital levy 130,000 Peel130,000130,000 130,000 York125,000125,00005,000 127,500 Durham125,000125,00002,500 130,000 Toronto130,000130,000 Adjala / Mono-- Carryforward levy-Peel9,000 27,0007,392-67%(18,000) 9,000 York27,0007,392-67%(18,000) 9,000 Durham27,0007,392-67%(18,000) 9,000 Toronto27,0007,392-67%(18,000) Adjala / Mono Deficit / (Surplus) - Staff FTEs- Full-time - Non-F/T - NOTES: 2013 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) Service Level will be on track with as 2012. All funding and carry forward is attached to 2013 deliverables. NOTES: 2012 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS -- - 50 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2013 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Ecology Page 38 RUP:apital GOC ATIVITY: Terrestrial Natural Heritage C 201220122013 BUDGETActualsBUDGET% CHG.$ CHG. $$ GROSS EXPENDITURES: Terrestrial Natural Heritage Program479,000311,417547,00014%68,000 Pickering Terrestrial Natural Heritage - Sp:Research Aqua/Terr. Study 12,0001,00841,000242%29,000 - New: Roads & Wildlife Analysis31,00020,68910,000-68%(21,000) 40,000228,871150,000275%110,000 Project Managemen t (42,000) -(42,000) Covered from other project s 562,000561,984706,00026%144,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees12,371 - Reserves - Interest Earnings - CFGT - Flowthrough3,00040,75055,0001733%52,000 Other - Municipal - Other - Provincial40,00015,000-63%(25,000) Other - Federal25,00023,75015,000-40%(10,000) Other - Donations/Fundraising - Other - Non-Government Grants32,00025,862169,000428%137,000 - - 100,000102,733254,000154%154,000 Capital lev-- y Peel144,000144,000144,000 York127,000127,000133,0005%6,000 Durham50,00050,00050,000 Toronto110,000110,000115,0005%5,000 Adjala / Mono - 10,000-68%(21,000) Carryforward levy-Peel20,689 York - Durham - Toronto7,562 - Adjala / Mono Deficit / (Surplus) - - Staff FTEs- Full-time5.25.913%0.7 Non-F/T2.61.9-25%(0.6) - NOTES: 2013 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) - - FTE Change: no change NOTES: 2012 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Roads and Wildlife initiative delayed. 51 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2013 CAPITAL BUDGE T DIVISION: Restoration Services Page 39 GROUP:Capital ACTIVITY: Toronto Remedial Action Plan Project- Regeneration items 201220122013 ACTUALSBUDGET% CHG.$ CHG. BUDGET $$$ GROSS EXPENDITURES: Etobicoke: Etobicoke Mimico HIP 33,000 33,000 34,0003%1,000 All Toronto Plant Projs 31,0003%1,000 30,000 24,517 Humber: Claireville Trail TO36,0003%1,000 35,00023,588 Don: Don HIP Funds 64,0007%4,000 60,000 65,515 Humber: Eglinton Flats Pond - - - - Etobicoke: South Mimico Barrier Mitigation 35,000-19%(8,000) 43,000 8,274 WF: Toronto Islands Beach Restoration Projects - - 3,032 - - - - SP:T.O.HISTOR.PARK-SIGN/PLANTS --- - ougeaerseanmpemenaon,, 57000138 75 RWthdPlIltti,,780004%3000 Canada Goose Management 33,0003%1,000 32,00032,000 WF: Waterfront ORM Migratory Bird/Waterfowl42,00068%17,000 30,39625,000 Waterfront: Habitat Implementation 97,000-7%(7,000) 101,093104,000 -- - -- - Humber: Habitat Implementation Plan113-66 50,00050,000 54,0008%4,000 Etobicoke: Toronto Golf Club Barrier Mitigation113-77 1,10966,000 105,00059%39,000 Humber: Lower Humber Weir Mitigation113-83 29,32171,000 132,00086%61,000 Gatineau Hydro Corridor Restoration113-2850,000 -50,000 11314 - 624,000458,983791,00027%167,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees23,73851,000 -51,000 Reserves - Interest Earnings - CFGT - Flowthrough5,24615,000 -15,000 Other - Municipal3,03250,000 -50,000 Other - Provincial32,00032,000 Other - Federal40,000 -40,000 Other - Donations/Fundraising - Other - Non-Government Grants3,559 - - - - 32,00035,576188,000488%156,000 Capital levy Peel - York - Durham - Toronto 415,000415,000 433,0004% 18,000 Adjala / Mono - Carryforward levy-Peel - York - Durham - Toronto177,00010,224170,000-4%(7,000) Adjala / Mono - Deficit / (Surplus)(1,818) Staff FTEs- Full-time see Regeneration Costs Non-F/ T- NOTES: 2013 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) - NOTES: 2012 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS - Toronto Golf Club & Lower Humber Barrier Mitigation have carry forwards due design & approval delays - - 52 - TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2013 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Restoration Services Page 40 GROUP:Caital p e Proec ACTIVITY: Peel Natural Herita gjt 201220122013BUDGETBUDGET BUDGET ACTUALSBUDGETCHG.CHG. $$%$ $ GROSS EXPENDITURES: Regeneration: Humber:Claireville Restoration50,00033,5746%3,000 53,000 Humber: HIP Funds87,00087,0006%5,000 92,000 Arsenal Lands Park Development22,00022,728-100%(22,000) Mimico: Upper Mimico Crk Habitat Restoration54,00022,548-7%(4,000) 50,000 Humber: Oak Ridges Moraine CPA2182,00097,85340%72,000 254,000 Multi W:Canada Goose Mngt.34,00029,2803%1,000 35,000 Multi W: Managing Hazard Trees - Peel18,00014,673-28%(5,000) 13,000 Humber: Centreville Crk Stewardship - Multi-Watershed:Children's groundwater - Etobicoke: Stormwater - Etobicoke: Pratt & Whitney Renaturalization - Etobicoke: Heart Lake Naturalization - Humber: Caledon East Community Action Site - Humber: Taylor Pond - Humber: Indian Line Claireville Reservoir Naturalization - - 825,000 746,000601,130 10.6%79,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees - Reserves - Interest Earnings - CFGT - Flowthrough - Other - Municipal -30,000 30,000 Other - Provincial - Other - Federal - Other - Donations/Fundraising - Other - Non-Government Grants - - - 30,000 -30,000 Capital lev y Peel597,67715% 613,000708,00095,000 York - Durham - Toronto - Adjala / Mono - 133,0007,135-35%(46,000) Carryforward levy-Peel87,000 York - Durham - Toronto - Adjala / Mono - Deficit / (Surplus)(3,682) - Staff FTEs- Full-time - Non-F/T - NOTES: 2013 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) Similar service levels FTE Changes: see Regeneration Cost s NOTES: 2012 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Hazard Trees Mngt has carry forward funds for emergency tree removals 53 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2013 CAPITAL BUDGET IVISION: Restoration Services D Page 41 :apa GROUPCitl TIVITY: York Natural Heritage Project AC 201220122013 CTUALSBUDGE% CHG.$ CHG. BUDGE TAT $ $$ GROSS EXPENDITURES: Reeneration: g Humber: Lake Wilcox CAS5,000 10,000--50%(5,000) Humber: Eaton Hall Wetland - Rouge: Robinson Crk#1 - Restoration(44,000) 44,00034,721-100% SP:ROBINSON CRK#2-MONITORING 948 - 32,000 Humber: Richmond Hill Riparian36,00018,749-11%(4,000) Duffins: Stouffville Greenways - 107,000 Reforestation/Plant Propagation105,00088,7392%2,000 33,000 Managing Hazard Trees - York38,00015,383-13%(5,000) 388,000 Rouge: Robinson Creek Construction81,285 -388,000 16TH AVE#5:E.L.ROUGE RIPARIAN 20,831 - 16th Avenue construction214,966 - SE Collector2,951,0001,433,2942,309,000-16%(642,000) Participation by other Capital Project - 3,351,000(316,000) 2,047,663-9% 3,035,000 FUNDING SOURCES: 2,205,0002,571,000 Program/User fees2,189,71817%366,000 Reserves - Interest Earnings - CFGT - Flowthrough - 76,000 Other - Municipal690,00060,150-89%(614,000) Other - Provincial - Other - Federal15,000-100%(15,000) Other - Donations/Fundraising - Other - Non-Government Grants81,000(488,407)-100%(81,000) - - 2,647,000 2,991,0001,761,461-12%(344,000) Capital levy Peel - 364,000 York311,000311,00017%53,000 Durham - Toronto - djala / Mono - A Carryforward levy-Peel - 24,000 York49,000(22,980)-51%(25,000) Durham - Toronto - djala / Mono - A Deficit / (Surplus) (1,818) - Staff FTEs- Full-timesee Regeneration Costs Non-F/T - NOTES: 2013 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) NOTES: 2012 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS SEC project will have carry forwards to continue ongoing work 54 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2013 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Restoration Services Page 42 GROUP:Capital ACTIVITY: Durham Natural Heritage Project 201220122013 BUDGETCTUALBUDGET% CHG.$ CHG. AS $$$ GROSS EXPENDITURES: Watershed Trail Imlementation101,000131,39154,0000-47,000 p Duffins: Fish Plan Implementation 38,00034,51537,000-3%1,000 () Transport Can. Lands 8,000 59,58272,00064,000-11% () Duffins: TNH Implementation 35,24544,00041,000-7%3,000 () CHERRYWOOD RESTORATION 22,249 - - - Durham - Managing Hazard Trees 38,00025,61433,000-13%5,000 () Durham Goose Management 7,0007,0007,000 Seaton Trail Project 198,101185,000-100%185,000 () - SP:Brock N & S Restoration Planning 20,208 - - - Brock North & South Proj. Managemen 15,00015,3417,000-53%8,000 t() Brock Rd North & South Master Plan 41,000 133,024137,00096,000-30% () MTO 407 Red Side Dace Compensation 48,381355,000241,000-32%114,000 () MTO 407 - Habitat Compensation 2,692515,000 -515,000 - SP:BROCK SOUTH RESTORATION 19,979 - - - BROCK:GREENWOOD SITE PROTECTIN 2,127 - - - SEC E3 & E5 Petticoat Crk Restoration 24,317211,000 -211,000 --- - 1,306,000 992,000779,76732%314,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees152,000273,4791,134,000646%982,000 Reserves - Interest Earnings - CFGT - Flowthrough25,000 - Other - Municipal4,168 - Other - Provincial540,000238,186-100%(540,000) Other - Federal72,000-100%(72,000) Other - Donations/Fundraising167 - Other - Non-Government Grants19,178 - 1,134,000 764,000560,17848%370,000 Capital lev y Peel Yor k Durham158,000158,000158,000 Toronto - djala / Mon - Ao Carryforward levy-Peel - York - Durham70,00061,05614,000-80%(56,000) Toronto - Adjala / Mono Deficit / (Surplus)533 - Staff FTEs- Full-timesee Regeneration Costs Non-F/T - NOTES: 2013 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 land s NOTES: 2012 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Watershed Trail carryforward for ongoing trail construction Managing Hazard Trees carry forward for emergency us e Seaton project funds carry forward to complete trail 55 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2013 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Restoration Services Page 42b GROUP:Capital ACTIVITY: Regeneration Cost Centres 201220122013 BUDGETCTUALBUDGET% CHG.$ CHG. AS $$$ GROSS EXPENDITURES: Habitat Implementation Projects495,000464,220536,0008%41,000 Reforestation/ Planting Projects340,000325,634380,00012%40,000 Special Habitat Restoration Projects1,197,000720,821999,000-17%(198,000) Environmental Services- Othe2,289,0001,991,7272,856,000567,000 r Emerald Ash Borer TRCA Lan - d Habitat / Monitoring Internal Cost Centres10,000(91,717)10,000 (841,000)(858,872)(912,000)8%(71,000) Covered by other Capital project s 4,675,000 3,865,0002,733,117 21%810,000 FUNDING SOURCES: , Program/User fees2,433,0001,804,2892,959,00022% 526000 Reserves2,376 - Interest Earnings288 - CFGT - Flowthrough10,0007,0447,000-30%(3,000) Other - Municial104,000113,349116,00012%12,000 p Other - Provincial 321,500483,999 265,000-18% (56,500) Other - Federal574500.0454,508488,000-15%86,500 () Other - Donations/Fundraisin g- Other - Non-Government Grants422,000176,954840,00099%418,000 - 3,865,0003,042,8084,675,00021%810,000 Caital lev py Peel Yor k Durham Toronto - djala / Mono A Carryforward levy-Peel - Yor k Durham Toronto djala / Mono A (309,692) - - Deficit / (Surplus) - NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION in development Staff FTEs- Full-time27.637.335%9.8 Non-F/11.611.0-5%-0.6 T # of trees/shrubs planted REM6,60010,9656,600 # of hectares of wetlands restored/created2.03.02.0 # of hectares riparian restoration3.03.23.0 # of metres of stream restoration20.040.020.0 NOTES: 2013 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) +3.4 net additional construction staff Regen Sp. ProjectsFTE Change: + .4 more staff allocated to Regenersation projectsFTE Change: -.2 less TNH staff allocate d NOTES: 2012 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Many projects are multi year and funds are carried forwarded 56 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2013 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Restoration Services Page 43 GROUP:Capital ACTIVITY: Valley and Shoreline Regeneration Projects 201220122013 BUDGETACTUALSBUDGET% CHG.$ CHG. $$$ GROSS EXPENDITURES: Erosion : Planning & Design97,00082,491-22%(21,000) 76,000 Eastville Office30,00030,121-100%(30,000) Training & development Erosion Control Planning69,00050,8001%1,000 70,000 18,525 Erosion Control Major Maintenance1,600,00039,392-7%(109,000) 1,491,000 Portico Drive Major Maintenance154,000403,226-100%(154,000) BEAUCOURT RD.WALL/SLOPE RETROS 32,392 EC:ROUGE/MORNINGSDE DISSIPATER 110 441-449 Guildwood Parkway -600,000 600,000 Troutbrook Dr. Slope Failure465,0001,101,949-100%(465,000) Troutbrooke-Project Management33,826 - Monitoring & Maintenance: WF420,000238,232-7%(30,000) 390,000 EC: Denison Dr. Slope Stabilization6,228 - EAST DON R. / FINCH AVE. 165,038 - ERSION STUDY:3030+ WESTON ROAD 34,470 - Livingstone Rd Condo28,242 -102,000 102,000 20 Cedarview Dr Culbert Replacement2,254 -100,000 100,000 30-48 Royal Rouge Trail92,000776,884-100%(92,000) Meadowcliffe Drive2,512,0002,013,115-81%(2,042,000) 470,000 MEADOWCLIFFE-PROJ.MANAGEMENT45,849 - MEADOWCLIFFE COMPLIANCE MONITR 9,773 - Toronto Islands - Gilbraltor Point265,0001,5910%(1,000) 264,000 Mud Creek Erosion398,497 - T.O. Works Funded: E/C Inventory64,000136,19763%40,000 104,000 Toronto Parks Sites2,178,0001,960,0451,709,000-22%(469,000) Cherry Beach Sand Placement1,8002,010-100%(1,800) SP:CHERRY B. DRAINAGE IMPRVMNT 10,362 - Eastern Beaches Shore Stabilization Study52,00015,351-33%(17,000) 35,000 - 7,999,8007,641,2745,411,000-32%(2,588,800) FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees2,337,8002,217,317-1%(23,800) 2,314,000 Reserves - Interest Earnings - CFGT - Flowthrough - Other - Municipal - Other - Provincial154,000210,915-100%(154,000) Other - Federal - Other - Donations/Fundraising - Other - Non-Government Grants - Other- Land Sale/Easement(1,018) - 2,491,8002,427,215-7%(177,800) 2,314,000 Capital levy Peel - York - Durham - Toronto2,750,0002,750,0003%80,000 2,830,000 Adjala / Mono - Carryforward levy-Peel York Durham Toronto2,758,0002,495,566-90%(2,491,000) 267,000 Adjala / Mono - (31,507) - Deficit / (Surplus) - Staff FTEs- Full-time19.918.2(0.1)(1.6) Non-F/T8.913.70.54.8 NOTES: 2013 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) FTE Change: +9.3 construction staff for Toronto Works/ Parks projs.FTE Change: -.1 Proj. Manager reallocated to Waterfront NOTES: 2012 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS 57 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2013 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Restoration Services Page 44 GROUP:Capital ATIVITY: ther Erosion ontrol Project COCs 201220122013 BUDGECTUALSBUDGE% CHG.$ CHG. TAT $$$ GROSS EXPENDITURES: 798,000 York Region Erosion Monitoring & Maintenance286,00069,698179%512,000 YORK:LANGSTAFF EMERGENCY/VAUGH - YORK:LANGSTAFF CLASS EA - SP: Ladies Golf Club (Markham)- - 160,000 Peel Region Erosion Monitoring & Maintenance158,000117,6581%2,000 () 18,000 Durham Region Erosion Monitoring & Maintenance15,0008,48320%3,000 384,000 87,383 -384,000 - 1,360,000 459,000517,998196%901,000 FUNDING SOURCES: 384,000 Program/User fees132,773 -384,000 Reserves - Interest Earnings - CFGT - Flowthrough - Other - Municipal - Other - Provincial - Other - Federal - Other - Donations/Fundraising - Other - Non-Government Grants1,600 - - - 384,000 134,373 -384,000 Capital levy 160,000 Peel150,000-- 730,000 York230,000230,000217%500,000 12,000 Durham12,00012,000 Toronto - Adjala / Mono - Carryforward levy-Peel 8,0008,218-100%(8,000) 68,000 York56,000(12,001)21%12,000 6,000 Durham3,000(3,517)100%3,000 Toronto - Adjala / Mono - Deficit / (Surplus)(1,076) Staff FTEs- Full-timeUnder T.O. ErosionUnder T.O. Erosion Non-F/TUnder T.O. ErosionUnder T.O. Erosion NOTES: 2013 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) NOTES: 2012 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS 58 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2013 CAPITAL BUDGET Page 45 DIVISION: Restoration Services GROUP:Capital ACTIVITY: City of Toronto Waterfront Project 201220122013 BUDGETACTUALSBUDGET% CHG.$ CHG. $$$ GROSS EXPENDITURES: Waterfront Administration82,00066,469 70,000-15%(12,000) Eastville Office10,00010,000 -100%(10,000) Long Range Waterfront Planning164,000134,521 145,000-12%(19,000) Scarborough Shoreline Protection & Public Access165,00014,001 184,00012%19,000 Scarborugh Waterfront Cycling Trail9,00032,111 -100%(9,000) Keating Channel Dredging324,000325,701 302,000-7%(22,000) Keating Channel #1 Env. Monitoring39,00032,866 36,000-8%(3,000) Keating Channel #2 Auditing9,0001,060 6,000-33%(3,000) TTP - Cell 1 Capping226,000201,508 204,000-10%(22,000) TTP Embayment D Wetland Project679,000243,910 436,000-36%(243,000) Tommy Thompson - Int. Mgt.238,000311,446 226,000-5%(12,000) TTP Cell 2 Wetland Regen Coca Cola 150,000 -150,000 Ashbridge's Bay Dredging240,000240,587 242,0001%2,000 Marie Curtis Phase 2799,944 515,000 -515,000 Marie Curtis Park466,000120,237 355,000-24%(111,000) Arsenal Lands Park Development669,00086,798 542,000-19%(127,000) Arsenal Long Term Monitoring20,00069,226 20,000 Humber Landform35,701 265,000 -265,000 Environmental Monitoring255,000297,272 237,000-7%(18,000) Ashbridge's Bay Landform41,540 643,000 -643,000 Waterfront Parks Major Maintenance245,000219,554 226,000-8%(19,000) Waterfront G.I.S.25,00025,000 25,000 Special Projects180,000270,778227,00026%47,000 Mississauga Waterfront206,000692,7991,780,000764%1,574,000 6,836,000 4,251,0004,273,028 61%2,585,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees962,0002,150,118 3,690,000284%2,728,000 Reserves - Interest Earnings1,549 - CFGT - Flowthrough55,080 - Other - Municipal - Other - Provincial5,000 - Other - Federal136,00088,587 195,00043%59,000 Other - Donations/Fundraising - Other - Non-Government Grants747,000208,498 732,000-2%(15,000) - 1,845,0002,508,832150%2,772,000 4,617,000 Capital levy Peel - York - Durham - 56,000 Toronto1,552,0001,552,0004% 1,608,000 Adjala/ Mono Carryforward levy-Peel - --- York Durham (243,000) Toronto239,631-28% 854,000611,000 Adjala/Tos - Deficit / (Surplus)(27,435) - NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION in development Staff FTEs- Full-time9.717.884%8.2 Non-F/T2.85.698%2.8 Facilities: # Buildings /Sq. footage - Keating Channel Dredging cubic metres60,00059,68860,000 Ashbridges Bay Dredging cubic metres2,5002,5002,500 - TTP Event attendance1,0001,5001,000 - TTP Cleanup cubic metres-- -- # of active projects162116 - NOTES: 2013 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) New - Humber and Ashbridges Landform EA paid by City of Toronto New - TTP Cell 2 Wetland funded by Coca-Cola FTE Change: +11.5 RSS staff for new initiativesFTE Change: - .5 less WM staff to Durham Waterfront Project NOTES: 2012 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Arsenal Lands underspent - started design work by consultants for Marie Curtis section Marie Curtis Park development delayed Scarborough Shoreline Protection & Access project has been delayed due to insufficient funding 59 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2013 CAPITAL BUDGE T DIVISION: Restoration Services Page 46 GROUP:Caital p ACTIVITY: Region Of Durham Waterfront Project 201220122013 BUDGETCTUALBUDGET% CHG.$ CHG. AS $$$ GROSS EXPENDITURES: 6,000 OPG Naturalization41,00012,023-85.4%(35,000) 9,000 Frenchman's Bay Restoration Management Plan20,00021,688-55.0%(11,000) SP:MOE2012 CLADOPHORA ANALYSIS 17,336 Pickering Healthy Communities - 4,418,00 Pickering Waterfront Shoreline Improvements56,000137,00607789.3%4,362,000 21,000 Pickering Harbourfront Restoration23,00055,577-8.7%(2,000) 69,000 Pickering Waterfront Trail Securement61,00036,52513.1%8,000 15,000 Durham Waterfront Monitoring12,00011,18125.0%3,000 SP:AJAX WATRFRNT WATER Q STUDY 20,570 - SP:PARADISE PARK BEACH RESTRN 36,456 Duffin's Creek Parking- 28,000 Duffins Marsh Restoration45,00054,674-37.8%(17,000) SP:DUFF-LAMPREY BARRIER FENCE1,035- 4,566,000 258,000404,0691669.8%4,308,000 FUNDING SOURCES: 4,418,000 Program/User fees180,052 -4,418,000 Reserves - Interest Earnings - CFGT - Flowthrough - Other - Municipal41,00025,728-100.0%(41,000) Other - Provincial9,00026,494-100.0%(9,000) Other - Federal - Other - Donations/Fundraising - 6,000 Other - Non-Government Grants35,000-- - - 4,424,000 85,000244,2975104.7%4,339,000 Caital lev py Peel - York - 126,000 Durham145,000145,000-13.1%(19,000) Toronto - Adjala/ Mono Carryforward levy-Peel - York - 16,000 Durham28,00014,773-42.9%(12,000) Toronto - Adjala/Tos - Deficit / (Surplus)(0) - - NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION: Staff FTEs- Full-timeUnder T.O. Waterfront Under T.O. Waterfront Non-F/TUnder T.O. Waterfront Under T.O. Waterfront - # of active roects pj 1010 10 # of comleted roects ppj 1 - - - - NOTES: 2013 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) FTE Change: see Toronto Waterfront NOTES: 2012 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS 60 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2013 CAPITAL BUDGE T DIVISION: Watershed ManagementPage 47 GROUP:Capital ACTIVITY: Waterfront Revitilization Corporation Projects 201220122013 CTUALSBUDGE% CHG.$ CHG. BUDGE TAT $$$ GROSS EXPENDITURES: 350,000 Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project1,438,0001,069,922-76%(1,088,000) 1,800,000 Mimico Waterfront Linear Park1,695,0002,128,5946%105,000 Tommy Thompson Park Master Plan Implementation2,305,0001,107,185-100%(2,305,000) Western Beaches Watercourse Facility- - 45,000 T.O. Waterfront Aquatic Habitat Restoration45,000 CWF Monitoring47,0000-100%(47,000) 2,195,000 5,530,0004,305,702-60%(3,335,000) FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees155 - Reserves - Interest Earnings - CFGT - Flowthrough - Other - Municipal - Other - Provincial - Other - Federal - Other - Donations/Fundraising - 2,195,000 Other - Non-Government Grants5,530,0004,305,547-60%(3,335,000) - - 2,195,000 5,530,0004,305,702-60%(3,335,000) Capital levy Peel - York - Durham-- Toronto - djala/ Mono - A Carryforward levy-Peel - York - Durham - Toronto - djala/Tos - A Deficit / (Surplus)0 - Staff FTEs- Full-time9.22.0-78%(7.1) Non-F/T2.61.4-46%(1.2) NOTES: 2012 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) Remaining projects proceeding on schedule but no new projects yet confirmed. FTE Change: -. 8 less WM staff for smaller 2013 projectFTE Change: -7.3 RSS construction stafff due to smaller project FTE change: -.1 staff reallocated due to smaller project NOTES: 2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS 61 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2011 CAPITAL BUDGET Page 48 DIVISION: Finance and Business Developmen t GROUP:Capital ACTIVITY: Humber Bay Shores Waterfront Par k 201220122013 BUDGETCTUALBUDGET% CHG. CHG. AS$ $$$ GROSS EXPENDITURES: Humber Bay Shores - - Etobicoke Motel Strip Expropriation / Mediation100,000587-100%(100,000) - - - - - 100,000587-100%(100,000) FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees - Reserves(4,907) - Interest Earnings5,494 - CFGT - Flowthrough - Other - Municipal - Other - Provincial - Other - Federal - Other - Donations/Fundraising - Other - Non-Government Grants - Land Sales proceeds100,000-100%(100,000) -- 100,000587-100%(100,000) Capital lev y Peel - Yor - k Durham - Toronto - djala/ Mono A Carryforward levy-Peel - Yor k Durham Toronto djala/Tos - A Deficit / (Surplus)(0) - NEW DATA/PERFORMANCE MEASURES SECTION Staff FTEs- Full-time - Non-F/T - NOTES: 2013 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) NOTES: 2012 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Project complete 62 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2013 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Watershed Management Page 49 GROUP:Capital ACTIVITY: Stewardship Community Programs 201220122013 BUDGETACTUALSBUDGET% CHG.$ CHG. $$$ GROSS EXPENDITURES: Community Environmental Projects557,000527,107420,000-25%(137,000) Community Stewardship Projects566,000467,239439,000-22%(127,000) Malton Enviro Stewardship16,00015,645-100%(16,000) Stew: Petticoat HW - Eco Action - Duffins Equine Stewardship44,00020,17831,000-30%(13,000) Healthy Yards119,000122,65350,000-58%(69,000) Durham Stewardship Program53,00059,638127,000140%74,000 Environmental Youth Corps10,00010,371-100%(10,000) Humber: Granger Greenway20,00011,02021,0005%1,000 Moved here:Humber: West Humber Valley & Stream Regeneration263,00054,612314,00019%51,000 Moved here:Humber: Peel Community Enviro. Enhancement Proj.51,00050,99150,000-2%(1,000) Moved here:Etobicoke Mimico Conservation Forest2,0001,856-100%(2,000) s Moved here:Etobicoke: West Etobicoke Creek Regeneration256,000143,849219,000-14%(37,000) Rural Outeach Grants12,000 -12,000 Moved here:Humber:York Community Environmental Enhance72,00053,86952,000-28%(20,000) York Region Stewardship Program18,00010,018105,000483%87,000 2,047,0001,549,0441,840,000-10%(207,000) FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees127,000(15,302)194,00053%67,000 Reserves - Interest Earnings - CFGT - Flowthrough64,00036,31164,8001%800 Other - Municipal10,0005,05525,000150%15,000 Other - Provincial294,000246,582235,000-20%(59,000) Other - Federal19,00070,39611,000-42%(8,000) Other - Donations/Fundraising2,000 - Non-Government Grants58,00043,25915,000-74%(43,000) - 572,000388,301544,800-5%(27,200) Capital levy Peel607,000607,000495,000-18%(112,000) York248,000248,000244,000-2%(4,000) Durham45,00045,00064,00042%19,000 Toronto279,000279,000220,000-21%(59,000) Adjala / Mono Carryforward levy-Peel168,000(41,295)209,00024%41,000 York59,00020,71336,000-39%(23,000) Durham - Toronto69,0002,59727,200-61%(41,800) Adjala / Mono - Deficit / (Surplus)(272) - Staff FTEs- Full-time12.19.5-22%(2.6) Non-F/T1.72.443%0.7 100100 NOTES: 2012 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) FTE Change: -1.9 staff allocated to to other projectsFTE Change: RSS no change+.2 FTE York Water Festival NOTES: 2012 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS 63 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2013 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISIONWatershed Manaement Pae 49b g g GROUP:Capital rams for Schools ACTIVITY: Education Prog 201220122013 BUDGECTUALSBUDGE% CHG.$ CHG. TAT $$$ GROSS EXPENDITURES: - 136,000 73,00073,327 Toronto Outreach Education Services Road Program 86%63,000 EcoSchool Water Conservation Guide (DG) - Knowing Nature, Staying Safer (DG) - Educational Exploration of the Living City (DG) - 153,000 Peel Outreach Education Services169,000173,569-9%(16,000) 79,000 York Outreach Education Services83,00075,976-5%(4,000) - 368,000 325,000322,87313% 43,000 FUNDING SOURCES: -- Program/User fees7,0008,971-100%(7,000) Reserves - Interest Earnings - CFGT - Flowthrough6,00012,698-100%(6,000) Other - Municipal500 - 16,000 Other - Provincial19,00011,409-16%(3,000) 22,000 Other - Federal23,00018,424-4%(1,000) Other - Donations/Fundraising - Other - Non-Government Grants - - - 38,000 55,00052,001(17,000) -31% Capital levy 153,000 Peel122,000122,00025%31,000 73,000 York55,00055,00033%18,000 Durham - 104,000 Toronto89,00089,00017%15,000 Adjala / Mono - Carryforward levy-Peel 4,0003,750-100%(4,000) York - Durham - Toronto - Adjala / Mono - Deficit / (Surplus)1,121 - -- - Staff FTEs- Full-timesee stewardshipsee stewardship Non-F/Tsee stewardshipsee stewardship 100 NOTES: 2013 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) NOTES: 2012 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS 64 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2013 CAPITAL BUDGET Page 49c DIVISION: Watershed Management GROUP:Capital ACTIVITY: Community Transformation Partnerships 201220122013 BUDGETActualsBUDGET% CHG.$ CHG. $$$ Expenditures: Energy Projects383,000343,979967,0001863%584,000 sub-total Climate Projects562,000498,307562,000 Sustainable Community Projects67,000 85,131 65,000-7%(2,000) Partners in Project Green Projects1,001,000513,3101,009,0001%8,000 1c) Internal Municipal17,000(351,000) -(351,000) 2,013,0001,457,7282,252,00012%239,000 Expenditure Total Funding Sources: Program/User fees205,33236,000 -36,000 Reserves - Interest Earnings - CFGT - Flowthrough2,000 - Other - Municipal121,00088,224220,00082%99,000 Other - Provincial301,00054,960307,0002%6,000 Other - Federal131,000527131,000 Other - Donations/Fundraising84,500164,900103,50022%19,000 Other - Non-Government Grants1,161,500222,0661,203,5004%42,000 1,799,000738,0092,001,00011%202,000 Revenue Total Capital levy - Peel7,0007,0007,000 York46,00046,00047,0002%1,000 Durham - Toronto110,000110,00083,000-25%(27,000) djala / Mono A Carryforward levy-Peel67,000 -67,000 Carryforward levy-Yor 16,000(1,143)11,000-31%(5,000) k Carryforward levy-Durha - m Carryforward levy-T.O.35,00025,55536,0003%1,000 djala / Mono - A Deficit / (Surplus)532,307 - Staff FTEs- Full-time8.98.712.237%3.3 Non-F/T0.10.8 -0.8 - Corporate Social Responsibility:17 - Major 2011 over 2012 Changes (in addition to economic factors): FTE Change:+4.1 re: Climate Consortium & PPG NOTES: 2012 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Many projects are either ongoing or multi year programs 65 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2013 CAPITAL BUDGET Watershed Management Page 50 Capital Sustainable Technologies 201220122013 BUDGETActualsBUDGET% CHG. $ CHG. $$$ GROSS EXPENDITURES: Solar Testing 45,245 485,000 - 485,000 Living City Report Card97,00085,081 11,000-89% (86,000) SP: Sediment Awareness33,00011,469 33,000 Natural Channel Design57,000-76,000 33% 19,000 Black Creek Urban Farm14,0008,825 5,000-64% (9,000) Urban Agriculture - Growing Local Food183,000125,535 163,000-11% (20,000) Spills Database Program55,000481 54,000-2% (1,000) PV Performance Verifications67,00011,365-100% (67,000) Humber 10th Anniversary4,0004,174-100% (4,000) Lot Dev. Impact Cost Tool41,00033,074 8,000-80% (33,000) Soakaway /Soil Amend. Evaluation108,00086,535 30,000-72% (78,000) SWI Communications4,658 118,000 - 118,000 STEP: Roof Infiltration Tank18,121 - S.T.E.P. Air Quality Items121,000150,833 98,000-19.0% (23,000) Permeable Pavement47,00063,359 47,000 Sustainable Technology Evaluation Program-Water126,000148,271 51,000-59.5% (75,000) Rain Water Treatment13,168 28,000 - 28,000 Greenroof Costs3,0002,587-100.0% (3,000) Tech:Water Man Practices Training157,000190,517 233,000 48.4% 76,000 S. Tech:Bioretention Evaluation28,00024,551 1,000-96.4% (27,000) SUSTNBLE COMMUNITS/TECH.SERIES Toronto Sustainable Community/ Technology Funds114,000114,000 114,000 - 44,000 SP:Certified Sediment/Erosion93,00075,751 137,000 47.3% Kortright Park Lot Retrofit & Evaluation155,000275,392 62,000-60.0%(93,000) 26,000 Low Impact Dev-OP/Maintenance65,00012,619 91,000 40.0% SP:Home Energy/Display Evaluation18,00018,690-100.0%(18,000) (6,000) Soil Depth & Quality22,00026,611 16,000-27.3% Detention Chamber Evaluation69,0008,798 62,000-10.1%(7,000) 5,000 SP:Solar City Assessment/TAE25,00011,148 30,000 20.0% SP:ENV.CAN. OGS TEST PROTOCOL 2,778 Internal Municipal - 1,702,0001,617,9571,953,00015%251,000 FUNDING SOURCES: (36,000) Program/User fees434,000333,147 398,000-8.3% Reserves - Interest Earnings - CFGT - Flowthrough 20,000 -20,000 (3,000) Other - Municipal8,00018,150 5,000-37.5% Other - Provincial248,000211,521 178,000-28.2%(70,000) 490,000 Other - Federal126,000161,873 616,000 388.9% Other - Donations/Fundraising31,00047,655 20,000-35.5%(11,000) Other - Non-Government Grants 164,000 232,180 55,000-66.5% (109,000) 1,011,000 1,004,525 1,292,000 27.8%281,000 Capital levy Peel185,000185,000 200,000 8.1%15,000 26,000 York85,00085,000 111,000 30.6% Durham - 225,000225,000 261,000 16.0%36,000 Toronto Adjala / Mono - 133,00048,483 84,000-36.8%(49,000) Carryforward levy-Peel York35,00034,554-100.0%(35,000) - Durham Toronto28,00028,774 5,000-82.1%(23,000) Adjala / Mono Deficit / (Surplus) 6,621 - Staff FTEs- Full-time8.211.236.7%3.0 Non-F/T2.81.4-50.3%(1.4) NOTES: 2012 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) \ FTE Change: +1.7 Sust. Technicians net of some other realloations to other programs NOTES: 2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS 66 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2011 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: All Page 51 GROUP:Capital ACTIVITY: Peel Climate Change Mitigation 201220122013 ACTUALSBUDGET% CHG.$ CHG. BUDGET $$$ GROSS EXPENDITURES: Ecology Division items:3,208,5001,621,3903,356,000 5%147,500 - 131,800 Restoration Services items2,339,2002,340,4212,471,000 6% -13%(472,000) 3,630,0002,883,8433,158,000 Watershed Management Division items: (171,000) Parks & Culture Division items:541,000351,937370,000 -32% 53,900 F&BS Division items:20,10074,000 9,738,8007,197,5909,429,000 (0)(309,800) FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees69,00030,204 2,000-97%(67,000) Reserves - Interest Earnings - CFGT - Flowthrough105,5006,446 98,000-7%(7,500) Other - Municipal135,00090,347 44,000-67%(91,000) 0 -3,000 Other - Provincial59,123 3,00 Other - Federal23,000 33,000 43%10,000 Other - Donations/Fundraising10,000-100%(10,000) Other - Non-Government Grants97,00034,842 20,000-79%(77,000) 439,500220,963 200,000-54%(239,500) Capital levy Peel6,192,2006,207,524 6,194,000 0%1,800 York - Durham - Toronto - Adjala/Tos - Carryforward levy-Peel2,455,100897,258 2,429,000-1%(26,100) k - Yor Durham - Toronto - Adjala/Tos - Deficit / (Surplus)(677,806) - Staff FTEs- Full-time25.224.8(0.4) Non-F/T8.17.6(0.5) 4.06.34.0 NOTES: 2013 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) FTE Change:-1.7 mostly Headwaters Small tributaryFTE Changes: +. work NOTES: 2012 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS 67 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2013 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: Watershed ManagementPage 52 GROUP:Flood Control ACTIVITY: Lower Don 201220122013BUDGETBUDGET BUDGETACTUALSBUDGETCHG.CHG. $$$%$ GROSS EXPENDITURES: 93,000 Don Mouth: TRCA Proj. Man. -E.A.27,849 -93,000 10,000 Don Mouth:External/Public Cons. -10,000 19,000 Don Mouth:Facilitator -19,000 585,000 Don Mouth:Gartner Lee8,237 -585,000 Don Mouth:Gardiner Roberts1,651 - Don Mouth - TPLC Holding Account160,000187,125 -100%(160,000) DON MOUTH RESTOR:VAC/HOLIDAYS9,031 - Lower Don Imp: Detail Design - 24,000 LDRW Phase 2: TRCA Internal12,652 -24,000 Lower Don Imp: ORC/FPL Coordination14,00080 -100%(14,000) LDRW PH 2:Peer Review of Flood Landform9,0003,135-100%(9,000) 35,000 Lower Don Imp: TWRC/Park Coordination4,00028,892 775%31,000 LDRW PH 2:Gardiner Roberts45,0009,810-100%(45,000) - LDRW PH 2:Hydro One38,0004,351-100%(38,000) LDRW PH 2:UMA Engineering LDRW PH 2:Acquisition/Agreement38,000-100%(38,000) - TWRC:ASHBRIDGES EA-ARCHAEOLOGY LOWER DON:VAC/HOLIDAY TIME1,234 - CHERRY BEACH SAND PLACEMENT - EASTERN BCHS SHORE STAB STUDY - 308,000294,047 791,000 157%483,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees - Reserves - Interest Earnings - CFGT - Flowthrough - Other - Municipal - Other - Provincial - Other - Federal - Other - Donations/Fundraising - 791,000 Other - Non-Government Grants308,000294,047 157%483,000 308,000294,047791,000157%483,000 Capital levy Peel - York Durham Toronto Adjala / Mono Carryforward levy-Peel York Durham Toronto Adjala / Mono Deficit / (Surplus)- Staff FTEs- Full-time0.20.2 Non-F/T0.40.4 NOTES: 2012 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) FTE Change: -.5 less staff for smaller project NOTES: 2011 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS 68 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2013 CAPITAL BUDGET DIVISION: EcologyPage 53 GROUP:Capital ACTIVITY: Flood Control Projects 201220122013 ACTUALSBUDGET% CHG.$ CHG. BUDGET $$$ GROSS EXPENDITURES: 176,000 Flood Warning Equipment & Models303,000310,197-42%(127,000) 1,045,000 Flood Protection & Remedial Capital Works911,000317,54215%134,000 108,000 Small Dams & Flood Control Facilities Capital Works203,00040,684-47%(95,000) 80,000 Large Dams Capital Works126,000--37%(46,000) 1,400 Black Creek Channel Maintenance -1,400 95,000 York Stormwater Management Program263,000141,460-64%(168,000) YONGE/YORK MILL CHANNEL REPAIR 12,268 - Stouffville Dam - Structural Study - Claireville Dam - Mechanical Repairs1,303 - Claireville Dam - Safety Repairs - WECI012:CLAIREVILLE MOULD ABTM 37,195 - SP:AJAX MONITORNG STATION INST 5,554 - SP:CVC REAL TIME GAUGE NETWORK 22,424 - WECI09:G.RSS LORD HYDROG.STUDY 25,686 - - 200,000 WECI 08 - Hogg's Hollow Phase 3226,244 -200,000 240,000 1,400 566,908-99%(238,600) WECI 08 - West Don Hoggs Hollow Channel Study 2,000,000 -2,000,000 West Don Lands Flood Protection Landforms5,211,395 3,773,200 2,046,0007,129,69384%1,727,200 -- FUNDING SOURCES: 2,000,000 Program/User fees8,174,103 -2,000,000 Reserves - Interest Earnings - CFGT - Flowthrough - Other - Municipal - 4,200 Other - Provincial558,939 -4,200 Other - Federal - Other - Donations/Fundraising - Other - Non-Government Grants46,239 - - - 2,004,200 8,779,281 -2,004,200 Capital levy 315,000 Peel244,000224,75129%71,000 400,000 York375,000365,5517%25,000 43,000 Durham43,00043,000 411,000 Toronto442,000442,551-7%(31,000) Adjala / Mono Carryforward levy-Peel200,000 297,00067,916-33%(97,000) 200,000 York293,000(19,983)-32%(93,000) Durham61,00014,836-100%(61,000) 200,000 Toronto291,000158,873-31%(91,000) Adjala / Mono - Deficit / (Surplus) (2,947,083) - - - - Staff FTEs- Full-time6.99.537%2.6 Non-F/T1.42.8100%1.4 NOTES: 2013 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) FTE Change:+2.7 of NEW Flood Tech, NEW Field Tech, plus more staff allocated hereFTE Change: +.3 for Hoog's Hollow construction NOTES: 2012 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Continue hydrometrics & maintenance on small dams, flood control channels, sediment. 69 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2013 CAPITAL BUDGE T Pae 54 DIVISION: Parks & Culture g GROUP:Caital p ACTIVITY: Public Use Infrastructure 201220122013 BUDGEctualsBUDGE% CHG.$ CHG. TAT $$$ GROSS EXPENDITURES: 266,100-1%(1,900) Retrofits/Construction268,000215,494 - PUB USE: NEW SIGNAGE - - PUB USE:COMMUNICATION UPGRADES 796 - LAKE ST.GEORGE CFC:DAVIES HALL 52,592 - HEART LAKE:GATE HOUSE REPAIRS - - HEART LK:INFRA STIMULUS ITEMS - - BM:CHALET REPAIR/SUGAR SHAC- K - ALBION H: CHALET REPAIRS - 36,900-37%(22,100) CA Plannin59,00065,783 g - SP:RICHMOND H.LAND MNGMNT.PLAN- - - - CA PLAN:BRUCE'S MILL MAN PLAN- - CA PLAN:GLEN MAJOR MNGMNT PLAN5 10,000 - Altona Forest10,0001,996 CA Plannin g - Humber Arboretum- - 337,000336,666313,000-7% (24,000) FUNDING SOURCES: - Proram/User fees 1,200 g - Reserves - Interest Earnins g - h CFGT - Flowthrou 7,305 g 1,000 Other - Municial 1,000978 p - Other - Provincial - Other - Federal - Other - Donations/Fundraisin g 9,000 Other - Non-Government Grants 9,000 - - 10,000 10,0009,483 Caital lev py 35,000 Peel 34,50034,458 1% 500 61,000 York 60,50060,956 1% 500 Durham 8,9518,963 8,9500%(1) 198,000 Toronto 198,000197,835 - 492% dala/Mono 49 Aj 50 1 Carrforward lev-Peel 2900.02,889 yy -100% (2,900) York 4900.04,942 -100% (4,900) 796 Durham 753 -100% (796) Toronto 16,40016,334 -100% (16,400) -100%-4 dala/Mono 44 Aj Deficit / (Surplus) - Staff FTEs- Full-time - - Non-F/T0.50.3-49%(0.3) - NOTES: 2013 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) No change. FTE Change: -.1 Peel Infra NOTES: 2012 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS 70 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2013 CAPITAL BUDGET Page 55 DIVISION: Parks & Culture GROUP:Capital ACTIVITY: Other Facilities Retrofits 201220122013 BUDGETCTUALBUDGET% CHG.$ CHG. AS $$$ GROSS EXPENDITURES: 690,000 Peel Campgrounds473,00024,12345.9%217,000 30,000 Peel Campground: Albion Hills45,00097,559-33.3%(15,000) 220,000 Peel Washroom Upgrades113,000-94.7%107,000 133,000 Peel Energy Efficiency Retrofitting111,00052,51319.8%22,000 450,000 Kortright Centre Campus Development540,000408,002-16.7%(90,000) - - 1,523,000 1,282,000587,44918.8%241,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees - Reserves-- Interest Earnings - CFGT - Flowthrough10,000 - Other - Municipal - Other - Provincial - Other - Federal - Other - Donations/Fundraising3,784 - Other - Non-Government Grant - s - - 13,784 - - Capital lev y 710,000 Peel685,000685,0003.6%25,000 250,000 York242,000242,0003.3%8,000 Durham - Toronto - - Adjala/Mon o Carryforward levy-Peel563,000 355,000(353,335)58.6%208,000 York - Durham - Toronto - Adjala/Mon - o Deficit / (Surplus) - Staff FTEs- Full-time1.12.4113.0%1.3 Non-F/T - NOTES: 2013 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) KCC Campus Centre work expanded with more York funding - - FTE Change: -1.6 WM staff in Peel Infra to other projects - - - - -- NOTES: 2012 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS -- - - - Next Page……57 - - 71 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2013 CAPITAL BUDGET Page 57 DIVISION: Parks & Culture GROUP:Capital ACTIVITY: Other Building Projects 201220122013 BUDGETCTUALBUDGET% CHG.$ CHG. AS $$$ GROSS EXPENDITURES: Kortright Retrofit247,000714,115255,0003%8,000 Petticoat Pool 77,000273,088-100%(77,000) 539,560151,346900,56067%361,000 Pan Am Games Equestrian Facilit y Bolton Camp Site Improvement500,000 -500,000 rsenal Building Renovation750,000 -750,000 A - - 2,405,560 863,5601,138,549179%1,542,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees - Reserves77,000-100%(77,000) Interest Earnings - CFGT - Flowthrough - er - uncpa - 45,489 OthMiil Other - Provincial141 - Other - Federal141 - Other - Donations/Fundraising - Other - Non-Government Grants - Lease revenue-- - 77,00045,771-100%(77,000) Capital levy Peel329,560329,5601,716,560421%1,387,000 York242,000242,000255,0005%13,000 Durham - Toronto - Adjala/Mono - Carryforward levy-Peel210,000(223,703)434,000107%224,000 York5,0005,501-100%(5,000) Durham - Toronto - Adjala/Mono - Deficit / (Surplus)739,420 - Staff FTEs- Full-time0.1 -0.1 Non-F/T - NOTES: 2013 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) - - FTE Change: 1.3 RSS staff allocated to BCPV & Major Facilites projectsFTE Change: -.1 Peel Infra Equestrian Centre work moves to 2012 NOTES: 2012 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Next Page……59 72 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2011 CAPITAL BUDGET Page 59 DIVISION: Restoration Services GROUP:Capital ACTIVITY: Oak Ridges Moraine Corridor Park 201220122013 BUDGETctualsBUDGET% CHG.$ CHG. A $$ GROSS EXPENDITURES: Park Management Plan (GW)14,0004,08314,000 Terrestrial Field Inventories (SH) - Trail Construction (ML)10,0001,43720,000100%10,000 Park Legal Fees (MF)769 - Habitat Restoration (ML)35,0008,10235,000 Park Reforestation (TH)55,0007,38555,000 Developers Contribution Agreement (JD) - ORM Park: Secondary Trails540,0002,749129,000-76%(411,000) Park Restoration ORMF (GW)145,00015,947130,000-10%(15,000) - 383,000 799,00040,473-52%(416,000) FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees622,0002,749224,000-64%(398,000) Reserves - Interest Earnings - CFGT - Flowthrough90,00091,0001%1,000 Other - Municipal18,0003,66015,000-17%(3,000) Other - Provincial - Other - Federal20,00015,9474,000-80%-16,000 Other - Donations/Fundraising - Other - Non-Government Grants49,00018,11749,000 - - 383,000 799,00040,473-52%-416,000 Capital lev y Peel-- York - Durham - Toronto - Adjala/Tos - Carryforward levy -Peel - York - Durham - Toronto - Adjala/Tos - Deficit / (Surplus) -- Staff FTEs- Full-time0.30.321%0.1 Non-F/ T- NOTES: 2013 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) Continue to implement park development plans Continue to receive developers funds as per agreemnt - - NOTES: 2012 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Carry forward developer's agreement funds for future works 73 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2013 CAPITAL BUDGET Page 60 DIVISION: Parks & Culture ital GROUP:Ca p ACTIVITY: BCPV Retrofit and Attraction Develo p 201220122013 ctualBUDGET% CHG.$ CHG. BUDGET As $$$ GROSS EXPENDITURES: - - - VIS.CENTRE ACCESSIBILITY 10 14,300 -14,300 Visitor Centre48,096 -100.00%(225,000) 225,00030,450 BCPV North OPA 6210 MP 485,700 1.40%6,700 BCPV Retrofi479,000264,641 t - 128 BCPV:DALZIEL BARN WORK - BCPV:JAMES DALZIELAGNEWWORK10,598 () - BCPV:JOHN DALZIEL/HELEN HOUSE 7,560 - BC RETRO: MILL REPAIRS 30,005 LASKEY'S EMPORIUM 7,169 - 09:BREWERY RETROFIT1,902 - - BCPV: DISCOVERY CENTRE 24 - BCPV RETROFIT:VICTORIA GREEN 1,447 - 163,042 BC RETRO:MISC.SMALL PROJECTS 704,000565,072 500,000 -29%(204,000) FUNDING SOURCES: Proram/User fees - g - Reserves s - Interest Earning CFGT - Flowthrouh - g al225,00029,884-100.00%-225,000 Other - Municip Other - Provincial - Other - Federal - Other - Donations/Fundraisin - g - Other - Non-Government Grants -- - 225,00029,884-100.00%-225,000 Caital lev py Peel York Durham 350,000 Toronto350,000350,000 Adala/Mon jo Carrforward lev-Peel - yy York Durham 150,000 Toronto129,000185,178 ala/Mon - Adjo Deficit / (Surplus) 10 - - - Staff FTEs- Full-time0.40.40.4 Non-F/T-0.5 -0.5 NOTES: 2013 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) Similar level of work FTE Chane: +.5 for Develoment Office gpr NOTES: 2012 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Vauhan OPA work deferred into 201 g2 74 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY Page 61 DIVISION: Finance and Business Developmen t GROUP:Capital ACTIVITY: Information Technology Projec t 201220122013 BUDGETActualsBUDGET% CHG.$ CHG. $$$ GROSS EXPENDITURES: IT Project413,000568,645600,000 187,0000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 413,000568,645 600,000 187,0000 FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees - Reserves80,000 - Interest Earnings - CFGT - Flowthrough - Other - Municipal - Other - Provincial - Other - Federal115,000 - Other - Donations/Fundraisin g- Other - Non-Government Grant s- - - Capital lev- y Peel46,00045,94346,000 - Yor81,00081,27583,000 2,0000 k Durham11,93411,95111,93 - 4 Toronto264,000263,333264,000 - Adjala/Mon666666 - o Carryforward levy-Peel1,1891,189(1,189) (1) Yor2,0292,029 (2,029)(1) k 311 Durham311 1311 ()() Toronto6,4696,803 16,469 ()() Adala/Mon22 12 jo()() Deficit / (Surplus)155,744 - Staff FTEs- Full-time Non-F/0.5-100%-0.5 T NOTES: 2013 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) FTE Chane: non ge - - NOTES: 2012 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Some funds held for relacin Accountin Sstem in 2011 pggy+ 75 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2013 CAPITAL BUDGE T Page 62 DIVISION: Finance and Business Development GROUP:Capital ACTIVITY: Major Facilities Retrofits 201220122013 BUDGETctualsBUDGET% CHG.$ CHG. A $$$ GROSS EXPENDITURES: Administrative Office Retrofits703,000151,267680,700 (22,300)(0) BIOFILTER WALL 2,266 - Relocation To Boyd CFC5,2762,200 -2,200 Downsview Office- - New Administrative Office Design/Build - Swan Lake Management Costs41,66318,900 -18,900 Asbestos Assessments49,6164,200 -4,200 FORMER FARR PROPERTY 425 - 706,000 703,000255,440 0 3,000 - - FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees - Reserves - Interest Earnings - CFGT - Flowthrough - Other - Municipal - Other - Provincial - Other - Federal - Other - Donations/Fundraising-- Other - Non-Government Grants - - - - - - Capital lev y Peel80,00080,49980,000 - York142,000142,232144,783 2,7830 Durham20,88520,91421,100 0215 Toronto460,000460,832460,000 - Adjala/Mono115115117 20 - Carryforward levy-Peel(51,304) - Carryforward levy-York(91,924) - Carryforward levy-Durham(13,187) - Carryforward levy-Toronto(292,665) - Carryforward levy-Adjala/Mono(73) Deficit / (Surplus) -0 - - Staff FTEs- Full-time0.20.20 Non-F/T - NOTES: 2013 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) Accumulating funds for new administration office FTE Change: No change NOTES: 2012 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS Accumulating funds for new administration office 76 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2013 CAPITAL BUDGET Page 63 IVISION: Finance and Business Develoment Dp GROUP:Caital p CTIVITY: Land Acuisition Aq 201220122013 BudetctualBudet% Ch.$ Ch. gAsggg $$$ GROSS EXPENDITURES: Waterfront Open Space100,00046,661 100,000 Acquisition - Greenspace Strategy5,150,000222,579 5,150,000 Natural Areas Protection - ORC Repairs0 - Peel Land Care2,589,000- 3,541,00036.8%952,000 437,0006.1%25,000 York Land Care412,000399,898 - - 8,251,0002,400,88311.8%977,000 9,228,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Program/User fees41,138 - Reserves(246,904) - Interest Earnings5,902 - CFGT - Flowthrough - Other - Municipal1,600,000(2,576) 1,600,000 Other - Provincial4,651 - Other - Federal - Other - Donations/Fundraising3,000,000 3,000,000 Other - Non-Government Grants100 - Other - Internal - Land Sales proceeds508,076358,313 498,460-1.9%(9,616) 5,098,460 5,108,076160,624-0.2%(9,616) Capital levy Peel1,868,0001,868,000 1,957,0004.8%89,000 York446,446446,446 450,0370.8%3,591 Durham4,4554,183 4,4780.5%23 Toronto93,00093,000 99,0006.5%6,000 Adjala/Mono23- 25- Carryforward levy-Peel737,000(169,390) 1,601,000117.2%864,000 York(6,000)(24,890) 18,000-400.0%24,000 Durham - Toronto - Adjala/ Mono - Deficit / (Surplus) 22,887 - - Staff FTEs- Full-time5.8 9.868.7%4.0 8.7-3.6%-0.3 Non-F/T9.0 NOTES: 2013 BUDGET CHANGE COMMENTS (excluding inflation/COLA) FTE chane: - .5 IT staff reallocated g NOTES: 2012 VARIANCE EXPLANATIONS - - 77 SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD RES.#C4/13 -2012 YEAR END FINANCIAL PROGRESS REPORT Recommends receipt of the 2012 year end financial progress report. Moved by:Maria Augimeri Seconded by:David Barrow THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) dated December 31, 2012, be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Financial Progress Report is a tool through which staff advi status of TRCA's budget. As part of the financial management process, staff provide to th Budget/Audit Advisory Board (BAAB) financial progress reports. This rep ended December 31, 2012. RATIONALE Staff has included within the 2013 Operating and Capital Budget documents, 2012 actual and 2012 budget information for comparison. Staff will be working w financial statements in May 2013. The financial statements will meeting scheduled to be held on June 21, 2013. In finalizing th 2012 actuals may be adjusted, but not significantly. The 2012 financial performance resulted in a combined operating $4,463,700. Separately, details for each of the operating and c below. 78 The 2012 operating results disclose a surplus of $2,041,500. Ke DivisionSurplus Explanation (Deficit) $ Ecology(132,800)Mainly due to staff resources utilized to meet service delivery expectations in Planning and Development HR, Marketing and 374,600WSIB NEER rebate of $243,068 and 3 month hiring gap Communicationfor IT staff member and underspending on contract services contributed to the surplus. Planning and 1,493,700Additional revenue was collected through the new fee Developmentschedule for applications to accommodate 100% recovery. Higher permit revenues were also received and minor salary savings were experienced due to gapping contributing to the surplus. Restoration Services410,300Revenues higher than anticipated based on increased plant material sales volume while costs remained close to budget. Watershed (82,700)Teacher job action which began in 2012 resulted in low Managementbookings. Some of the costs were offset in expenditure savings in addition to increase of revenue earned from special projects. Other(21,600)Multiple accounts with minor year-end balances. Total 2,041,500 The 2012 capital budget produced a surplus of $2,422,200. Key f ProjectSurplus Explanation (Deficit) $ Kortright Centre(466,600)Capital expenditures spent in 2012 which will be recovered in future years, in accordance with approved Authority direction. Petticoat Creek Pool (273,100)Authority approved $1 million deficit to be financed in Construction2012 onwards through admission fees.. The 2012 deficit brings the full project deficit to $1.2 million. Restoration and 3,317,600Surplus resulting from various special purpose projects Erosionthroughout the year. Information (155,700)Information technology multi-year projects including Technologycapital for databases and financial information system. Total 2,422,200 There are multiple capital projects for which expenditures varie 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. 79 Provision is made for the carry-forward of funding for capital w Report prepared by: Janice Darnley, extension 5768 Emails: jdarnley@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Rocco Sgambelluri, extension 5232 Janice Darnley, extension 5768 Emails: rsgambelluri@trca.on.ca, jdarnley@trca.on.ca Date: April 02, 2013 ___________________________________ TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 9:15 a.m., on Friday, April 12, 2013. Gerri Lynn O'ConnorBrian Denney ChairSecretary-Treasurer /ks 80 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority MEETING OF THE BUDGET/AUDIT ADVISORY BOARD #2/13 June 21, 2013 The Budget/Audit Advisory Board Meeting #2/13, was held in Weston Room B, Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, June 21, 2013. The Chair Gerri Lynn O'Connor, called the meeting to order at 8:42 a.m. PRESENT David Barrow Member Bob Callahan Member Gerri Lynn O'Connor Chair Dave Ryan Member ABSENT Maria Augimeri Member RES.#C5/13 - MINUTES Moved by: Dave Ryan Seconded by• Bob Callahan THAT the Minutes of Meeting #1/13, held on April 12, 2013, be approved. CARRIED PRESENTATIONS (a) A presentation by Joanne Rogers, CA, Partner, Grant Thornton, and Rocco Sgambelluri, Chief Financial Officer, TRCA, in regard to item BAAB7.1 - 2012 Audited Financial Statements. RES.#C6/13 - PRESENTATIONS Moved by: David Barrow Seconded by' Dave Ryan THAT above-noted presentation (a) be heard and received. CARRIED 81 SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION RES.#C7/13 - 2012 AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS The 2012 audited financial statements are recommended for approval. Moved by David Barrow Seconded by: Dave Ryan THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the transfer of funds from surplus to reserves in the amount of $2,613,534 during 2012, as outlined in the schedule to the financial statements entitled "Continuity of Reserves", be approved; AND FURTHER THAT the 2012 audited financial statements, as presented, be approved, signed by the Chair and Secretary-Treasurer of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), and distributed to each member municipality and the Minister of Natural Resources, in accordance with subsection 38 (3) of the Conservation Authorities Act. CARRIED RATIONALE The financial statements of TRCA for 2012 are presented for approval. The accounting firm of Grant Thornton LLP, has completed its audit and has included with the financial statements an unqualified auditor's report. The audited financial statements are presented as Attachment 1 to the report. Grant Thornton LLP has also addressed a report to the Budget/Audit Advisory Board (BAAB), entitled, "Report to the Budget/Audit Advisory Board - Communication of Audit Strategy and Results", which is included as Attachment 2. This report addresses various matters, including financial misstatements, significant accounting policies, sensitive accounting estimates and other matters of interest to the members. As noted in the section entitled "Reportable Matters," there were no reportable internal control weaknesses for 2012. A representative from Grant Thornton LLP will be in attendance to present the auditor's report on the 2012 financial statements. Financial Statement Structure The Statement of Operations reports revenues, expenses and surplus (deficit) position for the year, excluding the impact of tangible capital asset (TCA) expenditures and disposals. The Statement of Financial Position reports financial assets and liabilities, defining net assets (net debt) of the organization. Further the Statement of Financial Position discloses non-financial assets and accumulated surplus. The Statement of Changes in Net Assets (Debt) reconciles the surplus for the period to the change in net assets (debt). Finally, the Statement of Cash Flows discloses the cash inflows and outflows during the year, classified as operating, investing or capital activities. 82 New to 2012, actual and budgeted figures on the Statement of Operations and the supporting schedules do not include tangible capital asset amounts. This presentation is prescribed by the Public Sector Advisory Board. Note 10 in the audited financial statements explains the modifications to the approved budget required in order to provide a more meaningful comparison to operating expenditures. Also, to assist with the comparison of results to budget the actual amortization for the year has been added to the approved budget. Tangible Capital Assets Effective January 1, 2009, financial statements incorporate a new approach to accounting for tangible capital assets, which are in non-financial assets that have a physical substance and have useful economic lives which extend beyond the current accounting period. Excluded from the definition of TCA are a number of intangible assets such as trademarks, patents and the cost of easements. Before these changes were introduced, expenditures on the acquisition of TCA were expensed in the year that the assets were acquired. Starting in 2009, the costs are spread (amortized) across the years that the asset is considered to have a useful life. The balance of the asset costs which have yet to be amortized are reported on the statement of financial position as non-financial assets and offset within the "accumulated surplus" section of the same statement. As at December 31, 2012, the total book value of the tangible capital assets is $552.7 million of which $125.8 million has been amortized. The unamortized balance of$426.9 million is reported in the statement of financial position as the net book value of tangible capital assets. Land, which is carried on the books at a cost of$334.2 million is not amortized. During 2012, $12.7 million in TCA was acquired and assets having a book value (original cost) of $1.8 million have been disposed. The "Schedule of Tangible Capital Assets" included in the audited financial statements on page 24 itemizes the various components of TCA. Operating Surplus / Deficit Position The cash basis analysis presented below looks at available funding as compared to actual expenditures, the same basis upon which the annual budget was developed and presented to the members for approval. TRCA's operating surplus position as of December 31, 2012 is $293,100, as reported in the "Schedule of Accumulated Surplus" on page 22 of the financial statements. For the year ended December 31, 2012, revenues exceeded expenditures by an amount of $4,484,29, consistent with the financial progress report for 2012 presented to the Board in April 2013. This amount when combined with the opening deficit position of$1,874,332 and after allowing for a transfer from surplus to operating contingency in the amount of $2,316,837(discussed below under the heading "Reserves"), leaves TRCA in a surplus position of $293,100. In addition to the transfer from surplus to operating contingency reserve discussed below, there are several projects which have also had an impact on TRCA's cumulative operating surplus position. 83 • Net expenditures for the Petticoat Creek pool capital project in excess of federal and provincial infrastructure funding ($2 million) amount to $1,193,145. In 2012, an excess of revenue over expenditures from park operations in the amount of$61,750 ($75,000 budgeted) was generated and has been applied to reduce the amount "borrowed" for this project. Further, in 2013 the budget makes provision for another "repayment" from operations in the amount of$75,000 and for a one time payment out of capital funds of $193,145. Future surpluses from park operations will be applied until the project is completely paid off. As of December 31, 2012 TRCA surplus position was lower than it would otherwise have been by an amount of$1,131,395, as a result of this project. • The Retrofit Project for Kortright Centre for Conservation incurred expenditures in excess of available funding in the amount of$466,600. Municipal levy funding is available to ensure that the work is completely financed over the next several years. Reserves: The status of TRCA reserves is presented on page 22 of the financial statements in a schedule titled, "Continuity of Reserves." Some of the more significant reserve transactions that occurred in 2012 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 of$201,010, increasing the reserve balance from $410,289 to $611,299. • Funds Held Under Provincial Revenue Sharing Policy Reserve: The reserve balance increased by $251,811, from $745,624 to $997,435. Note 5 to the financial statements (page 10) explains the rules which govern the use of funds in this reserve and itemizes the transactions which flowed through the reserve during the year. At Authority Meeting #9/03, held on November 28, 2003, Resolution #A254/03 approved a reserves policy, which included the establishment of an operating contingency reserve. The purpose of the reserve is to ensure that sufficient funds are available to deal with the short term consequences of sudden and unforeseen impairment of revenues. The policy set a target for the reserve balance at 15% of annual user based revenues. Since 2003 some progress has been made towards achieving the target, and at December 31, 2011 the reserve balance had grown to $1,690,808. Due to the excellent net results which were achieved in 2012 staff is recommending a transfer from surplus in the amount of$2,316,837 to the contingency reserve in order to meet the 15% revenue target of$3,853,897, as set out in the policy. SUMMARY From a "bottom line" perspective the 2012 operating surplus was unprecedented. Available funding exceeded expenditures and as a result it was possible to eliminate the opening operating deficit and to achieve the target for the contingency reserve. Report prepared by: Rocco Sgambelluri, extension 5232 Emails: rsgambelluri @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Rocco Sgambelluri, extension 5232 Emails: rsgambelluri @trca.on.ca Date: June 13, 2013 Attachments: 2 84 Attachment 1 r ., GrantThornton Financial Statements Toronto and Region Conservation Authority December 31 , 2012 85 Contents Page Independent Auditor's Report 1 -2 Statement of Financial Position 3 Statement of Operations 4 Statement of Changes in Net Financial Assets(Debt) 5 Statement of Cash Flows 6 Notes to the Financial Statements 7—14 Schedule of Operations—Watershed Management and Health Monitoring 15 Schedule of Operations—Environmental Advisory Services 16 Schedule of Operations—Watershed Stewardship 17 Schedule of Operations—Conservation Land Management and Development 18 Schedule of Operations—Conservation and Education Programming 19 Schedule of Operations—Corporate Services 20 Schedule of Operations—Vehicle and Equipment 21 Continuity of Reserves 22 Schedule of Accumulated Surplus 23 Schedule of Tangible Capital Assets 24 Audit•Tax•Advisory yG Grant Thorron UP A Canadian Monher of Gant Thomann foferrotooal Ltd vV 0 Granahornton Independent Auditor's Report 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 Toronto and Region Consecration Authority We have audited the accompanying financial statements of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority ("TRCA""),which comprise the statement of financial position as at December 31,2012, and the statements of operations,changes in net financial assets (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 presentation of these financial statements in accordance with Canadian public sector accounting standards,and for such internal control as management determines is necessary to enable the preparation of financial statements that are free 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 free from material 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 auditor's 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 auditor considers internal control relevant to the entity's preparation and fain presentation of the financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances,but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity's internal control. \n audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of accounting estimates made by management,as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinion. 1 Audit•Tax•Advisory 87 Grant Thorron LLP A Canadian Member of Grant Thom'on Interratooal Ltd GrantThornton Opinion In our opinion,the financial statements present fairly,in all material respects,the financial position of TRC\ as at December 31,21112,and the results of its operations,changes in net financial assets (debt),and its cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with Canadian public sector accounting standards. \larkham,Canada Chartered Accountants June 21, 2013 Licensed Public Accountants 2 Audit•Mor•mon n LLP A /�/� Gant•Tax Avis ACaretlian Member of Gant Thmaaa irternai.oral Ltd j`(/}`(/ Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Statement of Financial Position December31 2012 2011 Financial Assets Cash and cash equivalents (Note 3) $ 10,763,173 $ 10,423.135 Marketable securities (Note 2) 15,967,523 17,632,428 Receivables(Note 4) 12.815.120 11,577,508 39.545.816 39.633.071 Liabilities Payables and accruals 10,755,905 12,713,109 Deferred revenue Municipal levies 10,150,992 12,795,130 Capital, special projects and other 12,846,495 13,444,953 Vacation pay accrual 2.274,908 2,018,991 36.028.300 40.972.183 Net Financial Assets(Debt) 3.517.516 (1.339.112) Non-Financial Assets Inventory 428,297 420,206 Prepaids 175,939 221,951 Tangible capital assets(Page 24) 426.891,940 420.577.021 427.496.176 421.219.178 Accumulated surplus(Page 23) $ 431,013,692 $ 419,880,066 Contingent liabilities and commitments (Note 7) On behalf of TRCA Chair Secretary Treasurer See accompanying notes to the financial statements. 3 89 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Statement of Operations Year Ended December31 2012 2012 2011 Budget Actual Actual (Note 10) Revenue Municipal Levies -Operating $ 11,948,000 $ 11,948,264 $ 11.723,828 -Capital 35,192,860 27,768,432 23,753,058 Other 4,186,500 1,628,352 8,319,316 Government grants Ministry of Natural Resources transfer payments 846,000 774,227 845,753 Provincial-other 5,474,500 6,015,551 4,842,853 Federal 1,338,500 1,208,097 1,824,839 User fees, sales and admissions 16,183,900 16,764,859 14,687,384 Investment income 525,000 633,577 511,853 Proceeds from granting of property interests 608,000 357,098 296,676 The Living City Foundation 1,368,500 1,491,527 1,583,368 Donations and fundraising 3,571,500 663,579 2,413,827 Facility and property rentals 2,570,000 2,478,467 2,510,032 Canada Post Corporation agreement 665,000 130,259 11,964 Waterfront Toronto 5,920,000 4,652,115 6,571,012 Corporate and Community Groups 2,211,000 751,065 1,099,996 Contract services 9,993,300 17,909,788 8,669,380 Sales and property tax refunds 25,000 254,959 265,916 Compensation agreements 566,000 1,080,083 1,141,560 Sundry - 51,947 49,502 Net(loss)/gain on sales of tangible capital assets - (127,583) 342,048 103.191560 96,434,663 91 464,165 Expenditures Watershed management and health monitoring 13,045,072 17,932,795 11,686,857 Environmental advisory services 5.669,264 5,342,467 4,961,665 Watershed stewardship 24.581,540 19,429,069 17,543,071 Conservation land management and development 20.278,551 17,726,203 14,595,316 Conservation and education programming 21,387,002 19,209,413 18,194,145 Corporate services 6,554,513 5,815,745 5,741,811 Vehicle and equipment, net of usage charged (78,986) (154,655) (19,203) 91,436,956 85,301,037 72.703,662 Surplus for the year(Page 23) $ 11,756,604 $ 11,133,626 $ 18,760,503 See accompanying notes to the financial statements. 4 90 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Statement of Changes in Net Assets (Debt) Year Ended December 31 2012 2011 Surplus for the year $ 11,133,626 $ 18,760,503 Acquisition of tangible capital assets (11,810,714) (15,896,287) Contributed tangible capital assets (867,073) (8,697,966) Loss (gain)on disposal of tangible capital assets 98,975 (403,120) Write off of tangible capital assets 28,608 61,072 Proceeds on disposal of tangible capital assets 50,890 589,337 Amortization 6,184,395 6,003,907 Change in inventory (8,091) 68,147 Change in prepaids 46.012 23,760 Decrease in net debt in the year 4,856,628 509.353 Net debt, beginning of year (1.339.1121 (1,848,465) Net financial assets (debt), end of year $ 3,517,516 $ (1,339,112) See accompanying notes to the financial statements. 5 91 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Statement of Cash Flows Year Ended December 31 2012 2011 Increase (decrease)in cash and cash equivalents Operating Surplus for the year $ 11,133,626 $ 18,760,503 Non-cash charge to operations Amortization 6,184,395 6,003.907 Loss (gain)on disposal of tangible capital assets 98,975 (403.120) Contributed tangible capital assets (867,073) (8,697,966) Write off of tangible capital assets 28,608 61,072 16,578,531 15,724.396 Change in non-cash operating working capital (Increase)decrease in receivables (1,237,612) 862,941 (Increase)decrease in inventory (8,091) 68,147 Decrease in prepaids 46,012 23,760 (Decrease)increase in payables and accruals (1,957,204) 1,003,282 (Decrease)increase in deferred revenue (3,242,596) 2,222,619 Increase (decrease)vacation pay accrual 255,917 (32,328) 10,434,957 19,872,817 Investing Proceeds on maturities of marketable securities 8,532,847 8,249,957 Purchase of marketable securities (6.867.9421 (12,073,253) 1.664,905 (3,823,296) Capital Proceeds on disposal of tangible capital assets 50,890 589,337 Purchase of tangible capital assets (11,810,714) (15,896,287) (11,759,824) (15,306,950) Net increase in cash and cash equivalents 340,038 742,571 Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of year 10.423,135 9,680,564 Cash and cash equivalents, end of year $ 10,763,173 $ 10,423,135 See accompanying notes to the financial statements. 6 92 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Notes to the Financial Statements December 31, 2012 1. Nature of operations Toronto and Region Conservation Authority CIRCA") 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. 2. Summary of significant accounting policies 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: Accrual accounting 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 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 93 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Notes to the Financial Statements December 31, 2012 2. Summary of significant accounting policies (continued) Cash and cash equivalents 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 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, 2012 is $16,170,050 (2011 - $17,915,571). Reserves 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. Revenue recognition 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. Deferred revenue 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. Inventory 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 94 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Notes to the Financial Statements December 31, 2012 2. Summary of significant accounting policies (continued) Use of estimates 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 Accounts subject to significant estimates include receivables and tangible capital assets. Actual results could differ from those estimates. Vacation pay accrual Vacation credits earned but not taken are accrued as earned. Donated capital assets, materials and services Donated capital assets are recorded at fair value when fair value can be reasonably estimated. Donated materials and services are not recorded. Contributed services 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. 3. Cash and cash equivalents Cash and cash equivalents are comprised of the following: 2012 2011 Cash $ 9,074,152 $ 8.719,402 Restricted Cash —Source Water Protection 2,001,330 1,978,842 11,075,482 10,698,244 Trust funds: Rouge Park Alliance (195,001) (261,651) Greater Toronto Area Agricultural Action Committee (117.308) (13,458) $ 10,763,173 $ 10,423,135 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 95 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Notes to the Financial Statements December 31, 2012 4. Receivables 2012 2011 Waterfront Toronto $ 1,007,681 $ 2,486,025 City of Toronto 2,013,564 2,094,592 Regional Municipality of York 933,333 885,087 Regional Municipality of Peel 143,722 190,790 The Living City Foundation 1,206,474 1,044,552 Government of Canada 463,959 681,615 Province of Ontario 743,594 1,086,514 Interest receivable 7,840 8.469 Municipal levies - 60,528 Trade and other 6,294,953 3,039,336 $ 12,815,120 $ 11,577,508 5. Reserve funds held under provincial revenue-sharing policy 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 2012 and 2011 are based upon the following transactions recorded in operations: 2012 2011 Reserve balance, beginning of year $ 745,624 $ 1,089,618 Net proceeds from sale of properties 358,313 379,243 Interest 11,396 12,644 Applications: Greenspace acquisition project (117,311) (716,878) Revised Project for the Etobicoke Motel Strip (587) (19,003) Reserve balance, end of year $ 997,435 $ 745,624 10 96 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Notes to the Financial Statements December 31, 2012 6. Pension agreements 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 2012 were $2,811,339 (2011 -$2,277,047). 7. Contingent liabilities and commitments (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 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. The property acquired under Section 30 has been settled. The compensation for the property expropriated under Section 15 is still outstanding. 11 97 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Notes to the Financial Statements December 31, 2012 7. Contingent liabilities and commitments (continued) (d) Lease commitments TRCA has entered into agreements to lease premises and equipment for various periods until 2016. Minimum lease payments in aggregate for each of the next four years are as follows: 2013 $ 351,958 2014 $ 210,333 2015 $ 43,588 2016 $ 20,498 (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. As of December 31, 2012, Evergreen Foundation had received advances in the amount of $7.2 million ($8,8 million as of Dec. 31, 2011) from its financing institutional lender 8. Related party transactions and balances 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$333,796 (2011 -$298,218) are fully recovered from LCF The financial statements include LCF grants in support of projects in the amount of$1,491,527 (2011 - $1,583,368.) At the end of the year, the LCF was indebted to TRCA in the amount of $1,206,474 (2011 -$1,044,552). 12 98 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Notes to the Financial Statements December 31, 2012 9. Segmented information 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 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 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. Watershed stewardship program 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. Conservation land management and development The conservation land management and development 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. Conservation and education programming The conservation and education program area includes costs and revenues associated with the delivery of recreational and educational programming. 13 99 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Notes to the Financial Statements December 31, 2012 9. Segmented information (continued) Corporate services 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. 10. Budget figures Public Sector Accounting Standards require a comparison of the results for the period with those originally planned on the same basis as that used for actual results. The budget in the statement of operations has been adjusted to be presented on a consistent basis as actual results. Below is a reconciliation of the figures from the approved budget to the budget over the financial statements: Approved budget per Approved Capital financial Budget Reclassification Amortization assets statements Total revenues $ 103,193,560 $ - $ - $ $ 103,193,560 Expenditures Watershed management and health monitoring 13,664,000 (788,000) 412,072 (243,000) 13,045,072 Environmental advisory services 4,872,000 788,000 9,264 - 5,669,264 Watershed stewardship 30,741,160 - 847,380 (7,007,000) 24.581,540 Conservation land Management and Development 26,687,000 (329,000) 3.777,551 (9,857,000) 20,278,551 Conservation and Education programming 20,593,400 329.000 464,602 - 21,387,002 Corporate services 6,638,000 - 257,513 (341,000) 6.554,513 Vehicle and equipment. Net of usage charged - - 416,014 (495,000) (78,986) $ 103.195,560 $ - $ 6.184.396 $ (17.943,000) $ 91.436,956 (Deficit)surplus for the year $ (2,000) $ 11,756,604 11. Comparative figures Certain comparative figures have been reclassified to conform with the financial statement presentation adopted in the year 14 100 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Schedule of Operations -Watershed Management and Health Monitoring Year Ended December31 2012 2012 2011 Budget Actual Actual (Note 10) Revenue Municipal Levies -Operating $ 1,915,000 $ 1,915,000 $ 2,000,000 -Capital 5,955,000 4,954,572 3,992,816 Other 129,500 58,890 33,649 Government grants Ministry of Natural Resources transfer payments 634,000 634,315 634,000 Provincial-other 2,379,000 3,452,531 2,539,657 Federal 154,000 122,381 415,656 User fees, sales and admissions 103,000 48,948 118,350 Contract services 244,000 8,295,785 401,070 Interest - 24,609 25,054 The Living City Foundation 161,000 232,235 245,207 Waterfront Toronto 308,000 294,047 321,312 Compensation agreements 23,000 3,549 9,758 Donations and fundraising 435,000 435,000 528,257 Corporate and community groups 435,500 148,827 155,312 Sundry - 46,239 - - 12.876.000 20,666,928 11,420,098 Expenditures Watershed strategies 1,587,000 1,515,865 1,632,082 Resource inventory and environmental monitoring 1,105,000 1,094,271 1,108,402 Flood forecasting and warning 328,000 351,323 305,681 Flood control structures,operations and maintenance 313,000 301,160 321,666 3,333,000 3,262,619 3,367,831 Capital and other projects and studies Source Water Protection 2,159,000 2,643,887 1,988,204 Regional monitoring study and other monitoring projects 1,507,000 1,278,449 1,360,291 Water management projects 1,981,000 1,668,164 2,157,022 Lower Don flood control 308,000 294,047 319,866 Terrestrial Natural Heritage study 562,000 561,569 651,879 Floodplain mapping 219,000 242,149 321,600 Groundwater strategies 618,000 539,763 543,940 Other flood control projects 1,946,000 7,035,235 581,230 Decrease in vacation pay accrual - (5,159) (27,194) Amortization 412,072 412,072 422,188 13,045,072 17,932,795 11,686,857 Surplus(deficit)for the year $ (169,072) $ 2,734,133 $ (266,759) 15 101 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Schedule of Operations — Environmental Advisory Services Year Ended December31 2012 2012 2011 Budget Actual Actual (Note 10) Revenue Municipal Levies-Operating $ 275,500 $ 275,500 $ 325,747 -Capital 335,000 335,000 290,000 Other 1,068,000 965,890 934,128 Government grants Ministry of Natural Resources transfer payments 105,500 33,412 105,253 Development services fees 3.876.000 5,131,268 3,393,664 5,660,000 6,741,070 5,048,792 Expenditures Municipal/public plan input and review 2,585,500 2,415,522 2,187,790 Development plan input and review 3,074,500 2,919,934 2,779,590 Decrease in vacation pay acccrual - (2,253) (11,877) Amortization 9.264 9,264 6,162 5.669.264 5,342,467 4,961,665 Surplus (deficit)for the year $ (9,264) $ 1,398,603 $ 87,127 16 102 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Schedule of Operations -Watershed Stewardship Year Ended December31 2012 2012 2011 Budget Actual Actual (Note 10) Revenue Municipal Levies -Operating $ 309,000 $ 309,000 $ 234,000 -Capital 17,770,860 14,340,050 11,399,761 Other 968,000 416,479 430,519 Government grants Provincial-other 1,359,500 1,207,235 609,159 Federal 843,500 621,622 716,335 Contract services 8,070,300 7,189,459 7,037,341 User fees, sales and admissions 373,500 282,095 145,852 Compensation agreements 522,000 211,858 202,712 Interest - 288 135 The Living City Foundation 120,500 43,777 333,937 Donations and fundraising 41,000 49,162 - Sales and property tax refunds - 200 - Sundry - 667 - Corporate and community groups 363,000 237,932 505,216 Net loss on sales of tangible capital assets - - (4.372) 30,741,160 24,909.824 21,610,595 Expenditures Watershed stewardship 1,253,000 1,296,073 844,246 Capital and other projects and studies Erosion control and slope stabilization projects in Toronto 3,268,800 3,241,503 3,464,298 Erosion control-Peel, Durham and York Regions 173,000 450,297 460,707 Regeneration projects 9,551,000 6,473,116 6,517,410 Sustainable technology evaluation 1,364,000 1,355,466 1,031,350 Pan-Am Games Equestrian Facility 539.560 151,345 91,528 Peel climate change mitigation 7,584,800 5,623,433 4,501,417 Decrease in vacation pay accrual - (9,544) (50,308) Amortization 847,380 847,380 682,423 24,581,540 19,429,069 17,543,071 Surplus for the year $ 6,159,620 $ 5,480,755 $ 4,067,524 17 103 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Schedule of Operations - Conservation Land Management and Development Year Ended December31 2012 2012 2011 Budget Actual Actual (Note 10) Revenue Municipal Levies -Operating $ 1,813,000 $ 1,813,000 $ 1,088,000 -Capital 8,056,924 5,852,304 5,763,269 Other 1,885,000 93,314 6,840,165 Government grants Provincial-other 9,000 36,286 453,019 Federal 156,000 104,675 625,753 Contracted services 1,552,000 2,307,701 1,108,112 Rental properties 2,570,000 2,459,033 2,458,724 Interest - 12,945 14,061 User fees,sales and admissions - 63,086 47,886 Proceeds from granting of property interests 608,076 358,313 296,676 The Living City Foundation 240,000 222,385 182,417 Waterfront Toronto 5,612,000 4,358,068 6,249,700 Donations and fundraising 3,000,000 3,784 1,840,425 Canada Post Corporation agreement 665,000 130,259 11,964 Compensation agreements 21.000 863,676 929,090 Sales and property tax refunds - 150 17,867 Corporate and community groups 93,000 16,222 27,350 Sundry - 100 1,280 Net gain/(loss)on sales of tangible capital assets - (149,4601 348,326 26.281.000 18,545,841 28,304,084 Expenditures Conservation land management Property services 2,462,000 2,448,911 2,550,859 Conservation parks land management - 252,009 252,009 Rental properties 1,960,000 1,977,990 1,972,598 4,751,000 4,678,910 4,775,466 Capital and other projects and studies Greenspace acquisition 150,000 110,692 - Waterfront development 4,221,000 4,389,310 2,321,960 Waterfront-Land portion 20,000 13,889 105,473 Waterfront Toronto 3,715,000 2,492,514 1,892,379 Etobicoke Motel Strip waterfront project - 587 663 Conservation area development 122,000 122,384 68,653 Living City Centre at Kortright-infrastructure - 40,578 17,174 Peel campground improvements 82,000 87,331 169,036 Petticoat Creek and Heart Lake CA pools - - 237 Black Creek Pioneer Village retrofit/attractions project 569,000 430,620 181,566 Land Care Projects 2,401,000 1,551,113 1,393,327 ORM Corridor Park development 799,000 40,473 208,363 Decrease in vacation pay accrual - (9,749) (51.388) Amortization 3,777,551 3,777,551 3,512,407 20,278,551 17,726,203 14,595,316 Surplus for the year $ 6,002,449 $ 819,638 $ 13,708.768 18 104 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Schedule of Operations - Conservation and Education Programming Year Ended December31 2012 2012 2011 Budget Actual Actual (Note 10) Revenue Municipal Levies -Operating $ 3,522,000 $ 3,522,264 $ 3,228,581 -Capital 1,959,000 1,618,176 1,501,522 Other 136,000 93,779 80,855 Government grants Provincial-other 1,008,000 573,015 554,546 Federal 173,000 346,919 53,345 Contracted services 127,000 116,843 122,857 Conservation areas 3,871,800 3,784,473 3,185,254 Black Creek Pioneer Village 3,135,000 3,229,391 3,254,403 Kortright Centre 1,103,900 1,093,919 1,059,811 Living City Centre Programs 646,000 486,028 571,563 ORM Park Operation 1,167,000 1,072,960 1,091,639 Conservation Field Centres 1,879,700 1,326,805 1,488,979 Community Transformation Partnerships - 209,228 252,087 Corporate Education Outreach 7,000 10,849 17,749 Rentals - 19,434 21,433 The Living City Foundation 847,000 993,130 820,807 Donations and fundraising 95,500 175,633 45,145 Compensation Agreements - 1,000 - Sundry - 1,000 1,507 Corporate and community groups 1,319,500 348,084 412,118 Net loss on sales of tangible capital assets _ - 14.1221 (5,415) 20,997,400 19,018,808 17,758,786 Expenditures Conservation land programming Conservation areas 3,835,800 3,478,430 3,012,007 ORM Park Operation 1,271,000 1,216,828 1,220,332 Conservation/Heritage education Black Creek Pioneer Village 5,292,000 5,239,576 5,170,090 Kortright Centre for Conservation 1,258,900 1,288,704 1,195,226 Living City Centre Programs 758,000 717,621 706,156 Community Transformation Partnership 2,183,000 1,267,229 921,040 Conservation Filed Centres 2,708,800 2,466,873 2,342,735 Education Outreach 2,372,000 1,853,721 1,778,040 Conservation Education Management 475,900 390,562 399,559 Program support and marketing 767,000 833,183 806,865 Decrease in vacation pay accrual - (7,916) (41,725) Amortization 464,602 464,602 683,820 21,387,002 19209.413 18,194,145 Deficit for the year $ (389,602) $ (190,605) $ (435,359) 19 105 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Schedule of Operations - Corporate Services Year Ended December31 2012 2012 2011 Budget Actual Actual (Note 10) Revenue Municipal: Levies -Operating $ 4,113,500 $ 4,113,500 $ 4,847,500 -Capital 1,116,000 668,330 805,690 Government grants Ministry of Natural Resources transfer payments 106,500 106,500 106,500 Provincial-other 719,000 746,484 686,472 Federal 12,000 12,500 13,750 Interest 525,000 595,735 472,603 Retail Sales 21,000 25,809 60,147 Rentals - - 29,875 The Living City Foundation - - 1,000 Sales and property tax rebate 25,000 254,809 248,049 Sundry - 3,741 46,715 6,638,000 6,527,408 7,318,301 Expenditures Corporate management 2,046,000 1,918,580 1,955,386 Financial services 1,331,000 1,325,625 1,316,009 Human resources 492,000 504,726 496,159 Information technology 1,489,000 1,347,101 1,233,786 Corporate communications 1,317,000 1,294,087 1,266,785 Professional Access Program 758,000 800,947 716,537 Decrease in vacation pay accrual - (3,119) (16,439) Recoveries from programs (1,911,000) (2,110,953) (1,837,529) 5,522,000 5,076,994 5,130,694 Capital and other projects and studies Administrative office 703,000 253,301 189,525 Information Technology acquisition project 72,000 227,937 185,791 Amortization 257,513 257,513 235,801 6,554,513 5,815,745 5,741,811 Surplus for the year $ 83,487 $ 711,663 $ 1,576,490 20 106 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Schedule of Operations —Vehicle and Equipment Year Ended December31 2012 2012 2011 Budget Actual Actual (Note 10) Expenditures Operations Fuel, maintenance and repairs $ 637,800 $ 765,278 $ 810,312 Other overhead 65,000 64,594 64,509 Amortization 416,014 416,014 461.106 1,118,814 1,245,886 1,335,927 Less recoveries of expenditures by charges based on usage (1.197.8001 (1,400,541) (1,355,130) Vehicle and equipment, net of usage charged (78,986) (154,655) (19,203) Net gain on disposal of tangible capital assets 24,784 3,509 Surplus for the year $ (78,986) $ (179,439) $ (22,712) 21 107 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Continuity of Reserves Year Ended December 31, 2012 Balance Beginning Appropriations Balance End of Year to(from) of Year Vehicle and equipment $ 410,289 $ 201,010 $ 611,299 Tree donation program 12,336 (2,376) 9,960 Operating contingency 1.690,808 2,163.089 3,853,897 Funds held under provincial revenue sharing policy(Note 5) 745.624 251,811 997,435 $ 2,859,057 $ 2,613,534 $ 5,472,591 22 108 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Schedule of Accumulated Surplus Year Ended December 31, 2012 2012 2011 Actual Actual Accumulated surplus, beginning of year $ 419,880,066 $ 401,119,563 Surplus for the year 11.133.626 18.760.503 Accumulated surplus, end of year $ 431,013,692 $ 419,880,066 Accumulated Surplus consists of: Tangible capital assets $ 426,891,940 $ 420,577,021 Reserves(Page 22) 5,472,591 2,859.057 Operating surplus/(deficit) 293,100 (1,874,332) Amount to be funded in future periods (1.643.939) (1.681,680) $ 431,013,692 $ 419,880,066 23 109 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Schedule of Tangible Capital Assets December 31 Building and Machinery Land Building and Work in Total Total Land Improvements Improvements Equipment Vehicles Infrastructure Progress 2012 2011 Cost Beginning of year $ 333,072,505 $ 9,445,478 $ 43,351,449 $ 5,877,912 $ 3,595.180 $ 131,075,194 $ 15.312,901 $ 541,730,619 $ 518,167,222 Additions 1,082,888 539,998 1,576,666 781,843 237,763 4,583,584 3,875,045 12,677,787 24,594,253 Disposals 2,096 - 850,178 660,894 202,129 32,330 8,820 1,756,447 1,030,856 Transfer from Work in Progress 9,623 2,927,367 1,338,560 - - 1,283,058 (5,558,608) - - End of year 334,162,920 12,912,843 45,416,497 5,998,861 3,630,814 136,909,506 13.620,518 552,651,959 541,730,619 1 O Accumulated Amortization Beginning of year - 2,894,925 21,934,081 2,699,216 2,618,389 91,006,987 - 121,153,598 115,933,258 Amortization - 467,371 1,589,577 683,035 282,893 3,161,519 - 6,184,395 6,003,907 Disposals - - 727,300 660,894 177,238 12,542 - 1,577,974 783,567 End of year - 3,362,296 22,796.358 2,721,357 2.724.044 94,155,964 - 125,760,019 121,153,598 Net book value $ 334,162,920 $ 9,550,547 $ 22620,139 $ 3,277,504 $ 906,770 $ 42,753,542 $ 13,620,518 $ 426,891,940 $ 420,577,021 Contributed capital assets have been recognized at fair market value at the date of contribution. The value of contributed assets received during the year is$867,073 (2011 -$8,697,966). 24 Attachment 2 ,.a) GrantThornton Report to the Budget/Audit Advisory Board - communication of audit strategy and results Toronto and Region Conservation Authority For the year ended December 31 , 2012 111 GrantThornton June 14,2013 GranainenbtnrLLPP Suite 200 15 Allstate Parkway Markham,ON 3R 5B4 T+1 416 366 0100 F+1 905 475 8906 www.GrantThomton.ca To the members of the Budget/Audit Advisory Board of'I'oronto and Region Conservation \uthority We are pleased to report that we have now substantially completed our audit of the financial statements of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for the year ended December 31, 2012. We enclose this report as a means to engage in effective two way communication with you regarding our financial statement audit.This communication will assist the committee in understanding our overall audit strategy and results of audit procedures and includes comments on misstatements, significant accounting policies, sensitive estimates and other matters. This communication has been prepared to comply with the requirements outlined in CAS 260 Communication;rig Nip 13/14;r!/ -Iurli! -h/rirori Board The information in this document is intended solely for the information and use of Budget/Audit Advisory Board (herein referred to as the Audit Committee),Board of Directors and management. It is not intended to be 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(if the entity during the course of r Fur audit. If you have any particular comments or concerns,please do not hesitate to raise them at our scheduled meeting. "ours sincerely, Grant Thorntonn.L�LP ? -7i�sS "p Joanne Rogers,CPA, CA Partner cc: Brian Denney,Chief Administration Officer Rocco Sgambelluri, Chief Financial Officer O Grant Thornton LIP.A Canadian Member of Grant Thomtorjte1ti2.All rights reserved. Contents Page Achieving effective governance 1 Quality control and independence 2 Our audit approach 3 Status of the audit 6 Audit results 7 Reportable matters 9 Technical updates 12 Appendix A—Draft Independent Auditor's Report 13 Appendix B—Draft Management representation letter 16 Appendix C—Advisor Alert—Liability for contaminated sites 22 Appendix D—PSAB Accounting developments 29 ©Grant Thornton LIP.A Canadian Member of Grant Thomtotjte1ti3.All rights res erved. Achieving effective governance Aitti Control Activities si @VS/ There are several fundamental components of effective governance. The ,Audit Committee plats a key role in achieving strong governance,particularly with respect to financial reporting. Roles in ensuring strong financial reporting Role of the audit • Help set the tone for the organization by emphasizing honesty,ethical behaviour and fraud committee prevention • Oversee management,including ensuring that management establishes and maintains internal controls to provide reasonable assurance regarding reliability of financial reporting • Recommend the nomination and compensation of external auditors to the board • Directly oversee the work of the external auditors including reviewing and discussing the audit plan Role of • Prepare financial statements in accordance with Canadian public sector accounting management standards • Design,implement and maintain effective internal controls over financial reporting processes,including controls to prevent and detect fraud • Exercise sound judgment in selecting and applying accounting policies • Prevent,detect and correct errors,including those caused by fraud • 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 • Provide an audit opinion that the financial statements are in accordance with Canadian Grant Thornton public sector accounting standards LAP • Conduct our audit in accordance with Canadian Auditing Standards • Maintain independence and objectivity • Be a resource to management and to the Audit Committee • Communicate matters of interest to the Audit Committee • Establish an effective two-way communication with those charges with governance,to report matters of interest to them and obtain their comments on audit risk matters. ©Grant Thornton LLP.A Canadian Member of Grant Thomtorjte1ti4.All rights reserved. Quality control and independence Quality control Grant Thornton LLP Grant Thornton LLP has a robust quality control program that forms a core part of our client service. has a robust quality control program We combine internationally developed audit methodology,advanced 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 control and would be 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. Por example,we evaluate the independence threat of any non-audit services provided to the entity; • Q mflrming the independence of our engagement team members. ©Grant Thornton LIP.A Canadian Member of Grant ThomtorLte1til.All rights reserved. Our audit approach \n understanding of tour entity and your business drives the Grant Thornton TIP audit approach. The audit methodology is risk based and specifically tailored to the entity as depicted below: F tAiSeilestirid4bOkehtisid i„ S 4z 1 controls irs)7rhr5,;it}r14r4,'{„,ri�},r��? ,+t „ a a ��a',iYr, 7.^.0 1',,,Ttri r4:d i"r '�k"b ,a :�y etfl� M it' r pa; ° " iaew�n+1; Stgellaitteti0004-‘t''1, #”...,1401014a104 VAIMCSISHROOVIOng s l YS 1 d 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. Throughout the execution of the audit approach,we will maintain our professional scepticism, recognizing the possibility that a material misstatement due to fraud could exist not withstanding our past experiences with the entity or our beliefs about management's honesty and integrity ©Grant Thornton LLP.A Canadian Member of Grant Thomtorrs.All rights reserved. Internal control Our audit includes gaining an understanding of the entity's internal control over financial reporting. Our understanding focused on processes associated with the identified risk areas (see below). We used this understanding to determine the nature,extent and timing of our audit procedures. Note that the auditor's objectives with regards to internal control are different from those of management and the Audit Committee. For example,we primarily target controls that relate to financial reporting and not those that relate to the entity's operations or compliance which may also be relevant to the entity's objectives.Therefore,management and the Audit Committee cannot solely rely on our findings to discharge their responsibilities in this area. See the Reportable matters section for our internal control findings. Risk assessment Our risk assessment process identified the following areas where we focused our attention: Risk area Audit procedures performed Revenue generated from municipal levies,contracts, Municipal levies were agreed to billings for the year and grants and special projects subsequent receipts. We tested a sample of expenditures on the deferred municipal levy schedule to test revenue recognition. Similar testing was completed for contract revenue and grant revenue. Confirmed a sample of accounts receivable balances,and performed alternative procedures(subsequent receipts)if positive confirmation was not received for the balances sampled. Analytical review of revenue and various reconciliations as well as deferred revenue schedules were performed to identify any additional balances that required investigation. Employee Compensation We reviewed the T4 summary and general ledger reconciliation for reasonableness and investigated unusual items Payroll accruals were examined and both payables and compensation expenses were analytically reviewed. The underlying data used for analytical review was tested. Tangible Capital Assets Examined supporting documentation for significant capital asset additions.Ensured that assets were capitalized in the proper class and that those expenditures not capitalized were properly considered. Amortization was tested to ensure it was applied in accordance with the amortization policy. Operating Expenses Performed detailed analytical review comparing operating expense line items to budget,investigating and corroborating variances.Reviewed support for significant payables and accruals and tested cut-off. ©Grant Thornton LIP.A Canadian Member of Grant Thomtor]jte1t4oail.All rights reserved. Materiality The purpose of our audit is to provide an opinion as to whether the financial statements are prepared, in all material respects,in accordance with the applicable financial reporting framework. Therefore, materiality is a critical auditing concept and as such we apply it in all stages of the engagement. The concept of materiality recognizes that an auditor cannot verify every balance, transaction or judgment made in the financial reporting process. During audit planning,we made a preliminary assessment of materiality for purposes of developing our audit strategy,including the determination of 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 brought to your attention. Fraud risk factor considerations Fraud can occur in We are responsible for planning and performing the audit to obtain reasonable assurance as to whether any organization,at any time,and can be the financial statements are tree of material misstatement caused by ern rr or by fraud. Our perpetrated by responsibility includes: anyone. • The identification and assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements due to fraud through procedures including discussions amongst the audit team and specific inquires of management; • To obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to respond to the fraud risks noted; and • To respond appropriately to any fraud or suspected fraud identified during the audit. We would like to \\'ith this regard,we are required to communicate with you on fraud-related matters, including obtain your input on these matters. • Obtaining an understanding of how you exercise oversight of management's processes for identifying and responding to the risks of fraud in the entity and the internal control that management has established to mitigate these risks. • Inquire whether you have knowledge of any actual,suspected or alleged fraud affecting the entity. The following provides a summary of some of the fraud related procedures performed during the audit: • Test the appropriateness of journal entries recorded in the general ledger and other adjustments made in the preparation of the financial statements. • Review accounting estimates for biases. • Evaluate the business rationale (or the lack thereof) for significant transactions that arc or appear to he outside the normal course of business. We would like to Laws and regulations obtain your input on these matters. One of the auditor's objectives in the audit is to perform specified audit procedures to help identify instances of non-compliance with laws and regulations that may have a material effect on the financial statements. We would like know if you are aware of instances of the entity not being in compliance with laws and regulations. ©Grant Thornton LIP.A Canadian Member of Grant Thomtorm All rights reserved. Status of the audit We have substantially completed our audit of the financial statements of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for the year ended December 31, 2012 and the results of that audit are included in this report. The following items were outstanding as at the date of this report: • Completion of tile reoie\;s and engagement quality control reoiews; • Receipt and evaluation of legal letters from the following firms: — Gardiner Roberts; — Chappell, Bushell,Steward LLP Barristers&Solicitors; — Borden Ladner Gervais; — \Villms &Shier Environmental Lawyers LLP; • Receipt of signed management representation letter(draft has been attached as ,Appendix B); • Inquiries regarding subsequent events; and • Approval of the financial statements by the Board of Directors. O Grant Thornton LLP.A Canadian Member of Grant Thomtor]jleKytig.All rights reserved. Audit results Summary of misstatements Non-trivial misstatements noted during the course of our audit but not adjusted in the financial statements were as follows: Oved(Under)statement of: Unadjusted misstatements I Assets ! Liabilities I Opening Annual accumulated Surplus I surplus To record revenue and expenses related to Living City Foundation projects on a gross basis rather than $ 199,714 netting revenue and expenses $ - $ - . $ (199.714) Reversal of unadjusted misstatements 1 at the end of the prior year - - _79,666 - (79,666) Total unadjusted misstatements : $ - i $ • ; $ 79,666 ; $ (79,666) Percentage of financial statement ..amounts 0,02% j 0.72% Summary of disclosure matters The following is a description of disch,sure adjustments made by Toronto and Region Consen-ation Authority as a result of the audit of the financial statements: • Added reconciliation between the approved budget and the budget reported in the financial statements (Note U)) to reflect the adjustment of the budget for capital assets. Our audit also identified the following unadjusted non-trivial misstatements from disclosure matters: • Budget figures have not been included on the statement of changes in net assets (debt). Under Public Sector Accounting Standards (PSAS) this is required disclosure. • Expenditures have been presented in the statement of operations by function; accounting standards require that in addition to presenting expenditures by function,that they also be presented by object in a note or schedule to the financial statements. This disclosure has not been presented. ©Grant Thornton LIP.A Canadian Member of Grant Thomtorjtei2i0.All rights reserved. We have discussed the unadjusted misstatements with management and requested that the identified amounts and disclosures he adjusted.The amounts and disclosures have not been adjusted because management has assessed that these unadjusted misstatements are not material to the financial statements of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Subject to approval from the Budget/ Audit Advisory Board,we are willing to accept management's position. In prior years the budget information was unaudited. In April 2013, the Accounting Standards body of the CICA clarified that since budget numbers are required in PSAS financial statements they should be included in the audit and accordingly not shown as unaudited. During the 2012 audit we have noted disclosure departures related to the presentation of the budget in the audited financial statements which had not been identified in prior years, as the budget numbers were previously unaudited. O Grant Thornton LLP.A Canadian Member of Grant Thomtotjte2ijl.All rights reserved. Reportable matters Internal control Management is responsible for the design and operation of an effective system of internal control that 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 determine the nature, timing and extent of tests to be performed. however,if we become aware of a deficiency in your internal controls systems, auditing standards requires us to communicate to the audit committee those deficiencies we consider significant or material. A financial statement audit is not designed to provide assurance on internal Cr fntrol. During the course of performing our audit,we did not identify any such reportable weaknesses in internal control. ©Grant Thornton LIP.A Canadian Member of Grant Thomtorile22.All rights reserved. Significant findings from the audit During the course of our audit, we noted the following sensitive accounting estimates and disclosures: Area Management's estimation j Auditor's comments process/disclosure Capitalization of tangible capital . Management follows a methodology j We reviewed management's methodology, assets ; to ensure that all constructed capital I and on a sample basis have tested the assets are reviewed to ensure that 1 capitalization of tangible capital assets. the appropriate assets and amounts ; We agree with the method and amounts are properly capitalized as tangible I capitalized as tangible capital assets. capital assets. I Allowance for doubtful accounts Management has reviewed 1 We reviewed management's estimate and .receivable. ' receivables and determined that an ! reviewed the age of receivables and allowance for doubtful accounts in ; subsequent collections in 2013.A balance the amount of$40,000 Is j in the amount of$235,040 is outstanding appropriate. from Infrastructure Ontario(10)with respect to the Oak Ridges Corridor Park. 10 has requested that the operations be audited prior to settlement of this amount, I however they have not agreed to the scope of the audit.It is management's belief that this amount will be resolved and I will ultimately be collected;accordingly j they have not provided an allowance for this amount, Given the available i Information at this time,GT agrees with management's estimate Contributed assets recorded at fair : Management obtains appraisal I On a test basis we reviewed the appraisal value reports to support the fair values reports supporting the additions tested. assigned to contributed property. The amounts recorded for contributed assets were derived from the valuation reports. Other matters to discuss The following table outlines additional matters we would like to bring to your attention: Financial statement In the current year,the financial statement presentation of the statement of presentation -Statement of i operations and its supporting schedules was changed whereby amounts Operations related to capital assets were removed from expenses on a line by line basis, as capital expenditures are not normally disclosed on the statement of operations. This new disclosure more clearly reports the operating activities for the year In prior years,capital assets were removed from the statement of operations and supporting schedules on a global basis.As a result of this change,the prior year comparative figures and the fiscal 2012 budget(Note 10)have been restated to conform to the financial statement presentation of the current year O Grant Thornton LLP.A Canadian Member or Grant Thomtolt2i3.All rights met erved. Cooperation during the audit We report that we received full cooperation from management and the employees of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority To our knowledge,we were provided access to all necessary records 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 of other external accountants on financial reporting or accounting matters. Fraud and illegal acts Our inquiries of management did not reveal any fraud or illegal acts. ©Grant Thornton LLP.A Canadian Member of Grant Thomtorite24.All rights reserved. '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 \ppendix D. 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 he effective for TRCA for the year ending December 31, 2013 (earlier adoption is encouraged).This section which can he applied retroactively or prospectively may have a significant impact on revenue recognition by TRCA. • Section PS 3360—"Liability for contaminated sites"which will he effective for TRCA for the year ending December 31,2015 (earlier adoption is encouraged).This section which will be applied retroactively with restatement of prior periods may have a significant impact on the TRCA financial statements. We have included as Appendix C an advisor alert on this topic. Auditing standards There are no new auditing standards that will have a material impact on the Toronto and Region Conservation \uthuritc ©Grant Thornton LIP.A Canadian Member of Grant Thomtorjteyptii.All rights reserved. Appendix A - Draft Independent Auditor's Report ©Grant Thornton LLP.A Canadian Member of Grant Thomtorsjte2i6.All rights reserved. I T Independent Auditor's eport To the Members of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority We have audited the accompanying financial statements of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority ("TRCA"), which comprise the statement of financial position as at December 31,2012, and the statements of operations,changes in net assets (debt), and cash flows for the year then ended,and a summary of significant accounting policies and other explanatory information. Management s responsthi'ity tai the finaneia statements Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in accordance with Canadian public sector accounting standards, and for such internal control as management determines is necessary ro enable the preparation of financial statements that are free 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 free from material 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 auditor's judgment, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements,whether due to fraud or error. Tn making those risk assessments,the auditor considers internal control relevant to the entity's 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 expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity's internal control. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinion. 0 Grant Thornton LIP A Canadian Member of Grant Thorntorjt2i7.All rights reserved. GrantThornton Ii T Opin on In our opinion,the financial statements present fairy,in all material respects, the financial position of TRCA as at December 31,2012, and the results of its operations, changes in net assets (debt), and its cash flows for the'Sear then ended in accordance wirh Canadian public sector accounting standards. Markham, Canada Chartered Accountants June 21, 2013 Licensed Public Accountants ()GrantThornton U.P.A Canadian Member of Grant Thorntorjt2i8.Ali rights reserved. - , - Appendix B — Draft Management representation letter ©Grant Thornton LLP.A Canadian Member of Grant Thomtolt2ig.All rights reserved. DT Q June 21,2011 Grant Thornton 1.12 Allstate Parkway, Suite 3111 Markham, Ontario I,IR B-1 Dear Sir%,1ladam: 1C c arc providing this letter in connection with your audit of the financial statements of Toronto and Region Coisei-ati,ro lnthr,rity(7RC Vi as of December 31, .2(112, and line the year then ended, for the purpose of expressing an opinion as to whether the financial statements present fan-h, in all material respects, the tinancial position,results of operations, changes in net assets 'debt) and cash flows of '1"ntontn and Regioti Ciinservatirrn ,Authority in acairdance with Canadian public sector acauinting standards. We acknowledge that we have fulfilled our responsibilities for the preparation of the tinancial statements in accordance with Canadian public sector accounting standards and for the design and implementation of internal controls to prevent and detect fraud and error We have assessed the risk that the financial statements mar be materially misstated as a result of fraud, and have determined such risk ti i be low I•urther,we acknowledge that your examination was planned and conducted in aces irdance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards (G 1AS) so as to enable you to express an opinion on the financial statements. 1C c understand that while your work includes an examination of the accounting system, internal controls and related data to the extent you considered necessary in the circumstances, it is not designed to identtfi, nor can it necessarih be expected to disclose, fraud, shortages, errors and other irregularities, should any exist Certain representations in this letter:ere described as being limited to matters that are material. -1n item is considered material, regardless of its monetary value, if it is probable that its omission from or misstatement in the financial stateuaen is would influence the decision of a reasonable person relying on the financial statements. lC e confirm, to the best of our km iwledge and belief, as of June 21,2013, the following representations made to you during your audit. Financial statements I The financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the entity as at December 31, 2i112 and the results of its operations, changes in net assets (debt) and its cash flows for the rear then ended in ace( rd.mce with Canadian public sector accounting standards, as agreed to in the terms of the audit engagement. ©Grant Thornton LIP.A Canadian Member of Grant Thomtorjte30.All rights reserved. DT Q Completeness of information 2 AN e have made in- fable to you all financial records and related data and all minutes of the meetings of directors, and committees rif directors, as agreed in the terms of the audit engagement. Summaries of actions of recent meetings for which minutes has e nit set been prepared have been provided to you. All significant board and committee actions are included in the summaries. 3 There are no material transactions that have ni it been pn iperly recorded in the acv'tinting records underlying the financial statements. 4 There were no restatements made to correct a material misstatement in the prior period financial statements that affect the comparative information. 5 We are unaware of any known or probable instances of non-e impliance with the requirements of regulators nr governmental ,uuhunttes, including their financial rep irtmg requirements 6 We are unaware of am violations or possible violations of laws or regulations the effects of which should be considered for disclosure in the financial statements or as the basis of recording a contingent loss. We have disclosed to you all known deficiencies in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting of which we are aware. 8 We have identified to you all known related parties and related party transactions, including reven ties,purchases,luaus, transfers of assets,liabilities and services, leasing arrangements guarantees, non-monetary transaenons and transactions for no consideration. 9 You provided a non attest sen-ice bi assisting us with drafting the financial statements and related notes. In co mnection with this non-attest sen-ice,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 responsibility for such financial statements. Fraud and error lii We have no knowledge of fraud or suspected fraud affecting the entity involving management; employees who have significant roles in internal control;or others,where the fraud could has e a non-trivial effect on the financial statements. 1 I We has e no knowledge of any allegations of fraud or suspected fraud affecting the entity's financial statements communicated by employees. former employees, analysts, regular,its or others. 12 We acknowledge our responsibility for the design, implementation and maintenance of internal control prevent and detect fraud. 13 We believe that the effects of the uncorrected financial statement misstatements and disclosures sum man zed in the accompanying schedule are immaterial,hoth individualh and in the aggregate, to the financial statements taken as a whole. ©Grant Thornton LIP.A Canadian Member of Grant Thomtoi] fig al.All rights reserved. - .; F- ,2 DT0 Recognition, measurement and disclosure 14 \\'e have no plans or intentions that may materially affect the carrying value or classification of assets and liabilities, both financial and min financial, reflected in the financial statements. 15 All related party transactions have been appropriately measured and disclosed in the financial statements. 16 The nature of all material measurement uncertainties has been appropriately disclosed in the financial statements,including all estimates where it is reasi inably passible that the estimate will change in the near term and the effect of the change could be material ro the financial statements. 1- All 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. 12 All liabilities and contingencies, including those associated with guarantees, whether written(Cr oral, have been disclosed to tau and arc appropriately reflected in the financial statements. 19 With respect to environmental matters: a) at)ear end,there were no liabilities or contingencies that have not already been disclosed to you; h) liabilities or contingencies have been recognized, measured and disclosed, as appropriate,in the financial statements;and ei commitments have been measured and disclosed,as appropriate,in the financial statements. 21) The entity has satisfactory title to f or lease interest in) all assets, and there are no liens or encumbrances on the entity's assets nor has any been pledged as collateral e ceept under the Evergreen loan Guarantee which is accurately described below. TRC A and City of Toninto have jointly and severally provided a loan g uarantee in the amount of S'5 million to the I'vergreen Foundation liar the lion \alley Brick Works restoration privet. , of December 31, 21112, the balance of the loan outstanding covered by the guarantee was 57.2 million (55.5 million as of Dec. 31, mill;. 21 We have disclosed to you,and the entity has complied with, all aspects of contactual agreements that could have a material effect on the financial statements in the etem of noncompliance, including all covenants, cc ndmans err other requirements of all outstanding debt. 22 The Harmonized Sales Tax (HST') transactions recorded by the entity are in accordance with the federal and provincial regulations. The LIST liability/receivable amounts recorded by the entity are considered complete. 23 Employee future benefit costs, assets, and obligations have been determined, accounted for and disclosed in accordance with the requirements of Public Sector 3255 Pad-rmp/oiw wt Bane/is, Comprnsatrd lh.renas and Trrrnimrrtron Benefits of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA) 1 handbook. ©Grant Thornton LLP.A Canadian Member of Grant Thomtorjt3ti2.All rights reserved. - .; F- ,2 DT0 24 There have been no events subsequent to the date of the statement of financial position up to t ie date hereof that would require recognition or disclosure in the financial statements Further, there have been no events subsequent to the date of the comparative financial statements that would require adjustment of those financial statements and related notes. Other 25 We have considered whether or not events have occurred or conditions exist which may cast significant doubt on the organization's ability to continue as a going concern and have concluded that no such events or conditions are evident. Yours s en truly, Brian Denney, Chief Administrative Officer Rocco Sgambelluri, Chief Financial Officer ©Grant Thornton LIP.A Canadian Member of Grant Thomtorjtea'pti3.All rights reserved. ; i @ ,- .; .-; .- F- , 1: i ll- i, DT0 gi-- Schedule of unadjusted misstatements Oved(Under)statement of: Unadjusted misstatements Assets i Liabilities i Opening I Annual accumulated i Surplus 1 surplus - To record revenue and expenses --------_.- - --..-- ------�----- i -'----1------- ---------- related to Living City Foundation 1 I $ 199,714 projects $ - $ - I $ - i (199,714) - -- - ---- ------ -- Impact of unadjusted misstatements at ' I the end of the prior period - I - 79,666 1 (79,666) ------------ ------- ------ --------'-�------------' Total unadjusted misstatements $ - „ I $ - i $ 79,666 i $ (79,666) Percentage of financial statement i i amounts -% i -% 1 6.62% I 6.72% Unadjusted disclosures 1) Budget figures have not been included on the statement of changes in net assets (debt). Under Public Sector Accounting Standards this is required disclosure. 2) Expenditures have been presented in the statement of operations by function; accounting standards require that in addition to presenting expenditures by function,that they also be presented by object in a note or schedule to the financial statements.This disclosure has not been presented. ©Grant Thornton LIP.A Canadian Member of Grant Thomtor]jte3i4.All rights reserved. - , - Appendix C — Advisor Alert — T ,iability7 for contaminated sites ©Grant Thornton LLP.A Canadian Member of Grant Thorntoritesi5.All rights reserved. GrantThornton An instinct for growth Adviser alert Liability for contaminated sites March 2013 Overview public sector entity accepts Section PS 3260IJobiliit tbrContaminated responsibility(for example, an About Grant Thornton Sites of the Public Sector \ccountin in Canada >; abandoned gas station); Handbook (the Handbook) provides the • chin es to environment l standards Grant Thornton LLP is a recognition,measurement,presentation and leading Canadian relating to all or part of an operation accounting and advisory disclosure requirements for liabilities firm providing audit,tax associated with the remediatinn of that is no longer in productive use (for and advisory services to contaminated sites.While the standard is example,new regulations requiring the private and public organizations.Together not effective until years beginning on or destruction of a stored chemical); and with the Quebec firm after April 1,21114, it may have a significant • an unexpected event resulting in Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton LLP,Grant effect on reported financial results and contamination (for example,accidental Thornton has operations and may require the use of toxic chemical spills or natural approximately 4,000 people in offices across specialists in determining whether a liability disasters). Canada.Grant Thornton for contaminated sites exists and the LLP is a Canadian amount at which this liability should be member International rat Public scour entities should note that the Thornton f Ga measured. section does not apply to the following Ltd,whose member firms operate across 100 countries worldwide. Summary of standard • costs for the acquisition or betterment Scope We have made every P of tangible capital assets to the extent effort to ensure Under PS 32611,a site is considered that the costs do one exceed the future information in this a rntaminated if substances occur in publication is accurate as economic benefits related to the asset or of its issue date. concentrations that exceed maximum post-remediation fair value of the asset Nevertheless,information acceptable levels under an environmental or views expressed standard.This does not include airborne if held for sale (for example, herein are neither official redevelopment of a contaminated site statements of position, contamination or contaminants in the nor should they be earth's atmosphere, unless such for use or sale); considered technical • asset retirement obligations for loo* advice for you or your contaminants have been introduced into L organization without soil,water bodies or sediment.Typical lived assets in productive use that result consulting a professional business adviser.For examples of situations whereby a liability for from their acquisition,construction or more information about remediation would result include development and ongoing use (for this topic,please contact example,operating a gas station in a your Grant Thornton adviser.If you do not • all or part of an operation that is no municipal work yard); have an adviser,please contact us.We are happy longer in productive use (for example, • liabilities associated with the disposal or to help, abandoned military installations); sale of long-lived tangible capital assets • all or part of an operation of an entity the (for example,privatization of a water public scour entity dues nut own that is utility);and no longer in productive use for which the • liabilities for closure and post-closure environmental standards may also create a care of a solid waste landfill site when the liabilip. site stops accepting waste. An environmental standard may be both The exclusion of these items from the scope quantitative and qualitative. Quantitative of the section does not preclude the entity standards are the most easily verifiable; from having to record a liability under other however, some legislation may prohibit sections of the Handbook (for example,PS adverse environmental impacts in qualitative 3200 Liabilities or PS 3270 Solyd If(ai* terms. For qualitative standards,entities Landfill Gas fire and Post-Closure Liability). may have to exercise more professional judgment in determining whether Recognition contamination has exceeded an A liability for remediation of contaminated environmental standard. sires is recognized when all of the following conditions exist Contamination In order to determine if contamination 1 an environmental standard exists, exists that exceeds an environmental standard, an entity will have to assemble and 2 contamination exceeds an review all available historical and current environmental standard; information pertaining to the site or group 3 the entity is directly responsible or of sites including, but not limited to accepts responsibility; 4 it is expected that future economic a the nature of past activities at the site(s) benefits will be given up; and or adjacent properties; 5 a reasonable estimate of the amount can h site(s) location,hydrology and geology; be made. c results from testing and field investigations; Environmental standard d similarities to and experience at other An environmental standard is generally set by statute,regulation,by-law,order,permit, known contaminated sites; contract or agreement and is legally e significance of site(s);and enforceable and binding Failure to comply f cost versus benefit of conducting may result in prosecutions, tines or similar detailed site assessments. penalties.The entity does not have to consider proposed changes in legislation, The section does not specifically require an regardless of the effective date, An entity to obtain site assessments for each environmental standard can also be created site to assess the contamination level. by internal p olicies or guidelines development by a government or third Nevertheless,public sector entities should party Voluntary compliance with these understand that the event that would resolve the uncertainty about whether 01! 2 Li.)- s, contamination exceeds an environmental standard (i.e., the completion of a site assessment) is within the entity's control. The lack of this confirming evidence does 5 7 not absolve the entity from having to r" record a liability.The fact that an entity has evidence to suggest contamination may exist,but it may lack the specific 1 at. example,abandoned gas stations) through its own actions or promises,but the obligation must still meet the basic definition of a liability to be recognized;as a result,obligations that are based on the intention of an entity may not meet this definition. dust liabilities for contaminated sites will arise from legal obligations, the settlement of which can be enforced by a nformation to confirm that ii exists in court of law. Nevertheless, some liabilities may arise from constructive and equitable excess of an environmental standard is a obligations (those that can be inferred from measurement issue only In the case of uncertainty, the entity has to assess the the facts in a particular situation or by an probability that future site investigations will established pattern of past practices and confirm that contamination that exceeds an those that are based un ethical or moral environmental standard existed at the considerations,respectively). Some financial statement date. If the probability is constructive and equitable obligations may likely that future site investigations will be enforced by a court in accordance with confirm contamination,a liability must be he legal principle known as promissory estoppel or other legal principles having recog**nixed, if the amount can be reasonably similar effect. Professional judgment should estimated. be used in these situations to determine if the entity has created a valid expectation Example A municipality owns various mining sites among others that lea\es it with no realistic with similar characteristics(e.g..their alternative but to remediate a contaminated geographical location,type of deposit they site or group of sites. mine).in the current year,site assessments were performed at a few of the larger sites,and they demonstrated that Evidence that an entity may have a present there was contamination of a specific chemical in excess of federal obligation for remediation separate from environmental standards.The smaller sites legal documents may include were not subjected to site assessments to establish their potential contamination level. • the public sector entity body or person The fact that site assessments were not with the appropriate level of authority performed on the smaller sites cannot be has committed the entity to a remediation used as a reason for not evaluating if a liability exists and should be recognized. plan; The entity would have use the knowledge • the remcdiation plan identities the they have from the larger,similar sites which were analyzed,along with past specific location of the contaminated site experience and any other data available to or sites, assess the probability that the smaller sites are contaminated in excess of an environmental standard. Responsibility Promissory estoppel is defined as the principle that A public sector entity may be directly a promise made without consideration may nonetheless be enforced to prevent injustice if the respi msible ii it the remcdiatit in i it it may promisor should have reasonably expected the accept respi msibility for the remediation of promisee to rely on the promise and the promisee did a ci mtaminated site.The entity may actually rely on the promise to his or her detnment. The Quebec Civil Code does not recognize the voluntarily assume responsibility for doctrine of promissory estoppel but Quebec courts remediation of contaminated sites (for have developed a similar concept known as"la fin de non-recevoir" r , ' 1,38;, • the remediation plan has been and monitoring costs that are a part of the communicated to those directly affected remediation strategy for the contaminated for example, residents of surrounding site.The costs that would be included in the communities) in such detail as to allow liabili are those affected to determine the benefits hat would accrue to them; • costs directly attributable to remediation • the remediation plan specifically identifies activities (tor example,payroll and the target level of reduction in risk the benefits, equipment and facilities, site(s) pose to human health and the materials,and legal and other environment and the amount of the professional services);and environmental costs to be incurred to • costs of tangible capital assets acquired as achieve those targets, part of remediation activities to the • the time frame for implementing the plan extent they have no other alternative use. has been identified and indicates that significant changes to the plan are not The estimated costs would he those required to bring the site(s) up to the likely; and current minimum environmental standard • the details of the plan are such that there for the site's use prior to contamination. is a reasonable expectation that the promise can be relied upon. The measurement of the liability will require the use of estimates and professional Budgeting for remediation activities alone judgment and should be based on the best does nut mean a liability for remediation information available at the balance sheet actually exists.Also, announcements to date. The carrying amount of a liability for provide long-teem funding for remediation contaminated sites would be reviewed at activities may not result in a liability because each financial reporting date with any the entity maintains total discretion over the revisions to the amount previously eventual disposition of the funds committed recognized accounted for in the period in to remediation activities. which revisions are made. If there is uncertainty as to whether the The cost of a tangible capital asset required government may be responsible, the entity for remediation activities is reported as an should assess the likelihood a future event expense, not an asset,in the period when a will confirm that it was responsible;if it is liability is recognized. If the asset has an likely, a liability would he recognized if the alternative future use, only that portion of amount can be reasonably estimated. If it is its estimated cost related to its use in unlikely that the entity will be responsible, remediation activities would be included in no liability would be recognized. If the the estimate of a liability.When the asset is outcome of the future event cannot be actually acquired,only those expenditures determined, the existence,nature and extent that relate to the alternative use would be of the contingent liability would be capitalized and amortized to expense over disclosed. the remainder of its useful life in the periods of alternative use. Measurement The estimate of the liability should consist The entity may not complete a site of the costs directly attributable to the assessment for a contaminated site each remediation activities and includes integral reporting period because of the cost of post-remediation operation,maintenance gathering and processing the information required. In the years between completions The liability should be reduced for any of site reassessments,a review of the expected recoveries net of costs associated estimate of the liability could he based on an with the effort to collect them (for example, extrapolation of previously completed site insurance proceeds related to the assessments, taking into consideration such contamination), if a reasonable estimate of factors as changes to the remediation the amounts involved can be made. strategics, technological changes, experience gained, changes to assumptions, actual Any disbursements that are made related to expenditures,changes in legislative the liability would be deducted from the standards,and unforeseen changes in cost liability as they arc made estimates. When the effect of any change is significant,recognition of a new estimate may be necessary. An entity may need to perform a detailed reassessment of a contaminated site if there are • technological developments; • lapsed time since the last site assessment + was completed; • new information from a detailed site f;;;";;ice"`" assessment, site characterization or t n • technical review done on a similar jjjcontaminated site; (Jr • a change in legislation. rd. The entity should use a measurement technique that results in the hest estimate of the amount required to remediate the contaminated sites.The best estimate should represent the amount that the entity would rationally pay to settle or otherwise extinguish the liability at the financial statement date. Entities will have to use professional judgment to determine the appropriate measurement technique and estimate of expenditures, they should also km supplement this judgment with experience, a third party quotes and reports of independent experts. If the payments required to settle the liability will occur over an extended period of time or at a future date,this timing should he reelected in the measurement of the liability. Generally, a present value technique is the best measurement technique to estimate the liability Disclosure Effective date The section requires disclosure of the This section is effective for all entities following concerning a liability for applying public sector accounting standards contaminated sites. for fiscal years beginning on or after April 1, 2014; earlier adoption is permitted. In 1 the nature and source of the liability, accordance with PS 212i 1_-hmuntut;Chmtgrs, 2 the basis of recognition and entities will have to apply the standard measurement of the liability including retroactively with restatement of prior significant assumptions used (for periods. We recommend that entities start early on estimating their liabilities to provide example,discount rate and anticipated them with sufficient time to determine if timing of future expenditures,when contamination exceeds environmental possible); standards and estimate the costs to 3 when a net present value technique is remediate the sites because the work used,the estimated total undiscounted involved may require significant estimation expenditures and discount rate; time and consultation with third-party 4 the reasons for not recognizing a experts. liability (for example, the reason why a reasonable estimate of the amount If you have any questions about this new involved cannot be made or why it is standard,please contact your Grant not expected that future economic Thornton TIP adviser benefits will be given up); and 5 the estimated recoveries. Additional disclosures may also be required under other sections of the handbook, such as PS 213t 1111easuirntent V11cr1tamtt, PS 32111■ Liabilities and PS3300 Contingent 1 jrabilitus. Ai 7,e :, ,,,M:•- s ra t" ✓ Appendix ID — PSAB Accounting developments ©Grant Thornton LLP.A Canadian Member of Grant Thomtorsjlerppti2.All rights reserved. Introduction to Public Sector Accounting(PSA)Handbook The revised introduction to PSA Handbook directs the frameworks applicable to governments,government business enterprises(GBEs),other government organizations GBEs are required to (OGOs)and government not-for-profit organizations(GNFPOs). follow the timeline for GBEs should apply the standards applicable to publicly accountable enterprises(PAEs). PAEs;that is,they are OGOs are presumed to apply PSA Handbook but where these standards do not meet the required to adopt IFRS needs of the users OGO's should assess whether IFRS would be a more appropriate for fiscal years beginning framework.GNFPOs have the option to apply either the PSA Handbook including sections on or after January 1. PS 4200 to PS 4270 or the CICA PSA Handbook without sections PS 4200 to PS 4270. 2011. Note:Rate regulated GBE's have been given a deferral until fiscal years beginning on or after January 1,2014 GNFPO's accounting choice is effective for fiscal periods beginning on or after January 1, 2012. Early adoption is permitted. Accounting standards that apply to GNFPOs Effective for fiscal periods beginning on or after January 1.2012.GFNPOs will have the Fiscal periods beginning option to use either the PSA Handbook with sections PS 4200 to PS 4270 or without on or after January 1, those sections. The sections are as follows and apply only to GFNPOs: 2012, • PS 4200 Financial statement presentation by not-for-profit organizations; Early adoption is • PS 4210 Contributions—revenue recognition; permitted. • P5 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 3450 Financial instruments,Section 2601 Foreign currency translation and The new requirements Section 1201 Financial statement presentation are all required to be PS 3450 Financial instruments is a new section that establishes standards for applied at the same time, recognizing and measuring financial assets,financial liabilities and non-financial For governments,the derivatives. sections are effective for PS 2601 Foreign currency translation revises and replaces Section PS 2600 Foreign fiscal years beginning on or currency translation. after April 1,2015. PS 1201 Financial statement presentation revises and replaces Section PS 1200 For government Financial statement presentation. organizations,the sections PS 3041 Portfolio investments revises and replaces Section PS 3040 Portfolio are effective for after years a investments. beginning on or after April 1,2012. The issuance of these new sections also includes consequential amendments to Earlier adoption is • Introduction to accounting standards that apply only to government not-for-profit permitted. organizations • PS 1000 Financial statement concepts • PS 1100 Financial statement objectives • PS 2125 First-time adoption by government organizations • PS 2500 Basic principles of consolidation • PS 2510 Additional areas of consolidation • PS 3050 Loans receivable ©Grant Thornton UP.A Canadian Member of Grant Thomtor terpptip•pl.All rights reserved. • PS 3060 Government partnerships • Section PS 3070 Investments in government business enterprises • PS 3230 Long-term debt • PS 3310 Loan guarantees • 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 3450 Financial instruments Fiscal periods beginning This Section has been amended to clarify that the requirements in PS 3100 Restricted on or after March 1, Assets and Revenues apply when reporting on externally restricted assets that are 2013. financial instruments.As a result,a change in the fair value of a financial asset in the fair Earlier adoption is value category that is externally restricted and income attributable to or gains or losses permitted as of the associated with a financial instrument that is externally restricted must be recognized as beginning of the fiscal revenue in the period in which the resources are used for the purpose or purposes year in which the Section specified.Amounts recognized before this criterion has been met must be reported as a is first applied. liability until the resources are used for the purpose or purposes specified. Section 3260 Liability for contaminated sites This Section establishes the recognition,measurement and disclosure requirements for This section applies to reporting liabilities associated with remediation of contaminated sites. The Section does fiscal years beginning on or not deal with tangible capital asset retirement obligations,liabilities associated with the after April 1,2014. disposal or sale of a tangible capital asset and acquisition/betterment costs for tangible Earlier adoption is capital assets that are less than the future economic benefits. encouraged. An entity will be required to recognize a liability if they have contamination at a site that exceeds an environmental standard,the entity is responsible/accepts responsibility,the entity expects to have to give up future economic benefits and the amount can be reasonably estimated. If an entity cannot reasonably estimate the amount,they must still provide disclosures concerning the liability. Section 3510 Tax revenue This Section establishes standards for the recognition,measurement and disclosure of This section applies to tax revenue in government financial statements. fiscal years beginning on or after April 1,2012. Earlier adoption is encouraged. Section 3410 Government transfers,revised This Section replaces the existing Section PS 3410 Government transfers.This Section This section applies to establishes standards for recognition,presentation and disclosure for government fiscal years beginning on or transfers to individuals,organizations and other governments from both a transferring after April 1,2012. government and a recipient government perspective. Earlier adoption is encouraged. Section 2125 First-time adoption by government organizations . r..a, .., �.._. .. - anizations This Section provides guidance for organizations adopting the PSA Handbook for the first time.Adoption of the PSA Handbook is generally applied retrospectively with the This section will apply to exception of certain optional exemptions. Certain disclosures are required on adoption. government organization This Section was amended in early 2013 to clarify that it does not apply to a change in applying PSA Handbook accounting policy in a government organization's first Public Sector Accounting Standards for the first time and is financial statements to conform to new Public Sector Accounting Standards issued after effective for fiscal years August 2010. beginning on or after January 1,2011 ©Grant Thornton LLP.A Canadian Member of Grant Thomtor terpptioppI.All rights reserved. TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 9:10 a.m., on Friday, June 21, 2013. Gerri Lynn O'Connor Brian Denney Chair Secretary-Treasurer /ks 145 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority MEETING OF THE BUDGET/AUDIT ADVISORY BOARD #3/13 October 4, 2013 The Budget/Audit Advisory Board Meeting #3/13, was held in Weston Room B, Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, October 4, 2013. The Chair Gerri Lynn O'Connor, called the meeting to order at 8:45 a.m. PRESENT Maria Augimeri Member Bob Callahan Member Gerri Lynn O'Connor Chair Dave Ryan Member ABSENT David Barrow Member RES.#C8/13 - MINUTES Moved by: Bob Callahan Seconded by: Gerri Lynn O'Connor THAT the Minutes of Meeting #2/13, held on June 21, 2013, be approved. CARRIED PRESENTATIONS (a) A presentation by Rocco Sgambelluri, Chief Financial Officer, TRCA, in regard to item BAAB7.1 - 2014 Preliminary Capital and Operating Estimates. RES.#C9/13 - PRESENTATIONS Moved by: Maria Augimeri Seconded by: Dave Ryan THAT above-noted presentation (a) be heard and received. CARRIED 146 SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION RES.#C10/13 - 2014 PRELIMINARY CAPITAL AND OPERATING ESTIMATES Recommends approval of 2014 preliminary capital and operating budget estimates and guidelines. Moved by: Maria Augimeri Seconded by: Dave Ryan THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the preliminary estimates for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) 2014 - 2023 participating municipal capital and special project budgets, as outlined in Attachment 2, be approved for submission to the respective municipalities; THAT the preliminary estimates for the 2014 operating budget make provision for a cost of living adjustment of two percent (2%) effective in April, 2014 (Attachment 1); THAT the preliminary estimates for the 2014 operating budget include municipal levy increases consistent with the guidelines determined by the respective participating municipality; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to submit the 2014 preliminary estimates to the City of Toronto, the regional municipalities of Peel, York and Durham, the Town of Mono and the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio in accordance with their respective submission schedules. CARRIED BACKGROUND TRCA has begun the process of submitting preliminary estimates to its municipal funding partners. TRCA staff has met with staff of the regions of Peel, Durham and York and the City of Toronto to present TRCA budget requirements. Meetings with Peel, York and Durham included representatives of the other conservation authorities which have jurisdiction in those regions. Over the next several months and into 2014, staff will also make budget presentations to regional councils and various committees of councils. Each jurisdiction has its own unique process to be followed for the budget submissions which ultimately must be approved by municipal councils. Staff is presenting, in Attachment 2, the summary level information on the capital budget requests submitted to each jurisdiction. Details of each project and special request is available for any board member who wishes to have the information. Staff has not provided complete details of the operating estimates because the detail is subject to considerable change between now and the end of February, 2014 when TRCA has the results of the funding decisions of its municipal partners and 2013 year end results. The current working version of the preliminary estimates is summarized in Attachment 1 of this report. 147 RATIONALE Operatina Budaet Staff is in the process of completing the 2014 preliminary budget estimates. At this stage, there exists a gap of about$908,000 between anticipated funding and projected expenditure levels of $39.6 million, as shown in Attachment 1. As always, staff will recommend a final budget in April 2014, in which expenditures will be equal to revenue, including revenue from operations, grants and municipal levy. However, more time is needed to work through the process, including analyzing the full-year 2013 revenue results and concluding levy negotiations with the member municipalities. Expenditures The working version of the 2014 operating estimates reflects an increase in expenditures of 3.3% or about$1.25 million, over 2013 budget. Almost all of this growth in expenditures can be attributed to pressures associated with salaries, including an increases due to a proposed COLA (cost of living adjustment) (2%); staffing accommodations; additional cost of staff returning from maternity leaves and annualisation of positions hired in 2013; and the addition of a few key positions. Two new positions are provided for in Finance and two in Human Resources. TRCA salary and wage (COLA) adjustments: • 2009 - 0% • 2010 - 2% • 2011 - 0% • 2012 - 3% • 2013 - 2% • 2014 - 2% (proposed) For 2014, staff is recommending a 2% COLA effective the first pay in April. The average annual COLA over the last six years is 1.67%. Salary and benefit costs account for 79% of operating expenditures and account for$1,205,000 of the increase in expenditures, over the 2013 approved budget. Municipal Operating Levy Below is a summary of the status of the discussions that have been held at the staff level with the participating municipalities: • Adjala and Mono - No formal communication has occurred. • Durham - Informally, regional staff has indicated that the levy guideline will likely come in at just under 3%, when released. A TRCA request requiring a 5% increase was submitted. • Peel - Staff has presented a request of 4.0%, which can be accommodated within the overall 2014 guideline. • Toronto - City of Toronto Water staff is prepared to recommend a 2.5% levy increase on the portion of the budget funded from water revenues (57%). Finance staff is still considering the recommendation for a 2.5% increase on the 43% of the budget that is funded from the tax base. • York -The TRCA ask is within the Region's 3.5% guideline. The current levy projections embedded in the working version of the TRCA 2014 estimates reflect the levy increases noted above. 148 Planning and Development Fees At the direction of the Authority, staff implemented, effective January 1, 2012, a program to increase planning and development fees to achieve 100% recovery of costs to process development applications. The 2012 results were better than anticipated. The 2013 year to date results (August 31) while tracking somewhat behind the 2012 actuals are still likely on target to meet budget. The 2014 estimates include a two year 5% inflationary adjustment, effective January 1, 2014. Other Operating Revenues The working version of the operating budget includes a number of fee adjustments, such as those noted for planning fees above. However, not all fees have been reviewed and there may be some further adjustment required when the 2013 results are fully analyzed. Provincial Transfer Payments The Ministry of Natural Resources put in place a mid-year reduction to transfer payments in 2012, targeting only two authorities for reduction - TRCA and the Grand River Conservation Authority. TRCA's funding of$846,000 was reduced by$72,000 to $774,000. No further reductions have been provided for. Rouge National Park The Government of Canada has signed an interim management agreement regarding the operations of Rouge Park earlier this year. Under this arrangement the Government of Canada reimburses TRCA for all costs associated with leading the management activities in the park relating to natural heritage projects, visitor experience programming, as well as park and property administration. The agreement extends to the end of 2013 with the option for both parties to renew. As part of the establishment process, Parks Canada is completing a strategic management plan for the park, while at the same time working closely with the public landholders towards a land assembly agreement for the lands included in the proposed study area. The intention is to establish the Rouge National Urban Park as an act of parliament based on the land assembly agreement and the strategic management plan. Capital and Special Proiect Budaets Participating municipalities usually require that TRCA provide 10 year capital budget projections and each municipality has its own requirements and format for this information. Increasingly, more scrutiny is occurring to the post 2014 estimates. Attachment 2 includes summary tables for capital and special project programs in the City of 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 each capital project and program. These binders are available to members who require them. As a matter of course, TRCA staff regularly consult with municipal staff, to ensure that there is alignment on objectives and deliverables; to avoid duplication of effort; to coordinate activities and procurement to realize maximum value and efficiency; and to report on the achievement of project deliverables; 149 City of Toronto The 2014 core capital submission at$6.97 million is based on core funding for long-standing programs which meet the existing City of Toronto targets. The City funds TRCA core capital programs from both debt and water rate funding and special asks from reserve funding. The City's annual debt guideline for TRCA is $3 million and has remained unchanged for many years. The portion of the core budget funded from water rates is projected at$3.97 million, an increase of 2.5% over 2013 plus $45,000 in the YPDT (York-Peel-Durham-Toronto) Groundwater strategies project, as agreed to by the commissioner-level municipal steering committee overseeing the project. It is TRCA's understanding that staff from Water Division at the City will allocate the required funds noted herein. Two million in special water reserves funding continues into 2014 and 2015, as previously budgeted. There is early indication that the City may continue this special reserve allocation beyond 2015 in order to help address the growing back log of remedial measures, as noted below. The storm event of July 8, 2013 has added many new remediation sites within the critical and high rating categories. TRCA does not have sufficient core funding to address in any significant way channel clean outs and slope remediation measures required to protect private and public infrastructure. Accordingly, staff put forward to the City, as a special unfunded priority, a$70 million plan that would begin to systematically initiate repairs over the next 10 years. Further, at the request of the Authority, TRCA staff has approached the City for$60 million over the next 10 years to implement the Scarborough Waterfront Access Plan, ensuring continuous access from Bluffers Park eastward. Staff continue to work with the various City departments, including Finance, Water, Parks & Forestry, to ensure that the right issues and the related funding are addressed. Regional Municipality of York York Region guidelines provide for an increase in total program funding of 3.5%. Staff has met this guideline with one exception. It has been exceeded by the additional funding of$45,000 required to implement the revised YPDT Groundwater strategy. If approved the 2014 core request will provide $4,175,000 in regional levy funding. Further, in the 2014 submission, staff has included a list of priority projects reflecting needs that extend beyond the core funding. TRCA staff will be requesting support for the following additional projects, in priority order: • Integrated Infrastructure Protection Works (Erosion Control)- $270,000 annually to meet the growing requirement for stream remediation measures; • Emerald Ash Borer program - $200,000 in 2014 and 2015 and $150,000 in 2016: • Kortright Servicing -$1,000,000 in 2014 and $2,000,000 in 2015 to bring municipal services to the Kortright campus. • Black Creek Pioneer Village North Property - $500,000 for each of five years starting in 2014 to implement the master plan for the part of the Village located north of Steeles Avenue. The York Region table includes three new "below-the-line" projects that are proposed to commence in 2015. 150 Regional Municipality of Peel In previous years, Peel Region guidelines have allowed for some increase in key programs beyond the guidelines, with demonstrated need. The 2014 guidelines, however, cap total operating and capital funding levels at the 2014 estimate included in the 2013 program less 1%. TRCA has complied with this direction with one minor exception. The guideline has been exceeded by $45,000, representing the increase in the YPDT Groundwater strategies project. The capital submission to Peel at$14.099 million reflects a reduction in capital funding as compared to 2013 in the amount of$123,460. Further, TRCA has been permitted to reallocate $402,000 of unspent levy raised in prior years to supplement the 2014 program. With this additional funding, TRCA will have available$14.561 million in Peel funding, representing an increase of 2.4%. The carry forward funding identified in the amount of$402,000 includes $162,000 raised several years ago for the proposed head office project and $240,000 from the "Life Is Better in Peel" campaign that was recently cancelled. With the "Life is Better" project it was concluded that certain objectives had been met and that further investment would not produce a return on investment. Regional Municipality of Durham Capital funding for Durham Region totalled $840,300 in 2013 and the preliminary 2014 request is $927,000. Included is $175,000 as Durham's share of a pooled capital program for groundwater management in which TRCA holds funds from participating municipalities, spent at the discretion of a steering committee of regional works and conservation authority staff. Excluding the YPDT Groundwater funding, TRCA's capital funding request from Durham stands at$752,000 as compared to $712,300 in 2013, an increase of 5.6%. As this increase will likely exceed the 2014 guideline when it is issued, there may result further adjustment to the Durham program. Further, as a result of a special ask by TRCA for financial support to make certain accommodation and accessibility improvements at the Claremont Field Centre are completed, Regional Council on September 18, 2013 approved $300,000 towards the$1.1 million renovation project. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Following year end, the capital budget can be finalized and will include the municipal capital projects as approved by the respective participating municipalities as well as all other capital projects such as those projects funded by Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation. The operating estimates will become final following year end, at which time staff can determine the impact of the 2013 operating season and final municipal approvals. Also, staff await direction from the Authority that the 2% COLA is to be implemented. 151 Staff is prepared to describe in detail the capital projects and programs included in the submissions at the Budget/Audit Advisory Board meeting or at the Authority Meeting scheduled to be held on October 25, 2013. Approval of the preliminary estimates by the Authority enables staff to go forward with discussions knowing that the members are in support of the proposed projects and programs subject to the funding capacity of the respective municipal jurisdictions. Report prepared by: Rocco Sgambelluri, extension 5232 Emails: rsgambelluri @trca.on.ca For Information contact: Rocco Sgambelluri, extension 5232; Adele Freeman, extension 5238; Ralph Kofler 5274 Emails: rsgambelluri @trca.on.ca; afreeman @trca.on.ca; rkofler @trca.on.ca Date: September 25, 2013 Attachments: 2 152 Attachment 1 TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 2014 PFELJ M!NARY OPERATING BUDGET Preliminary 2014 Budget 2013 Budget Net Budget Comparison %2014 to $2014 to Expense Revenue Net Expense Revenue Net 2013 2013 CED'SOFFICE ODRIPORATE CFETARAT&MANAGBVIENT 1,420,000 3,000 1,417,000 1,351,000 2,000 1,349,000 5% 68,000 RNANGALSERVICES 1,496,000 540,000 956,000 1,417,000 540,000 877,000 9% 79,000 PRa.ECTS..IRC1-IARCE (2,055,000) (2,055,000) (2,055,000) (2,055,000) 0% - F ROPE TYSEIRVICES&RENTALS 4,911,000 2,683,000 2,228,000 4,579,000 2,749,000 1,830,000 22% 398,000 CORRDRATEVB-1I=AND EQUIFMENT 0 - 0 - - 0% 0 Subtotal CED'SOFFICE 5,772,000 3,226,000 2,546,000 5,292,000 3,291,000 2,001,000 27% 545,000 HR,MAIMING,COMM.AND IT HUMAN RES'DURCESANDSkFETY 774,000 - 774,000 601,000 - 601,000 29% 173,000 PATE VOLUNTEER SVI AND DIVERS-FY 884,000 833,000 51,000 855,000 801,000 54,000 -6% (3,000) MARKETING AND COMMUNIC4TION 1,428,000 - 1,428,000 1,618,000 213,000 1,405,000 2% 23,000 INFORv1A11ON SEIRVIC &GIS 1,684,000 15,000 1,669,000 1,561,000 15,000 1,546,000 8% 123,000 Subtotal HR,MARK E11NG,COMM.AND IT 4,770,000 848,000 3,922,000 4,635,000 1,029,000 3,606,000 9% 316,000 ECOLOGY BD LOGYADMINISTRATION 1,130,000 - 1,130,000 1,074,000 10,000 1,064,000 6% 66,000 FLOOD MANAGBVI ENT S3R/ICES 674,000 - 674,000 662,000 - 662,000 2% 12,000 WATERREEOURCES 874,000 - 874,000 758,000 - 758,000 15% 116,000 GEOBNVIRONMBNTAL 257,000 - 257,000 251,000 - 251,000 2% 6,000 Subtotal ECOLOGY 2,935,000 - 2,935,000 2,745,000 10,000 2,735,000 7% 200,000 PLANNING AND DEVELOPM ENT SERVICES PROGRAM SJPFORT 150,000 250,000 (100,000) 150,000 250,000 (100,000) 0% - DEVELOFM ENT PLANNING S3R/ICES 1,256,000 2,198,000 (942,000) 1,243,000 2,093,000 (850,000) 11% (92,000) DEVELOFM ENT REGULATION S3RVICES 1,116,000 1,393,000 (277,000) 1,069,000 1,327,000 (258,000) 7% (19,000) SOLICITOR AND REALTORSER/ICES - 210,000 (210,000) - 200,000 (200,000) 5% (10,000) ENVIRONM ENTALASEESEM BNTS /ICES 2,314,000 2,314,000 (0) 2,268,000 2,268,000 0 0% (0) COMPUANCEMONITORING 675,000 - 675,000 654,000 - 654,000 3% 21,000 Sabtotal PLANNING AND DEVELOPM ENT SERVICES 5,511,000 6,365,000 (854,000) 5,384,000 6,138,000 (754,000) 13% (100,000) WATERSHED M ANAGEM ENT WATERSHED MANAGBVIBNTADMINISTRATI( 502,000 - 502,000 499,000 55,000 444,000 13% 58,000 CONSERVATION FIEF CENTRES 3,377,000 2,672,000 705,000 3,227,000 2,562,000 665,000 6% 40,000 LOC CAM PUS PROGRAM S 832,000 746,000 86,000 770,000 715,000 55,000 56% 31,000 WATERSHED STRATEGIES 1,472,000 378,000 1,094,000 1,471,000 428,000 1,043,000 5% 51,000 Sabtotal WATERSHED MANAGBv1ENT 6,183,000 3,796,000 2,387,000 5,967,000 3,760,000 2,207,000 8% 180,000 RESTORATION SERVICES RI TORATIONSERVICESADMINISfRATION 311,000 - 311,000 306,000 - 306,000 2% 5,000 ARCHAEOLOGYSER/ICES 281,000 246,000 35,000 281,000 246,000 35,000 0% 0 RESOURCE MANAGBVI ENT PRO.ECTS 909,000 801,000 108,000 886,000 790,000 96,000 13% 12,000 CONSERVATION LANDS 118,000 - 118,000 119,000 - 119,000 -1% (1,000) Subtotal RESTORATION SERVICES 1,619,000 1,047,000 572,000 1,592,000 1,036,000 556,000 3% 16,000 PARKSAND CULTURE PARKSAND CULTURE ADM IN I STRATION 824,000 24,000 800,000 833,000 24,000 809,000 -1% (9,000) BATHURSTGEN GOLF COURSE 1,270,000 1,270,000 - 1,271,000 1,271,000 - 0% - BLACKO <RONEERVILLAGE 4,409,000 2,431,000 1,978,000 4,522,000 2,506,000 2,016,000 -2% (38,000) KORT1R GHTCENIi- 1,348,000 1,104,000 244,000 1,331,000 1,104,000 227,000 7% 17,000 CONSERVATION AREAS PROGRAM 3,913,000 3,960,000 (47,000) 3,813,000 3,958,000 (145,000) -68% 98,000 FOOD SERVICES 1,058,000 1,084,000 (26,000) 971,000 1,034,000 (63,000) -59% 37,000 Subtotal PARKSAND CULTURE 12,822,000 9,873,000 2,949,000 12,741,000 9,897,000 2,844,000 4% 105,000 Grand Total 39,612,000 25,155,000 14,457,000 38,356,000 25,161,000 13,195,000 10% 1,262,000 OPERATING LEVY 12,850,000 (12,850,000) 12,496,000 (12,496,000) 3% (354,000) M NR TRANSFER PAYM ENT 774,000 (774,000) 774,000 (774,000) - DEFCIT/(SURPLUS) 833,000 (75,000) 908,000 153 loranto and Hewn Conservation rt for The Living City n Region of Peel Capital Budget Request 2014-2023 October 4,2013 ,a ' 2014 In I I I I N Project Name _ 2013 Progress 2015 2016 _ 2017 2018 ; 2019-2023 Watershed/Subwatershed Planning/Floodmaps $ 432,000 $ 510,000 $ 559,000 $ 535,000 $ 519,000 $ 543,000 $ 2,855,000 Groundwater Management Strategy $ 130,000 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 875,000 Terrestrial Natural Heritage $ 144,000 $ 175,000 $ 195,000 $ 225,000 $ 245,000 $ 250,000 $ 1,320,000 Natural Heritage Regeneration Projects $ 708,000 $ 796,000 $ 826,000 $ 857,000 $ 886,000 $ 917,000 $ 4,854,000 Sustainable Communities $ 855,000 $ 988,000 $ 1,073,000 $ 1,139,000 $ 1,122,000 $ 1,140,000 $ 6,501,000 Regional Watershed Monitoring and Reporting $ 405,000 $ 408,000 $ 408,000 $ 425,000 $ 428,000 $ 447,000 $ 2,295,000 Flood Control Works/Warning $ 475,000 $ 495,000 $ 805,000 $ 1,130,000 $ 1,081,000 $ 617,000 $ 3,097,000 Environmental Assessment Review $ 335,000 $ 348,000 $ 348,000 $ 362,000 $ 362,000 $ 377,000 $ 1,945,000 Peel Climate Change Mitigation $ 6,194,000 $ 6,354,000 $ 7,070,000 $ 7,267,000 $ 7,466,000 $ 7,511,000 $ 39,592,000 Subtotal Environmental(Works) $ 9,678,000 $ 10,249,000 $ 11,459,000 $ 12,115,000 $ 12,284,000 $ 11,977,000 $ 63,334,000 Major Facilities Retrofit $ 80,400 $ 81,500 $ 81,500 $ 81,500 $ 81,500 $ 81,500 $ 407,500 ♦� (For LOH Living City Centre) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Kortright Campus Development $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 1,500,000 III Public Use Infrastructure $ 34,500 $ 35,000 $ 35,000 $ 35,000 $ 35,000 $ 35,000 $ 175,000 Office Accomodation Project $ - $ - $ 165,000 $ 165,000 $ 500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,015,000 Washroom Upgrades $ 110,000 $ 145,000 $ - $ - $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 Campground and Conservation Area Improvements $ 400,000 $ 400,000 $ 400,000 $ 400,000 $ 400,000 $ 400,000 $ 2,000,000 Heart Lake Plan Implementation $ 770,000 $ 338,000 $ 170,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 1,000,000 Conservation Land Planning $ 1,170,000 $ 1,169,000 $ 1,167,000 $ 1,209,000 $ 1,210,000 $ 1,336,000 $ 6,785,000 Conservation Land Care/Open Space $ 17,000 $ 18,000 $ 20,000 $ 21,000 $ 22,000 $ 23,000 $ 124,000 Information Technology $ 46,000 $ 46,500 $ 46,500 $ 46,500 $ 46,500 $ 46,500 $ 232,500 PanAm Games Equestrian Facility Project $ 466,560 $ 467,000 $ 467,000 $ 467,000 $ - $ - $ - Arsenal Building Renovation $ 750,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ - $ - Bolton Camp Site Improvement $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ - $ - CA Communications Infrastructure $ 200,000 $ - Parks&Infrastructure Projects $ 500,000 $ 1,250,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 29,500,000 Subtotal Infrastructure(Conservation Capital) $ 4,544,460 $ 3,850,000 $ 4,002,000 $ 4,825,000 $ 5,445,000 $ 6,572,000 $ 42,889,000 GRAND TOTAL $ 14,222,460 $ 14,099,000 $ 15,461,000 $ 16,940,000 $ 17,729,000 $ 18,549,000 $ 106,223,000 Toronto and Region w Conservation for The Living City York Region Capital Budget Request 2014-2023 October 4,2013 ' 2013 I 20141n Project Name Approved , Progress , 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019-2023 Program Watershed/Subwatershed Planning Implementation phase $ 445,000 $ 462,000 $ 500,000 $ 512,000 $ 595,000 $ 608,000 $ 3,413,000 Floodworks&Forecast/Warning System Programs $ 400,000 $ 385,000 $ 405,000 $ 435,000 $ 420,000 $ 435,000 $ 2,485,000 Erosion Control $ 730,000 $ 730,000 $ 715,000 $ 715,000 $ 730,000 $ 730,000 $ 4,800,000 Regional Groundwater Modelling (Management) Programs $ 130,000 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 875,000 Regional Watershed Monitoring Program $ 330,000 $ 358,000 $ 365,000 $ 380,000 $ 390,000 $ 390,000 $ 1,995,000 Regional Flood(Natural)Hazard Mapping Program $ 62,000 $ 72,000 $ 75,000 $ 80,000 $ 80,000 $ 120,000 $ 660,000 Regional Natural Heritage Modelling(Mapping) Program $ 133,000 $ 155,000 $ 155,000 $ 155,000 $ 200,000 $ 240,000 $ 1,280,000 Stewardship including Regeneration $ 839,000 $ 908,000 $ 1,022,000 $ 1,145,000 $ 1,120,000 $ 1,163,000 $ 6,739,000 Conservation Land Care Project $ 419,000 $ 425,000 $ 430,000 $ 431,000 $ 468,000 $ 519,000 $ 3,411,000 Kortright Campus Development Project $ 505,000 $ 505,000 $ 510,000 $ 510,000 $ 550,000 $ 550,000 $ 3,050,000 ENNA, Subtotal of Core Capital $ 3,993,000 $ 4,175,000 $ 4,352,000 $ 4,538,000 $ 4,728,000 $ 4,930,000 $ 28,708,000 01 01 Enhancements _ _ - _ Integrated Infrastructure Protection Works $ 270,000 $ 270,000 $ 270,000 $ 270,000 $ 270,000 $ 1,500,000 Emerald Ash Borer Response $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 150,000 Kortright Servicing $ 1,000,000 $ 2,000,000 Black Creek Pioneer Village-North Property $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 Conservation Land Care $ 750,000 $ 750,000 $ 750,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 6,000,000 Nashville RMT Man. Plan Implementation $ 425,000 $ 425,000 $ 425,000 $ 425,000 Bruce's Mill Master Plan Implementation $ 750,000 $ 750,000 $ 750,000 $ 750,000 Subtotal of Proposed Enhancements $ 1,970,000 $ 4,895,000 $ 2,845,000 $ 2,695,000 $ 2,945,000 I $ 7,500,000 GRAND TOTAL $ 3,993,000 $ 6,145,000 $ 9,247,000 $ 7,383,000 $ 7,423,000 $ 7,875,000 1 $ 36,208,000 __. Toronto and Region Conservation fnr°The Living City City of Toronto Capital Budget Request 2014-2023 October 4,2013 I 2013 2014 in Project Name Approved Progress 2015 2016 - 2017 2018 . 2019-2023 • Waterfront and Valley Erosion Control $ 1,530,000 $ 1,600,000 $ 1,600,000 $ 1,600,000 $ 1,600,000 $ 1,600,000 $10,000,000 Waterfront Development $ 1,608,000 $ 1,573,000 $ 1,423,000 $ 1,423,000 $ 1,423,000 $ 1,423,000 $ 7,115,000 Toronto RAP Regeneration $ 433,000 $ 405,000 $ 418,000 $ 430,000 $ 443,000 $ 455,000 $ 2,543,000 Toronto RAP Stewardship, Education, Sustainable Communities& Technology $ 668,000 $ 748,000 $ 849,000 $ 859,000 $ 771,000 $ 779,000 $ 4,718,000 Toronto RAP Regional Watershed Monitoring Program $ 445,000 $ 455,000 $ 460,000 $ 512,000 $ 507,000 $ 507,000 $ 2,553,000 Toronto RAP Regional Watershed Management $ 775,000 $ 817,000 $ 947,000 $ 975,000 $ 1,159,000 $ 1,246,000 $ 6,821,000 Infrastructure $ 1,272,000 $ 1,272,000 $ 1,272,000 $ 1,272,000 $ 1,272,000 $ 1,272,000 $ 6,360,000 Greenspace Land Acquisition $ 99,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 500,000 TOTAL $ 6,830,000 $ 6,970,000 $ 7,069,000 $ 7,171,000 1 $ 7,275,000 $ 7,382,000 $40,610,000 • ENNA Enhancement Land Acquisition Funding{source water i ! - (l Protection) ' V) Hogg's Hollow Project Meadowcliffe Drive Erosion Project $ 700,000 Mud Creek Flood Control Major Maintenance Black Creek Channel $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 447-449 Guildwood Parkway $ 600,000 $ 600,000 $ 900,000 1 Midland-81-83 Fishleigh $ 1,200,000 $ 900,000 Guild Inn Erosion Control TOTAL $ 1,500,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 Critical Needs Beyond Base(under 67) -{ $ $ 10,000,000 $ 10,000,000 $ 10,000,000 I $10,000,000 I $ 5,000,000 $25,000,000 TOTAL I Scarborough Waterfront Access Plan-Work Plan and Budget Forecast(Section 7 Unfunded) _ Total Estimated Cost&Annual Cash Flow I 1 $ 6,000,000 1 $ 6,000,000 1 $ 6,000,000 1 $ 6,000,0001 $ 6,000,000 I $30,000,000 o>""iToronto and Region_ iiiiiii_ c W Conservation for The Living City Region of Durham Capital Budget Request 2014-2023 October 4,2013 2013 2014 in Project Name , Approved - Progress _ 2015 2016 _I_ 2017 2018 I 2019-2023 Core Base Items: Watershed/Subwatershed Planning $ 70,000 $ 74,000 $ 145,000 $ 171,000 $ 186,000 $ 232,000 $ 1,060,000 Flood Works, Forecast/Warning $ 97,000 $ 102,000 $ 148,000 $ 156,000 $ 154,000 $ 155,000 $ 784,000 Groundwater Management $ 127,500 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 875,000 Watershed Monitoring $ 92,800 $ 98,000 $ 135,000 $ 133,000 $ 139,000 $ 150,000 $ 784,000 Natural Hazard Mapping $ 20,000 $ 21,000 $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ 200,000 Natural Heritage Mapping $ 50,000 $ 55,000 $ 70,000 $ 80,000 $ 80,000 $ 85,000 $ 465,000 Regeneration (Stewardship) $ 208,000 $ 256,000 $ 317,000 $ 320,000 $ 328,000 $ 333,000 $ 1,815,000 Education/Stewardship/Sust. Comm&Tech $ 64,000 $ 67,000 $ 207,000 $ 215,000 $ 220,000 $ 230,000 $ 1,240,000 Waterfront Development $ 111,000 $ 79,000 $ 84,000 $ 84,000 $ 64,000 $ 64,000 $ 320,000 Subtotal before Proposed Enhancements $ 840,300 $ 927,000 $ 1,321,000 $ 1,374,000 $ 1,386,000 $ 1,464,000 $ 7,543,000 y Special Needs beyond Base: _ _ Conservation Land Care $ 192,000 $ 196,000 $ 201,000 $ 205,000 $ 1,086,000 Flood Protection and Remedial Capital Works Program $ 150,000 $ 50,000 $ 60,000 $ 70,000 $ 490,000 Development Drowtn/Special voiicy Areas.riooa Risk/Emergency Planning Program $ 27,000 $ 28,000 $ 29,000 $ 30,000 $ 164,000 Subtotal of Proposed Enhancements $ 369,000 $ 274,000 $ 290,000 $ 305,000 $ 1,740,000 GRAND TOTAL $ 840,300 $ 927,000 $ 1,690,000 $ 1,648,000 $ 1,676,000 $ 1,769,000 $ 9,283,000 TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 9:26 a.m., on Friday, October 4, 2013. Gerri Lynn O'Connor Brian Denney Chair Secretary-Treasurer /ks 158